Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magic Brush

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Star Mississippi 02:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Brush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I would like to take this to AFD as a possible hoax. I could find no sources online that this film exists; all references to it I could find either postdate or copy Wikipedia. The first of only two sources referring to the film is offline, and the second is a self-citation to an adaptation. I also have a hunch that the screenshot on the page may have been created for the page itself.

As for the tale that supposedly inspired the film, all I could find are retellings for children sometimes with comprehension activities, with no indications about its origin aside from being an unspecific "old Chinese folktale". Atlantis536 (talk) 16:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Comics and animation, and China. Shellwood (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Wu, Weihua (2017). Chinese Animation, Creative Industries, and Digital Culture. London: Routledge. ISBN 978-1-351-61108-4. Retrieved 2022-05-29 – via Google Books.

     The book notes: "Zhang [Songlin] noted that the Chinese School began to explore the minzu style in two short films, The Magic Brush of Ma Liang (1955; Figure 2.2) and The Conceited General (1956; Figures 2.3 and 2.4). This conceptualization stresses national style because it was one of the "fundamental tasks for animators to present it as the essential of Chinese animation" (Zhang, 1981, pp. 174–183)."

     The book notes: "The Magic Brush of Ma Lian is a story of a boy named Ma Liang and a magic brush that could make everything he drew come to life. When news of Ma Liang's magic brush spread to the emperor, who was greedy to gain more fortune and plunder with this magic power, Ma Liang was arrested for possessing an enchanted power and also forced to paint a golden mountain for the emperor. The ending shows Ma Liang's vivid depiction of a marvelous golden mountain surrounded by the ocean, and the emperor drowns as a result of a tornado drawn by Ma Ling as his boat sails into the dream of fortune. The Magic Bush of Ma Liang was based on a well-known children's book written by Hong Xuntao in the 1950s. It represented an intriguing combination of the political discourse and the imagination of folklore magic in children's literature, particularly as the characters, animated by the stop-motion Chinese folk-handcrafted puppets achieved a contrast between the ideology and the animation aesthetic. The positive response from film audiences and authorities was soon echoed by another sophisticated piece of meishu film produced in Shanghai. The book has a photo with the caption "Figure 2.2. Still from The Magic Brush of Ma Liang. 1955. Directed by Jin Xi. Courtesy of Shanghai Animation Studio. Public domain image."

  2. Macdonald, Sean (2016). Animation in China: History, Aesthetics, Media. London: Routledge. ISBN 978-1-138-93880-9. Retrieved 2022-05-29 – via Google Books.

     The book notes: "For Zhang Songlin, two of the first films that evidence national style in animation were Jiao'ao de jiangjun (The Arrogant General, 1956) and Shenbi (The Magic Brush 1956) (Wu 2009: 38; Zhang Songlin 982: 176). National style adds a historical aura to contemporary cultural production, even cultural production of the revolutionary period. For example, Zhang describes The Magic Brush as "a Chinese ancient folk tale" (yi ge Zhongguo gulao de minjian gushi) (1981: 176) although neither the film nor print versions seem to predate 1955. Zhang's reform-era language uses a transitional terminology that combines residual aspects of earlier minzu, national or ethnic style discourse from the revolutionary period (1949–1976): "[The film] concerns a strangely magical painting brush that expresses the thirst of the laboring masses for happiness and comfort and contains romantic touches of Chinese myth. In both content and form the film shows Chinese traditional artistic style. The figures of the protagonist Ma Liang and the government officials show the form and style of Chinese ancient characters combined with that specific aspect of puppet animation, a proper amount of exaggeration that gives [the film] an even greater artistic flavor. The scenery includes city wall and room interiors that expresses specific aspects of our nation's ancient decorative art, giving the whole film a brilliantly unified ethnic style." (Zhang Songlin 1982: 176). Thus, the "Chinese ancient folk tale" is enhanced by "Chinese traditional artistic style" (Zhongguo de chuantong yishu fengge). In short, The Magic Brush employs design elements that help to construct what could be called a Chinese effect."

     The book later notes, "Te Wei notes the same two films as Zhang Songlin, The Magic Brush and The Arrogant General, claiming that in both films "... design, character movement, and background are boldly nourished by our national theater traditions and plastic arts with added development and creativity; in addition, every effort has been taken to endow the characters' thoughts and feelings, customs, movements, and language with Chinese characteristic national style" (1960: 51).

     The book later notes: "The official program of the Venice International Festival lists two films from China, accurately indicating the place of origin and the directors, The Magic Brush and Why is the Crow Black?. Both films are listed under the Children's Exhibition portion of the festival."

     The book later notes: "At least according to the database at Historical Archive of the Foundation for the Venice Biennale, the film that did win an award was The Magic Brush, which remains an important puppet animation from this period and a good example of Jin Xi's able direction."

     The book notes in a footnote: "The writing and directing of the film are credited to Jin Xi (1919–1997) and the print version is attributed to children's literature author Hong Xuntao (1928–2001). See "Shenbi Ma Liang" (The Magic Brush of Ma Liang) in Shanghai jiaoyu chubanshe (eds.) 1979: 381–389. The bibliographical note indicates the story was republished from a 1956 edition (389)."

  3. Bobrowska, Olga (2019). "Seeking Truth in Facts: Historicizing Chinese Animation". In Bruckner, Franziska; Gilić, Nikica; Lang, Holger; Šuljič, Daniel; Turković, Hrvoje (eds.). Global Animation Theory: International Perspectives at Animafest Zagreb. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 67. ISBN 978-1-5013-3713-0. Retrieved 2022-05-29 – via Google Books.

     The book notes: "The historiography rather marginalizes the role of The Magic Brush (Shen bi/神笔, dir. Jin Xi/靳夕, 1955) in the process of establishing minzu style. This skilful puppet film tells a folk story of a boy who breaks class divisions and learns the art of painting, moreover the magical power of his brush helps him to conduct revolutionary acts such as overthrowing the feudal ruler and modernizing the peasants' work. Jin Xi, a student of Jiří Trnka and an animation theoretician, saturated the tale with symbols and meaningful artefacts from the past feudal culture, and dynamic dramaturgy, accelerating the film's revolutionary content, as well as common language (the dialogue even includes vulgarisms). Macdonald (2016: 38) and Wu (2009: 38), after the writings of Zhang Songlin (张松林; another notable SAFS artist and theoretician), acknowledge The Magic Brush as the first actual attempt of minzu style."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Magic Brush to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 22:28, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per sources found Cunard, which could be used to expand this. Seems to meet GNG, obviously not a hoax. I'd be curious to learn if the nominator went beyond plain Google in their BEFORE? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per the nice job done by Cunard.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.