Talk:The Passenger (1975 film)

	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 Italian cinema task force.
	This article is on the project's core list.

Scholary article links

I am nzkpzq (Michael E. Grost). I write scholarly critical studies of film directors, which are posted on my personal web site. Recently, I added links to my scholarly Michelangelo Antonioni article to the Wikipedia entry on Antonioni, and to such films as L'Avventura, La Notte and The Passenger. They were immediately deleted as "vandalism". I am a newcomer to Wikipedia, and am confused. Are such links appropriate? The Wikipedia is full of links to reviews in big time mass media, such as Robert Ebert and the New York Times. Do you have to be a member of big-bucks media to link a critical study to Wikipedia? Are scholarly articles "vandalism"?

My site is completely non-commercial, no-advertising, no-spam.

Please advise.

Justification for reversion:

First, check criteria for removal

If this article were to be re-written as a featured article, the link would not be redundant, as it does not illustrate the subject, but a related topic. pass.
Does the site mislead the reader? No sources are presented, so a preliminary fail
The link addition does not appear to be an effort to generate visitors, however its addition to many pages by the same user does, fail
Not a commercial link, passes
The target does not have any advertisements, passes
Registration not required, passes
External application not required to view, pass
Neither a search engine nor a social networking site nor a blog nor a wiki, pass
Indirectly related to the article's subject, fail

Based on the criteria, the link appears good

Conflict of interest not apparent, however the user who added it has added it to many pages, see policy on spam: Adding the same link to many articles. The first person who notices you doing this will go through all your recent contributions with an itchy trigger finger on the revert button. And that's not much fun..

Based on this last point, the link is appropriate, however should not be added en masse. If it:

Contributes information beyond the scope of the article, but is
Related to the subject, and is also
Well referenced,

It may be added to a few articles, where most appropriate. Relevant policies would be spam, external links, and references, please review those, and enjoy your stay, if you need help, feel free to ask! ST47 14:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not going to get into a discussion of the minutiae of Wiki policy & etiquette, but it seems to me obvious enough that it was rude & uncalled-for to label the original change as "vandalism", as if the good-faith addition of a link to a pertinent, informative & well-maintained page on Antonioni were on par with the usual "I WUZ HERE" graffiti we see on Wikipedia. --ND 17:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Analysis

Although the analysis makes some good points, it's foundation is not complete, especially regarding it's characterization of the Girl character as a betraying Mrs. Robertson. It is an appealing interpretation that seemed obvious at first, however the film's directer left many ambiguities open that possibly refutes that conjecture. For example, in careful viewing of the famous long shot I came up with the following: (1) after the shooting, the Girl anxiously tries to get into Locke's room as if genuinely worried, from her adjoining room door, which is locked or stuck for some reason (2) the assassin entered and left with ease, apparently from the main door, perhaps indicating complicity from the hotel staff (3) when the assassin enters the room he stands waiting for a moment while the girl is far away but hovering, his partner is closer to the window and seems to see him there and turns immediately to distract the girl, he tries to touch or grab her arm and she pulls away reflexively while walking away again just as the gunshot fires (4) the partner notices this right away and goes to the car while the girl seems distracted and thoughtful, she seems to take little if any note of the escaping thugs (5) in previous scenes, two men were following Locke's real wife to the police station (6) it seems as if the clerk was expecting the police and their timely arrival indicates that someone at the hotel tipped at least the police and possibly the assassins at the same time (either accidentally or deliberately) (7) when Locke first arrived to check in, the clerk seems to peer at him furtively and peers outside at something or someone briefly before closing the blind.

Either way, the movie needs a more accurate scene by scene analysis that reflects less of the author's built in assumptions such as assuming that the Girl was colluding with the assassins. She may have betrayed him, but not in that way. I thought I would put this in discussion before actually editing the article itself. I'd like to hear more input on how to proceed.

I also corrected a slight inaccuracy in the final shot comment, the last car leaving was the driver ed car not a police car.Mitojee (talk) 13:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you have posted above is your own original research, which cannot be used in the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, the original analysis seems riddled with original research and very subjective conclusions. That was my motivation to show examples of of an alternate viewpoint. Perhaps the original article should then just be pared of such sentences as "In a film drenched in Christian imagery, she appears to have taken on the role of Locke's Judas and has betrayed him to the black and white thugs." Second, movie analysis, even one based on citations of other scholars, is inherently subjective, especially of this type of challenging movie. I will admit I will need to study more of how Wikipedia authors have treated other movie topics with debatable interpretations. Perhaps the analysis should be expunged altogether or changed to a list of summaries and links of such articles only? Third, related to that, the original research is because the source material being cited is the very film itself; the points can be verified or retracted by watching the same release of the film (i.e. did the Girl have brown hair or did Jack Nicholson indeed turn over on the bed, etc.). The current Sony Classics release of the film is easily available either via Netflix instant viewing or purchase as a DVD.

What if I give timecode indications and more absolutely neutral observation of the source material? Such as: At xxx minutes and xx seconds of the Sony Classics release of the film, the character Locke lies down with the Girl. At (time marker), she is seen looking out the window, the sound of children laughing can be heard, etc. I took a look at the wiki for the movie "Chinatown" which has a plot synopsis of the movie. How is such a plot synopsis written without observation of the movie in question? Most reviews do not give full spoilers of a movie or are simply the subjective recollection of the reviewer based on a screening and in many cases do not mention every scene in a movie. More obscure movies may not even have books that can be cited or have any shot by shot breakdowns at all.

On a slightly different note, I was led to the wiki article in the first place due to a review on Netflix saying that the article helps the viewer make sense of some elements in the movie. I did find the analysis to be a useful ground to explore the movie in more detail and learn more about it, without agreeing with all of the points mentioned. Hence, my tendency in wanting to keep something like it as it seems to serve a function, but perhaps that's also why other forums would be better for such content. It's a natural source of contention and debate. Either way, it needs to be fixed.Mitojee (talk) 19:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This section should be removed, as it is subjective and filled with original research, not allowed under Wikipedia guidelines. A shot-by-shot analysis of the entire film would also not be appropriate. This film has been a fixture in Cinema Studies classes for almost three decades now, and one of the areas that is constantly explored is the penultimate sequence. The film is thoroughly thought provoking for sure, however, it is intentially vague, and designed for viewers to come to their own conclusions on "what it all means." Just the fact mam, nothing but the facts.--Abebenjoe (talk) 05:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:The.passenger.jpg

Image:The.passenger.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) 02:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable reference for the hotel in the penultimate shot

What is the reference(s) for the recent edit/addition: "Whilst the location of the hotel is stated to be Osuna in the film, the bullring at the edge of the square is recognisably that of Vera in Almería province?" This is a highly significant statement and I personally know of only very few Internet citations (primarily in Spanish) that are not of a scholarly nature, and no references in the standard academic literature in either text or journal articles to Vera as the exact filming site. To my knowledge, the most recent reference to Vera as the shooting location appeared in the Internet on-line manuscript: "Michelangelo Antonioni's 'L'eclisse. A broken piece of wood, a matchbook, a woman, a man," by D.S. Rosenfeld (davidsaulrosenfeld.com). The reference appeared in Rosenfeld's manuscript only days before the new Wikepedia edit/addition in Mid-May, 2010 (prior to the Wiki addition) and was followed subsequently by the addition of a jpg. on May 22, 2010 taken from Google Earth of the bullring of Vera. There appears to be a clear temporal relationship between the citation of Vera in Rosenfeld's manuscript (which includes detailed, multiple attribution) and the sudden appearance of Vera as the shooting site in the Wikipedia "Passenger" article. I do not know the rules/guidelines for proper attribution for Wikipedia per se (Mr. Grost alludes to some of these related issues very well in his note below). As a general rule, a reference should be cited, especially for a relatively new and significant observation. In a worse case scenario, lack of proper attribution may suggest that a writer is implying that he/she is the primary source, which then raises the spectre of plagiarism if this is not the case.V.S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Varinia Simmons (talk • contribs) 11:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC) Varinia Simmons (talk) 13:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Passenger (1975 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 17:23, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Passenger (1975 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/20071018090638/http://www.calendarlive.com/movies/cl-et-passenger4nov04,0,6342066.story?coll=cl-movies-util to http://www.calendarlive.com/movies/cl-et-passenger4nov04,0,6342066.story?coll=cl-movies-util

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 09:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

that penultimate shot

it might just have been possible with a steadicam, had antonioni known of garrett brown's work, but the beginning of the shot, looking out through the window, is extremely steady, more so than an early steadicam could typically achieve when held stationary. moreover, when the shot moves outside, the angle & character of the shot isn't the typical human p.o.v that one gets with a bloke strapped into the vest & arm contraption, nor- one might argue- would that have been appropriate for the shot.

https://dangerousminds.net/comments/one_of_cinemas_great_scenes_the_last_7_minutes_of_antonionis_the_passe

duncanrmi (talk) 01:22, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]