This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The result of the debate was move. — Nightst a llion (?) Seen this already? 14:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Proposal : | Distancing effect/Archive 1 → Alienation effect |
Rationale : | According to Wikipedia's naming policy, article's title should be in English. |
Proposer : | Neo-Jay |
Please add * Support or * Oppose followed by a brief explanation, then sign your vote using "~~~~".
This shoud be an article in its own right. I added the cinema bit. Now it should be apprent that the concept is not limited to Brecht. I am doing some research in a related topic and may add to the cinematic aspects of the alienation effect latter. -- Collingsworth 22:37, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Will there be more detail coming soon on this topic? If not, it might be better to merge & redirect with Bertolt Brecht, which offers much more context than is here. Joyous 02:58, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
According to Wiki's naming policy, article's title should be in English. "Alienation effect" is used more often in English than "Verfremdungseffekt". It is easier to be found by google search on the Internet. -- Neo-Jay 10:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Alienation effect is a misleading name, as the intent is not to alienate the audience. Brecht developed the technique, so really it should be called "Verfrumdungseffekt". However, this will be less accessible, so maybe "V-effekt"? You can put a redirect from "Alienation effect", but that is not the proper name. Macphisto12 17:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
A google search to determine prevalence of use is an unreliable indicator, as so often stressed on other pages in Wikipedia. Within the critical community (which constitutes the main arena of usage), the translation as 'alienation' has long-since been abandoned - not only for the reasons offered in the discussions above, but also to distinguish the term from Marx's entfremsdung, which in relation to any discussion of Brecht, given his relation to Marxism, is vitally important. 'Alienation' in Marx's sense is more or less the opposite of Verfremsdung in Brecht's theory and practice. The Brechtian process seeks to 'de-alienate', as it were. The only reason anyone still uses 'alienation' is because that is the translation adopted by John Willett in his 1964 Brecht on Theatre. You would be hard pressed to find any critical article or book that uses 'alienation' published in the last ten or twenty years or so. 'Defamiliarization' is a popular alternative, but at present that is being used on a page to describe the concept from Russian Formalism (from which Brecht derived his concept in all probability). DionysosProteus 05:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
128.148.214.56 ( talk) 22:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
The recently added example from V for Vendetta does not strike me as pertinent. The dead characters still fit within the narrative world and do not break the suspension of disbelief. Hence, the scene is not "alienating." -- Jeremy Butler 11:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Please add the pronunciation of Verfremdungseffekt, if possible. — Emiellaiendiay 00:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I've added a navigation bar to the top of this page to standardize movement between all of Brecht's main theoretical concepts and techniques.
The definition of this technique given in the opening needs some work, as as it stands it limits the technique to an aspect of the actor's work, whereas the term has a much wider valency. I will be making my way around the Brecht pages shortly and will tackle this then.
DionysosProteus 21:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
The meaning of the word "отстранение" is roughly "increasing distance", like pushing away something that's close, or moving away from something. It could be translated as "estranging", but not "making strange". "Making strange" could be "остраннение" (and would be a made-up word, too). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.243.181 ( talk) 22:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)