Talk:Blowup

message: Note 37 links to a virus source. Why?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:4712:5101:B8C0:2B13:EB1E:7BFB (talk) 21:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Virus

message: Coppola cited Blowup as thematic inspiration on his R1 DVD commentary for The Conversation. Can anyone cite a similar citation by De Palma - I'm sure it must be out there somewhere, as De Palma has never been shy about acknowledging the influence of other directors on his work. Ellsworth 23:48, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Coppola

message: why do you spell the title blowup? the real title is blow-up with an - Kernitou 17:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just watched the trailer on youtube. It sounds like the contemporary version and it has the hyphen. It looks like User:Reginmund was right with his/her redirect, now reverted. --Old Moonraker 12:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know anything about the trailer, but in the (old) version of the movie I have seen it is credited BLOWUP, with capitalization and without a dash. As to the poster, come on, in France posters are in French, in China they are in Chinese, so what? This article is not about posters and trailers, it is about the original film.Colchicum 12:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Correct. The title on the movie itself is BLOWUP, no hyphen. The title on the movie itself is the ultimate authority, not the movie's poster, trailer, or DVD cover. — Walloon 19:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: In 1966/7 the film was (IIRC) given major (ie not art-house) release. I think I saw it in a mainstream cinema and it received widespread coverage in the usual cinema reviews. Linuxlad 16:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: art film?

message: :Image:Hemmings.Autobiography.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Hemmings.Autobiography.jpg

message: :Image:Hemmings.Autobiography.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Hemmings.Autobiography.jpg

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Support - As nominator. Reginmund 04:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: This movie is about the most boring I have ever seen. Nice photographs but it could be half the length. This article promises much more... --84.161.219.68 21:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.68.185 (talk) 23:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  entertainment factor 

message: The article includes the following claim: "[Antonioni] also considered The Velvet Underground, but guitarist Sterling Morrison's drug convictions prevented the band from getting work permits in the United Kingdom." It cites the book Uptight: The Story of The Velvet Underground.  Perhaps my edition of the book is very old, but the title of my copy says: Uptight: The Velvet Underground Story. On page 67 Morrison explains that Antonioni thought it would be too expensive to bring the band to London. There is no mention of a drug conviction being the reason that The Velvet Underground could not get U.K. work permits. -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 03:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: One edition of the book is called Uptight: The Story of The Velvet Underground (WorldCat link), perhaps that is why it was cited as such. If some later edition actually mentions that Morrison's drug conviction prevented the band from appearing in Blowup, then please cite the page number. I can't find this claim anywhere in my copy (1983 edition). -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 14:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Velvet Underground correction 

message: :Image:Hemmings blowup.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 17:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Hemmings blowup.jpg

message: The song performed by the Yardbirds in the film was "Stroll On", not "The Train Kept A-Rollin'". The two songs are very similar, but the lyrics are different, and this is definately Stroll On.
Also, the sentence
"Jimmy Page and Jeff Beck play side by side until Beck smashes his guitar copying The Who."
 doesn't seem very encyclopedic to me, but i'm new to wikipedia, so maybe i'm wrong. . .
Jh39 (talk) 00:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is supported by the sources. I read somewhere it was a cheap Hohner. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yardbirds 

message: From the paragraph on the parody in the Mel Brooks movie High Anxiety:
:(Technically speaking, the chauffeur does not make blow-ups; the joke is that he simply makes bigger and bigger enlargements until he has one the size of a wall.)
Can someone explain to me what the distinction is? A "blow-up" is an enlargement. — Walloon (talk) 00:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep in mind High Anxiety is a paraody, a joke, a comedy. This said, two ways of enlarging/blowing up a photo are shown in the film. One is by making a big print with an optical enlarger and another is taking a another photograph of a small area of the already enlarged print with a high resolution camera (in those days, on a big 4x5 negative) and "blowing it up" even further on the enlarger. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  High Anxiety 

message: I cannot independently verify that Rising Sun (1993) staring Wesli Snipes and Sean Connery was influenced by Blowup, but it is clear that Blowup may have been inflencial on the filmmaker. Thoughts? 
--74.226.98.94 (talk) 17:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Could be. Antonioni has influenced lots of filmmakers, so this wouldn't be too remarkable. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rising Sun 

message: I was under the impression that this film was based on/inspired by Cotazar's short story of the same title and not "Droolings of the Devil"  unless the latter was renamed after the film?  Can anyone confirm this?  See:  Blow-up and other stories by Julio Cortazar.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.50.119.43 (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the unsupported bit about "Droolings of the Devil." Gwen Gale (talk) 00:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Short Story 

message: I have added a  tag for the photographer's studio at  49 Prince's Place W11. James, who has proved reliable for the other locations in this paragraph (and some not mentioned) has 77 Pottery Lane W11. Comparing the street photographs on Google Maps (strictly original research and not allowed) favours Pottery Lane. Is there a source anywhere to confirm James's London Film Location Guide identification? --Old Moonraker (talk) 19:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems Antonioni used both addresses for exterior shots of Thomas' studio, this from independent.co.uk: on-the-trail-of-the-swinging-sixties. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice find. Will you add The Independent? --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, done. Perhaps an address for the inside shots of the studio will show up. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Locations 

message: Someone tagged this as needing reference.
I saw the film on original release and thought it significant at the time since it was not 'X' rated — this was at the end of the movie and it was cut from the VHS version that I saw many years later - Leonard G. (talk) 04:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It most certainly was an 'X' in the cinema, although (much) later videos and the 2005 re-release were downgraded to '15'. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full frontal nudity 

message: I suggest deleting the following statement:
It is widely understood that people with at least slightly-below average intelligence will quickly notice that this movie was made solely for the purpose of being "artsy", and is therefore of no value to society in any way.
This is very POV.--Natpaw81 (talk) 03:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fixed, by IP editor at 74.72.194.76. Don't forget WP:BOLD!--Old Moonraker (talk) 05:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

text: It looked more like a prank than unsourced PoV, to me. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Reception - Critical''' 

message: The text about The Who and Steve Howe needs to be fixed. In one line you mention A. wanted the who because of Townsend's guitar smashing, then the next line has a quote from Steve Howe, not of The Who, who says Tomorrow (or at that time The In Crowd) was replaced by The Yardbirds and Beck smashed his (Howe's) guitar.
216.158.164.2 (talk) 21:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Who 

message: Info should be added to the article about the fact that when this film was originally released, the MPAA refused to give it it's seal of approval under the then still enforced motion picture code (It was released before 1968 when the current motion picture ratings system was put in place). At the time the distributing studio in the U.S., MGM, decided to release it without code certification with the nudity intact which made this one of several films, along with Who's Afraid of the Virginia Wolf and others, that helped spur the development of a MPAA content ratings system put in place in 1968. I don't have a reliable reference on this info at this time but maybe someone else does. --Cab88 (talk) 06:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infamous nudity in film 

message: There seems to be a bit of a slow edit war over this, with the latest shot here. I'm not sure, pace that edit summary, that we have decided that Blowup is the "correct" styling for the title, were such a definitive, single "correct" version to exist and were one or two WP editors capable of divining it even if it did. You can find plenty of evidence that the hyphenated Blow-Up - or some other variation - is the standard, as acknowledged in previous discussions here. Film Quarterly and Roger Ebert both go for Blow-Up, for example. The poster and trailers I've seen all use the hyphen as well. I know in the previous discussions someone said the film itself is unhyphenated, but, as noted, I don't see that this provides a definitive conclusion - it's just one variation among several, in one context among several. Anyway, given that we have this page at the unhyphenated title, the references in text should follow that for consistency, in the absence of any page move. However, the alternatives should probably be listed as such. N-HH talk/edits 16:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Responding to your almost 7 year old post.... In a question about the title from an editor at WP:TEAHOUSE I am finding that most definitive and acceptable sources (IMDB, Allmusic) list this title as "Blow-Up" with a hyphen and a capital letter "U". I am willing to go to bat for this article to be properly moved to Blow-Up. The editors who engaged in the discussion up page have been absent from that debate for 11 years. Maybe they have also changed their minds?
*additionally, there may have been dozens of different versions of the poster for an international release. We need the definitive English language version, if possible.  Hamster Sandwich (talk) 02:20, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title, again 

message: Julio Cortazar's character was based on Chilean photographer Sergio Larrain. 200.104.0.221 (talk) 07:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sergio Larrain 

message: Last time I was in London, the Economist building was in St James's Street. Has it since moved?
Hors-la-loi 21:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Locations

message: To list Jane Birkin as one of the 'stars' of this film alongside Hemmings and Redgrave and Miles is extraordinary. Hers is a bit part. Calling her a 'star' is ex post facto.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.14.218.11 (talk) 07:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  'star' 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Blowup. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101028102449/http://archive.sensesofcinema.com/contents/05/35/cortazar.html to http://archive.sensesofcinema.com/contents/05/35/cortazar.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:19, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Blowup. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100113054725/http://www.filminfocus.com/article/antonioni___s__em_blowup__em__defines_cool to http://www.filminfocus.com/article/antonioni___s__em_blowup__em__defines_cool
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I'm surprised to find nothing on the symbolism and the philosophical implications of the movie. I borrowed the movie's DVD several years ago, and watched it with the excellent commentary from Peter Brunette, who provides very interesting insight on that aspect, with regards to the existential tenets that actions and experiences and people's values or qualities have no meaning per se, but are given a meaning within a particular context. The whole movie is relevant to illustrate those notions, but two scenes in particular bear a striking symbolism: the mime tennis scene at the very end, and the disposal of the broken guitar shortly before. When Prince died, I wrote this as a comment for a YouTube video (which incidentally contains ping-pong mime), in reply to someone who had found it odd that he hadn't agreed to sign a guitar after breaking it during a performance at the Jimmy Fallon Show, making a reference to that commentary.
“It may be deeper than that. I read elsewhere that he said "I don't sign", as in, that is something I never do. He had a very peculiar relationship with his own name which he came to perceive as a brand, and reject for that very reason, using many aliases (or releasing a black album with no name) and even changing it officially into a wordless symbol. On Wikipedia he's quoted as having said: "If you give away an idea, you still own that idea. In fact, giving it away strengthens it. Why do people feel they have to take credit for everything they do? Ego, that's the only reason." Striking from a guy who has been described as having a gigantic ego, and yet perfectly coherent! Not signing it keeps the spontaneity of the act alive, whereas signing it turns it into a dead prop, a mere artifact of celebrity that can be sold. It reminds me of the commentary track on the DVD of Michelangelo Antonioni's "Blow Up" : there's a scene at a rock concert (by the Yardbirds), at the end of the show the guitarist breaks his guitar and throws it into the crowd, causing a fight; the protagonist manages to catch it, only to throw it away soon after in a garbage box outside [after rewatching the scene : no, he just tosses it on the ground – case in point, my memory played tricks and made me remember something that wasn't]. And so the guy talking in the commentary track (quick verification : Peter Brunette) says that indeed, once the show is over, it's just a useless broken guitar. Only the context, and an irrational fetishism, gives it a perceived value. I guess Prince knew that what truly has value is what can be experienced here and now.”
Transcription of Peter Brunette's commentary :
“It's a very interesting sequence, and leads to I think the ultimate meaning of the film here, especially as it comes out in the end. This is the Yardbirds. One of the things that's most remarkable about this scene is that until the breakout at the end of the scene, everybody here looks like a zombie. Now remember that this is the Swinging London of the Sixties. And I think Antonioni is offering a very sharp comment here. Again, he has this push-pull, this kind of divided feeling about all this. On the one hand, he's attracted to this, and he said that he was attracted to the sexual freedom and all that goes with that. On the other hand, I think he sees through this so-called sexual freedom, and realizes that it brings a lot of difficulty with it as well. So throughout the film, in the party, in Yardbirds concert scene, we have some very very burned out [or bored out ?] people who don't look like they're having any fun at all. And part of their act of course – early version of punk rock I guess – was breaking up their instruments and throwing ’em out to the crowd. And there's a violent fight that takes place for this neck of a guitar. And yet, once David Hemmings has grabbed this neck of the guitar and taken it outside, it's out of its context, that means it's completely meaningless and therefore completely useless and worthless, and he throws it away. The important point here being that meaning, and the construction we put on reality, is always a group social function. And it's contextual. Any word can mean anything in a different context. It's the context that determines meaning. And that's what you'll find out here, and what we'll find out very vividly in this guitar destruction scene. There's nothing more meaningful than this object at that moment, ’cause it's a part of this environment, it's a part of this scene : people are trying to kill each other to get at this... artifact, sacred artifact, filled with meaning; and David Hemmings is right in there with the best of them. He wins. He's rescued the object, this intensely meaningful object. Yet, out of the context, it's just a broken piece of a guitar. And to verify the point and bring it home even more powerfully, someone else comes along, picks it up, looks at it, also throws it away.”
--Abolibibelot (talk) 16:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nothing on the philosophical implications of the movie ? 

message: I have been aware for years, of the character in the audience who is supposedly Michael Palin, i'd really love it to be him, but is there any proof?
I have just read a piece by Janet Street-Porter on her appearance, so she was definately in it. She told her story of the whole situation, but never mentioned Michael Palin.
Edit: After a bit of research I found a forum called Film Dope, and unfortunately in a thread, this,
....................................
"According to the response from my enquiry to Michael Palin regarding Blowup he did not take part at all and was surprised to hear that he did!
Where did this rumour start?
Regards, Ian"
.....................................
Of course, not 100% solid proof that he was not in it, but no reason for it to be a lie.
Middle More Rider (talk) 02:06, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michael Palin