Talk:Blow Job (1964 film)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Blow Job (1964 film) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Film: Documentary / Silent / American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Documentary films task force.
	This article is supported by the Silent films task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

On 15 July 2020, it was proposed that this article be moved from Blow Job (1963 film) to Blow Job (1964 film). The result of the discussion was Moved.

Untitled

There's talk of the guy recieving as being somebody named DeVerne Bookwalter, not Tom Baker.

anyone know who's giving it to him? or at least if they're a girl or a guy? 64.178.97.206 08:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Willard Maas is stated to be the uncredited "giver" at IMDB Scottanon 16:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another example of some moralist in wikipedia imposing their views on someone's work. This is not a "pornographic film" if it is absent depictions of genitalia, dirty words or other explicit protrayals of the act.

David Pelman Link

Why does the link for David Pelman redirect to this page? Should the redirect be killed? It doesn't provide us with any information about David Pelman. Scottanon 16:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Warhol claims Pelman is the subject of the film (not Tom Baker). So that's probably why. We need someone who can find out for sure. --Bth 07:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Credits

There's some confusion in the Wikipedia community about who's actually in this film. Talk:Andy Warhol#Two corrections in film section lists David Pelman as the man reclining against the wall, not Tom Baker. This talk page and the Andy Warhol article itself suggests DeVerne Bookwalter. And although IMDB lists Willard Maas as "the giver" of said blow job, the camera never actually shows the act. I think a primary source should be cited -- someone who was present for the filming or knew about it -- to say if any actual fellatio took place and, if so, who was giving it, because we only ever see one actor on screen. // Montag 19:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually knew Bookwalter in the early 1980s (he was the boyfriend of a family member). I am 99.99% certain that the face in the film is his. But I'm not sure that I can edit the entry on the basis of that.David Epstein 14:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Year of Production

According to Roy Grundmann's Andy Warhol's Blow Job, a friend tells me, this is a 1964 film. Text edited accordingly. Spetey 09:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rydell

The name "Rydell" first appears in the 4th sentence of the 3rd paragraph, with no mention of who this "Rydell" is, nor what connection he has to the topic. The context makes it appear that "Rydell" may be meant to refer to the aforementioned Nicolas Botero, but nothing else is stated to explain why, or if, the two are supposed to be the same person. 99.93.246.124 (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This bio site refers to the anticipated involvement of a Charles Rydell, rather than Botero:

"According to Andy Warhol and Pat Hackett in Popism, Charles Rydell was originally asked to appear in Blow Job. Popism indicates that Warhol rang Charles Rydell and asked him to star in the film, telling him that “all he’d have to do was lie back and then about five different boys would come in and keep on blowing him until he came,” but that the film would only show his face. (POP50)

Charles agreed, but when he didn't show up for the following Sunday afternoon shoot, Andy reached him at Jerome Hill’s suite at the Algonquin and screamed into the phone “Charles! Where are you?” Charles responded: "What do you mean, where am I? You know where I am - you called me,” and Andy then said “We’ve got the camera ready and the five boys are all here, everything’s set up!” Charles's shocked reply was: “Are you crazy? I thought you were kidding. I’d never do that!”

Charles Rydell and Jerome Hill (a filmmaker, artist and patron of the arts) were mentioned as boyfriends in Andy Warhol's diaries from the seventies." http://www.warholstars.org/chron/blowjob63n8.html

The only online references to a Botero regarding Warhol seem to have been scraped from Wikipedia. Thus, I've tentatively edited Botero to Rydell. --Badmoon36 (talk) 10:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blow Job (film). 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/20101225065311/http://archive.sensesofcinema.com/contents/cteq/01/14/blow_job.html to http://archive.sensesofcinema.com/contents/cteq/01/14/blow_job.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 July 2020

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blow Job (1963 film) → Blow Job (1964 film) – While the film was made in 1963, the title of the work is "Blow Job" 1964 per Moma's collections page https://www.moma.org/collection/works/142425 (e.g. books, news, scholarly papers) over other web results. Benjamincookart (talk) 21:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you want it moved to Blow Job (1964 film) instead of Blow Job. (1964)? I've updated the RM templates presuming this is the case Iffy★Chat -- 22:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning toward 1964: This says the first public screening was in March 1964 at "Ruth Kligman's Washington Square Gallery". This say it was made in January 1964. This says 1964. This says 1964. This says 1964. This says 1964. On the other hand, this says 1963, and IMDb says 1963. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blow Job (1964 film) would be fine as a title. I would think that the Museum of Modern Art, which owns the work in its collection and uses 1964 as its date would be the authority on the work.
--Benjamincookart (talk) 13:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- MoMA doesn't claim to own the original work. Its site says that it has a "16mm film transferred to video", not the original film itself or even a film print from it – only a video transfer produced in 1983 by Technicolor-PostWorks New York. The website doesn't seem to say what the video scan resolution is, but I suspect it may be far inferior to an archival quality film print. The site also says "This record is a work in progress. If you have additional information or spotted an error, please send feedback to digital@moma.org." So it is not claiming that the information it is providing is even correct. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Length: 24fps or 16 fps?

Is the running time of 35min the length when played back at 24 frames per second (as filmed) or 16 frames per second (as specified by Warhol)?

134.3.16.109 (talk) 15:08, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]