Manuel de Oliveira was born in Oporto on December 12, 1908 to a family of wealthy industrialists.

Oliveira attended school in Galicia, Spain and his goal as a teenager was to become an actor. He enrolled in Italian film-maker Rino Lupo's acting school at age 20, but later changed his mind when he saw Walther Ruttmann's documentary Berlin: Symphony of a City. This prompted him to direct his first film, also a documentary, titled Douro, faina fluvial (1931).

He also has the distinction of having acted in the first Portuguese sound film, A Canção de Lisboa.

His first feature film only came much later, in 1942. Aniki-Bóbó, a portrait of Oporto's street children, was a commercial failure when it opened, and its merit only came to be recognised over time. This drawback forced Oliveira to abandon other film projects he was involved in, and to dedicate himself to running the family business. In spite of that, he didn't lose any of his passion for the medium, and re-emerged in 1956 with The Artist and the City.

In 1963, O Acto de Primavera (The Rite of Spring), a documentary depicting an annual passion play enacted by peasants, marked a turning point for his career. This was shortly followed by A caça (The Hunt), a grim feature film that contrasted with the happy tones of his previous documentary. Despite the widespread acclaim garnered by both films, he would not return to the director's seat until the 1970s.

Manoel de Oliveira claims to direct movies for the sheer pleasure of doing it, regardless of critical reaction. He maintains a quiet life away from the spotlights, despite multiple honours in festivals such as those of Cannes, Venice and Montreal.

(from wikipedia)

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Fellini77,

Thats awesome, 98 and still making films.

Im sure all of this is true. However, while we're on the subject of Wikopedia, as a general warning to all, I heard that they don't validate their sources. That just about anyone can submit information to the site and it'll be placed on the site. So while it is a good place to find out info, its not 100% credible.

If you do a bit of research on wikipedia, you'll find that is has been proven to be more accurate than Encyclopedia Britannica, despite (and perhaps because of) the fact that multiple users edit the entries without checks. The phenomena of wikis has proved that most inaccurate facts are removed or contested almost immediately, and the huge user base encourages people who speacalize in various fields to make sure their entries are correct. It's quite amazing, actually.

quote:

So while it is a good place to find out info, its not 100% credible.

And what is?

Wikipedia is far more credible than many other sources.

Yeah, even some of the stuff I say can't be confirmed as %100 true,

whatever guys, i wasnt trying to start a huge debate. I was just throwing out the warning because I had just recently found that out myself and it shocked me and would have liked to have known about it sooner.

yes, ur right wlf, im going to school now and EVERY class states that u cant use most internet sources, and specifically mention Wikipedia like it, and sources or pools of information we can use are provided alot of the time to help clarify what we can use.

That's bull. To ban wikipedia and internet sources is such a lame attempt at fighting a problem they don't even understand. Tell them wikipedia is statistically more accurate than Encyclopedia Britannica and see if they'll ban the encyclopedia too

yea schools are huge on "no internet sources"

in some sense I do agree. But I think if you use the internet correctly, its a far better way to research.

It also depends on the type of paper you are doing. I feel that most undergraduate work, with the exception of honors classes, can usually be mostly researched online. (Although I have gone out of my way to avoid history courses in college, so I dont know about those)

On a graduate level most of your research will probably be done through libraries, and anything on the internet will probably be journals that are plublished online as well as in print.

quote:

Tell them wikipedia is statistically more accurate than Encyclopedia Britannica and see if they'll ban the encyclopedia too

of course they ban encyclopedias too, that was probably done prior to the internet, most assignments are given with knowledge that the library has sources on the subject that are supposedly more reliable

Woah. What school is this?

quote:

in some sense I do agree. But I think if you use the internet correctly, its a far better way to research.

It also depends on the type of paper you are doing. I feel that most undergraduate work, with the exception of honors classes, can usually be mostly researched online. (Although I have gone out of my way to avoid history courses in college, so I dont know about those)

Unless you're talking about academic journals online, I can't agree at all. Why would you not just use JSTOR? I guess technically that is online, but I got the feeling you were referring to simply searching publicly accessible websites. Probably not the best way to go for high quality scholarship.

quote:

Unless you're talking about academic journals online, I can't agree at all. Why would you not just use JSTOR? I guess technically that is online, but I got the feeling you were referring to simply searching publicly accessible websites. Probably not the best way to go for high quality scholarship.

I was referring to anything online, including online journals. Since most of the paper writing in my college experience has never had to do with my major or interest, I was never concerned with high quality scholarship.

I was more motivated to get it done and over with so I could concentrate on what I was actually at college for.

Im a slacker through and through. I throw myself into my interests, and everything else I cut corners. Not the best way to be I guess, but thats me.

I guess Ill never make Forbes Power 500 or whatever thats called lol. And thats fine by me as far as I'm concerned.