Talk:The Secret Agent (2025 film): Difference between revisions

The information pertaining the fact that the film was part of the Perlak sidebar section of the 73rd San Sebastián International Film Festival (i.e: that the subject was included as a part of a sidebar section featuring 16 titles electable for one or two audience awards and won none) framed as an achievement worthy of mentioning in the “accolades” table is a case of misinformation and/or bloat, and, under the purview of MOS:FILMACCOLADES (Because of the proliferation of film festivals and “award mills”, festival awards should be added with discretion, with inclusion subject to consensus), it should be seamlessly removed. Conversely, and in order not to lose information (and probably in order to preserve source integrity, as sources do not seem to frame the factoid the way PepGuardi did), the film’s festival run could in turn be enhanced in the release section by mentioning its screening at that festival. It would be preferable to do so with third-party sources, in order to create a case for notability.–Asqueladd (talk) 07:02, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the award is not given to the specific section in which the film was selected to be shown, then it should not be a part of the Accolades section.

It’s like adding a “nomination” for the TIFF’s screenings since it was also eligible for the International People Choice Award there. Martineden83 (talk) 18:31, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The award is indeed given within the Perlak programming but the film’s addition to Perlak is a non-salient “accolade” either way and you won’t find a sound third-party source framing it as an “accolade” for which The Secret Agent was “nominated“. The case which with we are dealing here is about repurposing a festival sidebar selection (not even a win) as an accolade by degrading the integrity of the only available source (the non-independent primary source). That goes against the spirit of WP:FILMACCOLADES outlined above (“Because of the proliferation of film festivals and “award mills”, festival awards should be added with discretion, with inclusion subject to consensus”). Anything can be an accolade apparently. It’s better to indicate that the film screened at the festival in the corresponding release section, as it is both the factoid that third-party sources highlight, and the factoid which don’t require WP:SYNTH-fuelled embellishment and degrading text-source integrity (WP:INTEGRITY).–Asqueladd (talk) 18:36, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m mostly agreeing with you in everything. But i fear WP:FILMACCOLADES is talking directly with more broadly film festival “competitions”, just like TIFF having 100 films qualified to compete for the PCA or the International PCA.

As i’m seeing, Perlak is a small section of the San Sebastian, similar to the other “nominations” the film got in other small festivals (Sydney and Chicago). Still, i really don’t see much difference if we use nominated or competed in this scenario. Martineden83 (talk) 18:50, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s about adhering to what the source states. But to be clear, I favour removing it from the “accolades” section and moving it to “release” section in which there is currently no mention about its screening at that festival. In related news, the audience award is known in English as “City of Donostia / San Sebastian Audience Award” as the very cited source states, so I am puzzled by the other user’s insistence on not calling it exactly that.–Asqueladd (talk) 18:58, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugonia (film) page is using “nominated”, and it was also in the Perlak section. Martineden83 (talk) 18:54, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, this is what I was trying to explain. This is not like TIFF, to be able to compete for the award it is needed to be nominated for that section. PepGuardi (talk) 18:54, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then Bugonia may be abusing of accolades cruft and from framing circumstances in a novel way that no source does.–Asqueladd (talk) 18:58, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why would this be abuse? Movies are selected to a festivals and then nominated for different sections. Some sections are competitive ones (like Perlak). This is really common at film festivals. For example, Cannes for example has even more sidebar competitive section. There´s a sidebar section called un certain regard. Will we now say all articles mentioning that a movie was nominated for Un Ceratain Regard section were “abusing of accolades”? Because it is really common on Wikipedia the mention that a movie was nominated for a competitive section in a festival. Cannes and Venice have even more competitive sidebar sections than San Sebastian, and they usully mention the nomination to the awards from those sidebar sections.

Or the problem is that you think Perlak section is not seen by San Sebastian Festival as a truly competitive section? PepGuardi (talk) 19:30, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that, as MOS:FILMACCOLADES outlines, festival awards should be added with discretion and this is pretty much the opposite of that, plus the reliance on coarse synthesis and non-third party sources, which to date, red herrings notwithstanding, you have not addressed so far.–Asqueladd (talk) 19:34, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So you don´t agree with any of the articles on wikipedia mentioning movies nominations to a sibebar competitive section? So for example all articles mentioning the nomination of a movie to Cannes´ Un Certain Regard sidebar section are wrong? PepGuardi (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have not said “any”, but in my view a film’s festival run (and the sections in which the film is screened) belong primarily to the release section, not the accolades section, indeed. Tracking a film’s entire festival selection run through a succession of accolades is out of scope and WP:POV, and I think MOS:FILMACCOLADES solidly backs me up on that.–Asqueladd (talk) 19:55, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You need a secondary third-party source backing up your interpretation, because—this is a core policy I am citing here—“secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic’s notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources“ (WP:PSTS)–Asqueladd (talk) 19:13, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But this is not a “novel interpretation”, instead it is the official description from San Sebastian itself to Perlak section, from original text in Spanish: “Selección de destacados largometrajes del año, inéditos en España, que han sido aclamados por la crítica y/o premiados en otros festivales internacionales. Armani Beauty es patrocinador de esta sección. Todas las películas de la sección Perlak son candidatas al Premio del Público Ciudad de Donostia / San Sebastián, patrocinado por el Ayuntamiento de San Sebastián, que es otorgado por los espectadores asistentes al primer pase de la película”.

https://www.sansebastianfestival.com/2025/secciones_y_peliculas/perlak/8/es/t_22363 PepGuardi (talk) 19:44, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for secondary third-party source backing up your interpretation, and that is not a third-party source guaranteeing the notability of the information, and in any case that would favour using {{Nom|Candidate}} in the result column.–Asqueladd (talk) 19:50, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding third part source, take a look later.

https://vivirediciones.es/destacado/lo-ultimo-de-linklater-lanthimos-panahi-y-sorrentino-entre-las-perlak-del-zinemaldia/

It evens brings new info, for me at least: “Se otorgará un premio a la mejor película, dotado con 50.000 euros destinados al distribuidor del filme en España, y otro a la mejor película europea, de 20.000 euros, para el mismo fin.” Martineden83 (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Martineden83:; that was featured in the primary source, and the reason about why preserving text-source integrity suggests displaying “Spanish distributor” as the recipient. The Spanish co-distributors happen to be Elastica Films and La Aventura, although that is original research.–Asqueladd (talk) 20:02, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But distributors are always owners of the rights to the films they buy, and when they buy a movie they obviously are thinking of the money they are making with it. Who do you think that keeps the money these arthouse movies make in festivals? Specially in big ones like Cannes and Venice. The movie is awarded (I guess you won’t asked for a source proving that movies were awarded) and the money linked to the award goes to the distributor, who already paid the movie producers for the movie rights. But this not about San Sebastián, this is how industry works. PepGuardi (talk) 21:32, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PepGuardi:, the Spanish distributor is the recipient of that award the same way the “country” is the recipient of the Academy Award for Best International Film. You can make a compelling case about why it feels wrong that other editors can buy or not but you may not be able to change the facts behind this. To preserve accuracy you may switch the name of the column from “recipient(s)” to “nominee(s)”, I guess.–Asqueladd (talk) 16:36, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The award was given/attributed to The Voice of Hind Rajab not to the Spanish distributor, as you can see in the festival´s official winners list

https://www.sansebastianfestival.com/2025/awards_and_jury_members/1/22994/in

I think the confusion may be you are mixing the winner/recipient of the award and who the money linked award is given to. The fact that the Spanish distributor keeps the money linked to the awards does not change the fact that the award itself is attributed to the movie. As you can see, there is not even a single mention to the Spanish distributor in the awards winners list, theres only the film title, director and country of production.

In the Academy Awards winners list you can it is clear the winner is the country https://www.oscars.org/oscars/ceremonies/2025 PepGuardi (talk) 19:40, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am beginning to think that you may be not discussing here in good faith. I’ve provided a series of policies and guidelines, and you haven’t even bothered to correct the name of the award in question. I hope that other third parties can intervene here and resume the discussion from the point where it addresses text-source integrity and the adherence to relevant guidelines for film award additions. I am no longer willing to discuss with you what a recipient is, because, guess what, at the end of the day, this film did not earn any meaningful merit in San Sebastián and certainly it is not a recipient, as its receipt there was nada, as a critical look at the coverage of the reliable and authoritative third party sources attest, and this addition of the film’s participation in a section of buzzy commercial pre-screenings with guaranteed distribution as a sort of feat in the awards table entails no more than glorified fancruft, also requiring fan-like personal input from the editors to do the extra-mile.–Asqueladd (talk) 20:21, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, it is a really good amount of money. And here it is the official descrition from San Sebastian itself to Perlak section, from original text in Spanish, which also conffirms what you said: “Selección de destacados largometrajes del año, inéditos en España, que han sido aclamados por la crítica y/o premiados en otros festivales internacionales. Armani Beauty es patrocinador de esta sección. Todas las películas de la sección Perlak son candidatas al Premio del Público Ciudad de Donostia / San Sebastián, patrocinado por el Ayuntamiento de San Sebastián, que es otorgado por los espectadores asistentes al primer pase de la película”.

https://www.sansebastianfestival.com/2025/secciones_y_peliculas/perlak/8/es/t_22363 Assuming the three of us can read in Spanish, San Sebastian is pretty clear when it says: Todas las películas de la sección Perlak son candidatas al Premio del Público Ciudad de Donostia

PepGuardi (talk) 19:55, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It still does not look like an important merit, and relevant guidelines (MOS:FILMACCOLADES) suggest discretion and consensus when adding festival awards, let alone selections, to an awards table. And let’s be clear, if available sources restrict to non-third party sources and low-quality websites such as “https://vivirediciones.es“, pretending the purported “merit” also passes the [not] mentioned only by the recipient and the awarding body hurdle looks like grasping at straws.–Asqueladd (talk) 16:51, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:08, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]