Talk:Blowup

Virus
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)

Coppola
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)

Title
why do you spell the title blowup? the real title is blow-up with an - Kernitou 17:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the page should probably read "Blow-up (sometimes rendered as Blowup)..." and use the hyphenated title in all other places. It looks particularly silly with the poster right there. --Asterphage 23:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

I can confirm that. The title in the movie itself (I have the DVD) is rendered "BLOWUP," even though the box says "Blow-up." Canada Jack 18:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)

art film?
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)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hemmings.Autobiography.jpg
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 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)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hemmings.Autobiography.jpg
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 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)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 12:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC) Blowup → Blow-Up — This appears to be the more common name as indicated on the poster and as classified by the BBFC —Reginmund 04:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , 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)
 * Oppose; The actual title of the film is "Blowup". Here's a screenshot from the film itself that confirms the title is one word, with no hyphen. "Blow-Up" is the way it's often written on posters, but that spelling isn't so common as to warrant renaming from the film's correct title. The article's current introduction; "'Blowup (also rendered as Blow-Up)" deals with the poster name correctly. Masaruemoto 20:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose; This has already been discussed (see ). The original title is BLOWUP, not BLOW-UP. The article is not about posters and trailers. Colchicum 20:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There's a good case to be made for Blow-Up, but naming of the film seems to be somewhat inconsistant. So while these film posters all use Blow-Up, there is also this UK video which uses an un-hyphenated Blow Up, and this US video which uses Blowup. Given the ambiguity over the title, and the fact that the film itself uses Blowup, I think it's best to leave this where it is. PC78 00:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:


 * The name has also been discussed in Talk:Blowup. Masaruemoto 20:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * However, we should elaborate on this in the text and consider change of the main picture, as renaming proposals arise way too often here. I am not aware of relevant wikiproject guidelines, but IMHO an original screenshot would be much more appropriate than the DVD cover, as the article is not about that specific DVD release. Colchicum 20:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

entertainment factor
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)

This movie is about the most exciting I have ever seen. Nice photographs but it could be double the length. This article promises far less... ;-) -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.137.226 (talk) 22:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.68.185 (talk) 23:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Velvet Underground correction
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)
 * 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)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hemmings blowup.jpg
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 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)

Yardbirds
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)


 * This is supported by the sources. I read somewhere it was a cheap Hohner. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't doubting that it was true, It just could've been worded better IMO. Looks better know anyway Jh39 (talk) 16:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

High Anxiety
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)


 * 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)

Rising Sun
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)


 * Could be. Antonioni has influenced lots of filmmakers, so this wouldn't be too remarkable. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Original Short Story
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)


 * I've removed the unsupported bit about "Droolings of the Devil." Gwen Gale (talk) 00:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone explain all the symbolisms in the movie. The story kind of incomplete leaving reader confused. Was there actually a body in the garden or just imagination of an intense photographer? 123.50.165.134 (talk) 12:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Anil

Locations
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)


 * 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)
 * Nice find. Will you add The Independent? --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, done. Perhaps an address for the inside shots of the studio will show up. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

From the very informative website www.blowupthenandnow.com it states that external shots were filmed outside 77 Pottery Lane, W11 and internal shots at 49 Princes Place, W11. The owner of this site has done extensive research on this film's locations. Ian S. Bolton 12:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

US film?
No one really thinks of this film as American.

The IMDb lists it as UK/Italy/USA.

If you check the IMDb's production company section, the producer is listed as:

Bridge Films [us]

An American company which, according to the IMDb, made 2 clearly British films in the 1960s, and right now, this very second, has 2 new films in the works. (You need IMDbPro to see them.)

As a former IMDb researcher, I am suspicious that we are seeing a mix-up here, of the type I used to rectify.

More likely is that there was a

Bridge Films [uk]

which made Blowup, then now a new US company happens to have the same name, and the US origin of the film is false. Companies do not have 40 year production gaps during which they pay for heat and light but don't produce anything.

Does someone have access to better sourcing on the financial origins of the film?

Varlaam (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The daisychain of errors pathway for this, which is very IMDb, would go like this:
 * New film in production in the US. Bridge Films.
 * Somebody adds film and company. Creating a new production co. is harder than just piggybacking on an old one.
 * So US film gets Bridge Films [uk].
 * But then someone notices, "Bridge is US, not UK" and "corrects" the IMDb to Bridge Films [us].
 * At that point somebody looking into the famous film Blowup notices that the only production company listed is American, while the film is marked UK/Italy.
 * So clearly the missing USA is an error, which gets corrected.
 * QED
 * Now, the proof of all this is in the other 1960s Bridge film.
 * It is not famous. No one gives a d*mn about it. No one is checking it or updating it.
 * Right now, today, it is listed as a UK film made by Bridge Films [us]; in other words, it is totally inconsistent.
 * Varlaam (talk) 20:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, if it is not easy to declare the nationality of the film, it does not have to be done in the lead sentence. MOS:FILM says, "If the nationality is not clear-cut, clarify the circumstances at a later point in the first paragraph."  This seems to indicate that Blowup was an Italian film that moved away from the neorealist movement. Erik (talk) 16:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Language was English, production was Italian/UK, money was mostly US (MGM). Gwen Gale (talk) 16:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Full frontal nudity
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 &mdash; 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)
 * 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)

Reception - Critical
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)
 * 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)


 * It looked more like a prank than unsourced PoV, to me. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The Who
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)

Infamous nudity in film
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)

--188.102.99.72 (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)== Corpse ==

Corpse
I saw the film some 30 years ago. I remember not being sure whether Hemmings found a real dead body. After all when he "found" it he could not make a picture and when he could there was no body anymore. Since the film is about photography and truth (among other things) this could be seen as a hint that there was no body and no murder at all. As the title says: a blowup.--79.193.9.91 (talk) 07:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * He indeed found a very dead body but never quite got it on film, even when the negs were way, way blown up into utter graininess like his downstairs neighbours paintings. Hence, because the murder never got on film (and what he did get on film got nicked anyway), it never "happened." Poof. Like the film's ending. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. But since we saw it on film, we know that it really happened. Or do we?--79.193.9.91 (talk) 09:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You say it's been thirty years since you saw the film. It shows Thomas coming back to the park and finding a very dead and truly dead corpse, then hearing a twig snap and running off in fear for his own life. Anyway, from an ecyclopedic outlook, if you would like the article to note that Antonioni didn't mean for viewers to think Thomas, within the film's narrative, saw a body, never mind that the narrative shows Thomas staring at the body up close, now would be the time to cite a source. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

That's what I remember: in the night he has a short look at the "body", hears the twig snap and - overwrougth as he is - flees the scene in panic. In broad daylight there is no corpse. Ok I am going to look for a source. But then since the film is about illusions and hallucinations and even drugs so maybe someone should cite a source that there was a corpse (and a murder).--79.193.9.91 (talk) 10:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Here's the policy on dealing with film plot: WP:FILMPLOT. Reading what the plot means, however, must be cited to a source. This doesn't mean you can't have your own take on the film, it does mean you can't publish your own take on it here, which would be WP:Original research. Wikipedia is written but as a tertiary reference, an overview of what other published sources say. Here's what one published source has to say about the meaning(s) of Blowup. Here's another. They need not agree, both (along with other published outlooks on the film) might be cited here. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you and I agree. But then I may quote from your first source (Roger Ebert): "Curiously, many writers say the photographer is not sure if he sees a body,..." (referring to Thomas' nightly visit to the park). So it seems I am not alone.--188.102.99.72 (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Ebert's meaning is more straightforwardly gleaned by reading what's on either side of that: Thomas returns to the park, and does actually see the man lying dead on the ground. Curiously, many writers say the photographer is not sure if he sees a body, but he is. What's unclear is whether he witnessed a murder.


 * Folks can and do both under-read and over-read things into films, books, music and so on. Many authors know this going in, some even try to nudge it aong. What Peter Weir did with Picnic at Hanging Rock comes to mind, viewers can watch it as a straight mystery, as a tale of alien abduction or anything in between. Alhough reading PaHR as the latter may say a bit more about the viewer than the film, such design can stir thoughts and feelings in many and sundry ways, which is what folks pay for when they rent DVDs and buy tickets.


 * I tend to see Blowup as a film mostly about outlook and craft, how and why things are seen and done and how swiftly they can shift. Knowing something about Antonioni, I think it's safe to say that what we see on the screen is what we get, even Thomas going poof at the end, the camera jumps forward (or backward) in time, is all. We see Blowup through the camera, Thomas sees life through the camera, his craft. And so on. If I wanted the article to echo this more strongly, I could rather easily find published sources to cite. Someone who wanted the article to echo the notion that the film is about hallucination and maybe drugs might have to look harder for sources, but they're out there. Both outlooks can be cited (giving heed to bounds like WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH), which is the pith of writing an encyclopedia article. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

As I said I agree. I was just satisfied to learn even from one of your sources that there are apparently other writers (than Ebert et. al.) that also have doubts that Thomas actually found a dead body.--188.102.99.72 (talk) 22:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

And one last remark: it would make much more sense if we were left in the dark about the fact whether Thomas actually found a body or not. This would fit perfectly with the fact that you could not know for sure if there was a body from the (blown up) photographs either.--188.102.99.72 (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The film is utterly straightforward. He blows up some snaps and may or may not see a body in them, in another blowup he does seem to see a killer holding a gun but it's at the threshold of being too grainy to make out. He goes back to the park and finds a body, which is very likely dead and looks a lot like the bloke he saw there earlier with the girl. Then he goes back home to find all the negs and prints have been stolen (but for the one of the body which is hopelessly too grainy). That's the bare tale and it belongs in the plot section, which cannot be interpretive. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe. But (according to Ebert) it remains unclear if a murder took place. At least insofar the plot is not straightforward. Thomas may have found a body but the question if there was a killer remains unanswered.--188.102.99.72 (talk) 23:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * In the film, Thomas finds a body. That belongs in the plot section. What doesn't belong in the plot section is that, for all we know (and we don't), the guy might have dropped dead from a heart attack and all the scrambling over the film and such might have been over worries about a Profumo Affair-like scandal. The grainy guy in the tree shadows may have been a blackmailer with a camera or microphone, or a birdwatcher happening by and gawking, anyone, or nobody at all. The body Thomas found might have been quite routinely taken away by city employees before he got back shortly after sunrise. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

As you wish. Was Antonioni himself ever asked about this problem? That could have revealed the ultimate truth. Or maybe not. Rumour has it that Hawks and Bogart had an argument about the plot of "The Big Sleep". So they called Chandler to enlighten them but the master himself did not know who shot whom. So one can say that a work of art may have a life of its own. And what is called plot, allegedly not open to interpretation, maybe just an understanding of a random majority of observers.--79.193.10.68 (talk) 08:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I found this: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19990210/COMMENTARY/70731003 In this article from 1999 Roger Ebert states: "For years the debate has raged about the dead body that was, or wasn't, in the park in "Blow-Up." This letter seems to suggest a solution." And presents a letter allegedly from the "dead body" himself. The actor Ronan O'Casey claims that all the confusion abour the corpse and the murder was actually due to the fact that Antonioni wasn't able to finish the film properly because he ran out of money. If this letter is not a fake it proves that the originally intended plot wasn't realized and therefore the remaining fragments could be open to interpretation. --79.193.10.132 (talk) 10:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

And a last remark: in this review from March, 2011 http://www.altfg.com/blog/film-reviews/blowup-michelangelo-antonioni/ there is again the question whether the photographer saw a body at all. Note: "He returns to the park at night and sees the body, but he has forgotten his camera. Curiously, the body is wide out in the open — a hint that all the photographer sees may not be so." --79.193.10.132 (talk) 11:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The article's wrong. Thomas photographs two lovers in Maryon Park, a young woman and an older man. (The young woman runs over to him and objects, and later shows up at his studio asking for the film, but he doesn't care. When he blows up the pictures, he thinks he sees a man crouching in the bushes aiming a pistol. (Not a body. There is no body, the older man is still alive and standing right there. The murder hasn't been committed yet, and can't be while Thomas is around.) In the evening he goes back to the park and finds the body of the older man, murdered by the young woman and her younger lover, one would imagine. But he hasn't got his camera, and when he returns next morning, there's no body. So, did anything happen? It's all very Sixties (Can you trust photographs? Can you trust what you think you see? Can you trust this film, which is just a strip of photographs?), but that's how it works. It's nothing to do with Thomas thinking he's photographed a body. He thinks he's photographed the killer lurking in the bushes. The murder hasn't happened at that point.

Also, the film's title is Blow-Up, hyphenated. That is the title given on posters, in publicity material, in the trailers and in the reviews and all subsequent commentary. It doesn't matter what the title screen says. That's just done for visual style.

Also, the Thomas character was not uniquely based on David Bailey. The rudeness towards models is Bailey's, but the Rolls-Royce SCIII Continental drophead is Terence Donovan's, as is the interest in 'urban grit' -- Thomas is first seen coming out of a doss-house. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, stupid of me, the article's not wrong. (Though a little misleading.) I re-watched and of course Thomas does at first think he's spotted a pistol-wielding assassin in the bushes. You could not in fact gain that kind of resolution on a blow-up even with a Nikon F and ASA 400 film, but it's a movie. Thomas phones his agent (the Peter Bowles character) to say he saved the middle-aged well-dressed man's life just by being there and taking photos. Well, star photographers in the Sixties certainly used to think they were important. Then much later in the day, after the Jane Birkin / Gillian Hills episode, Thomas thinks he sees a body in one of the final photos he took. The audience may notice that that shape on the ground was already there earlier, in the back-view picture of the young woman returning to the tree-clump after arguing with Thomas, but he didn't notice it then. He suddenly spots it in an identical view of the park, but without the young woman in it -- she's mysteriously disappeared from the shot. The shape doesn't really look much like the head and shoulders of a body, but it's cleverly done, so the audience knows that that is what Thomas is seeing. He then goes to the park at night and finds the middle-aged well-dressed man's dead body lying by the tree-clump. Weirdly he hasn't brought a camera with a flash so he can't take a picture. Even more weirdly, the supposed killers raid Thomas's studio and steal all his negatives and all his prints (except one, the blow-up of the empty-park shot with the vague shape in it), and yet they've left the body lying there all day, right out in the open in a public park, where dog-walkers, children and other random persons would be certain to find it, so that by the time Thomas arrived the place would have been cordoned off as a crime scene and police would be heavily present. But again it's a movie, made by a non-Londoner, so Maryon Park is this curious lonely place where strange things can happen. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Title, again
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)
 * 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)

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

Locations
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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hors-la-loi (talk • contribs)

Requested move 2014

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 00:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Blowup → Blowup (film) – Or Blow-up (film)? Whether or not a dash should be added is up to you. Nevertheless, the film itself may not be the primary topic of all topics named Blow-up. Looking at the base name itself, I thought it as a word of basically something, like inflating something or exploding something. Shall I add sources or stats to prove it if they matter to you? The current title should redirect to a disambiguation page. George Ho (talk) 07:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Probably. I just looked at the page view stats for all of the terms with the same name, and this subject blows (heh, get it?) them all out of the water, with over 12500 views last month, while the others all get under 500. Actually, one got just over 1000, but that was the soundtrack for this film.
 * That being said, there are two other articles that should be considered here. The first, Blowing up, could also be called by the same name. However, page views for this article still show it gets around 1/10 of the current title's.
 * While often there's a question of whether an element of pop-culture can be a primary topic for a disambiguated term, I don't think there's much of a question of long term significance in this case. The movie is one of the Film Wikiproject's core articles, meaning it is one of the most vital films for an encyclopedia to cover. The subject is a top-level award winning film with a legacy that has influenced and been parodied by a wide range of other elements of pop culture, from newer hits like Austin Powers to more classic films like The Conversation. Perhaps more significant, however, is the role the film played in forever changing the film rating system in the United States.
 * However, we still have the more obvious issue of the article explosion, which only gets just slightly under the views of the film article. Blowup is certainly not the most common term that one would look this article up under, but it is admittedly an obvious possibility. However, I think the actual phrase "blow up", while certainly found very often in sentences about explosions, is far less commonly used in the case of "there was a blowup at the factory". Indeed, when said alone as a term rather than in a sentence, I think it may in fact more commonly refer to a fight or metaphorical situation. Still, however, at least some people will look up explosion by the name "blowup", although not more than 10% of the views, and probably much much less.
 * So in conclusion, I believe the best solution is probably the following. The article should not be moved. However, the hat note should be amended to read "This article is about the British-Italian film. For other uses, see Blow up (disambiguation) or Explosion." I believe this is the best solution for the fact that the current title does seem to be both the most "encyclopedically" significant subject for the specific term as well as the page preferred by a large majority of the readers using the term, while still acknowledging the fact that in sentences, the article Explosion is an obvious target.
 * However, I think I would probably also support a move to Blow-Up, which seems to be both the official and common name for the subject. I just looked at the above discussions, so I'm no longer sure on this part.--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: Merriam-Webster identifies "blowup" as a term with different meanings, in particular "a photograph that has been made larger", and the film title seems derived from that. I am not sure if there is a corresponding Wikipedia article that has to do with that photography-related technique; Category:Image processing does not show anything I can see. If something can be found so it is not just a dictionary term, I would probably be fine with disambiguating this film article. It's worth noting that we don't necessarily disambiguate if a term is purely dictionary-based, like the film Inception. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Erik, could that be Image scaling?--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * , I saw that, but it is for re-sizing a digital image. I couldn't find anything about re-sizing a film image. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Erik, I found "enlarger", an equipment that blows up a photo into a close-up version. --George Ho (talk) 02:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose The BFI database lists it as Blowup, per Erik's rationale (and comparison to Inception) and WP:TITLECHANGES, which states "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed."  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * What about adding "(film)", Lugnuts? --George Ho (talk) 02:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer it sans "(film)", but not bothered either way.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Support - I would expect the film (which is massively notable yes) to have (film) simply because it is named after an even more common photographic technique. Whether the hyphen is in or out of either the film or the photographic technique is a detail beyond most readers. No tears will be shed by readers looking for Blowup (film) who find it named (film). In ictu oculi (talk) 02:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Support a blowup is a type of photograph, and is the main plotpoint of the movie. Therefore the photographic topic should be the main article, for which it is a subtopic of enlarger -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 07:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment For what it's worth, the BBFC shows that when first classified in 1967 the film's title was "Blow-Up" (hyphenated - as are various contemporary posters), "Blow Up" (unhyphenated) for video releases in the 1980s and 1990s, and finally "Blowup" (concatenated) in the 2000s. Google hits for the director's name plus "Blow-Up" or "Blow Up" seem about equal, with "Blowup" running at only a quarter of the other two. I think there's a very strong case to at least switch to "Blow-Up" with or without the "(film)" suffix. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Earlier discussions stated that in the film, the title is shown as "Blowup". It is a pretty inconsistent presentation. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, so it does...! Nick Cooper (talk) 13:00, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per User:Yaksar. Clearly WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.  --В²C ☎ 23:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

'star'
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)

External links modified
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)

External links modified
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)

Film name discussion moved from Teahouse page
I noticed there was a discussion on the Teahouse about whether the film title should be hyphenated. I'm pasting the discussion here. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  08:01, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

The 1966 film Blow-up by director Antonioni is incorrectly referenced [as Blowup, minus the hyphen] all over the wikipedia article. I have tried to change some of these but failed miserably. Cannot figure out how to do it. I truly wish that I could spend the time required to learn how to do these edits, but I am in the middle of so many personal problems right now that I cannot spare that sort of time investment. Loge Reborn (talk) 00:38, 19 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment here User:Loge Reborn, I'm sure I read that article in the past and never noticed what might be an error there. Here's what I just found out:
 * IMDB lists the film as "Blow-Up."
 * WP article for the soundtrack album Blow-Up (soundtrack) conforms to IMDB entry. Here is the Allmusic link from that article. The album cover shot shows the title in ALL CAPS, but the entry is recorded as "Blow-Up" there as well. It appears to be a copy of the movie's poster, but I can't be certain of that at this point.


 * I think you might have a good point @Loge Reborn. I'll go visit the talk page and see if there has been any discussion about this by other editors which may have already reached a consensus on the issue. That's always an important step when you want to make a big change to an article. Cheers! Hamster Sandwich (talk) 01:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * See extensive discussion on this issue on the talk page. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  02:25, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I should add to @timtempleton's comment that the talk page discussion there is pretty "mouldy" at 11 years, 7 years and 4 years gone by. The greatest volume of discussion was at the 11 year old mark and a 4 year old "Request for Page Move" that was closed as "No Consensus."
 * I think, based on the citations I have found, and the citations provided in the single comment by the editor in 2012 (Siskel & Ebert, et. al), might support another look at the page move criteria for this article. It may be that the evidence needs to be presented in a clearer and more concise way. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 03:10, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  08:04, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Unlike something like notability changing over time, a film's released title doesn't change - that history is locked forever. In the unlikely event the the film was re-releasd, and as part of the re-release, the titles were updated and changed, then we could add that fact, but it wouldn't change the fact that the original film was and always will be Blowup, per the director's original cut. Perhaps I can take a shot at modifying the lede to reflect the error being introduced over time in good faith by critics and reviewers. TimTempleton <sup style="color:#800080">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  08:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I would like to ask: As I am new to this part of the project, is this a proper forum for this kind of "extended" discussion? My talk page? Loge Reborn's? The article page? Any comments would be useful to me. Thanks! Hamster Sandwich (talk) 04:35, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The article talk pages are usually where discussions are held for article related issues. That way you get the attention of whoever is following the article and who has an interest in it. If you don’t get a response such as if an article has few followers, you can always submit a request for comment. You can also ping some of the people who have participated in earlier discussions. <b style="color:#7F007F">TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The movie called itself BLOWUP in its titles. Thincat (talk) 17:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The onscreen main title does indeed use the format BLOWUP, in all-caps, with no space or hyphen. But the posters and the trailers used the format BLOW-UP, hyphenated, and the film has usually been known as 'Blow-Up' in print. The front cover and spine of my 1990s Turner (MGM / UA) VHS copy use BLOW UP, but the back cover uses BLOW-UP. If the onscreen main title were definitive, which it isn't, then you would not be allowed to name Truffaut's Fahrenheit 451 in print at all, because the titles and credits for that film are spoken and never appear on screen. (https://www.artofthetitle.com/title/fahrenheit-451/) And you could only refer to Hitchcock's North by Northwest in all-caps, with an upward (north) arrowhead on the right-hand upright of the first N and a leftward (west) arrowhead on the crossbar of the last T. Despite the recent distortion effect caused by people relying on Wikipedia, Antonioni's film has always been known as Blow-Up or Blow Up. And the opinions of people who can't remember 1967 don't count.
 * It might be worth mentioning in the article that Terence Stamp, in his memoir Double Feature (Bloomsbury, London, 1989, pbk Grafton Books, London, 1990, ISBN 0-586-21067-9, pp.164, 169, 178-83), says that he was cast as the photographer in Blow-Up, went through eight months of meetings with Antonioni in London and Rome, telling the director all about the Swinging London scene, signed a contract and only heard from Antonioni's assistant Claud Watson a couple of weeks before principal photography that the unknown Hemmings had got the part instead. Stamp says that he sued Antonioni, MGM and Carlo Ponti, won the case and was paid half his agreed fee (presumably a rather large amount). Stamp, like Hemmings in his own autobiography, calls the film Blow Up. I don't know about Stamp, but presumably Hemmings saw the script at some point, and he didn't recall the title as 'Blowup', which looks lame and wrong unless it's in huge capitals. Khamba Tendal (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Nothing on the philosophical implications of the movie ?
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)

Michael Palin
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)