Talk:A Mighty Wind

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Film: 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 American cinema task force.

Removed

Hi there. Nice article. I removed the following... ~~ but the theme of the title song, A Mighty Wind suggests that the political activism or the period was merely "blowin' you and me." ~~ ... because it looks like "original research" (i.e. the writer's own analysis). I'm not sure the lyrics were intended to imply that, and there's no reference for it. If the film's creator said that somewhere in an interview, or there is some other reliable written source for the interpretation, it could be put back in but with a reference to its source. Otherwise, the lyrics could be just a slightly silly "takeoff" on the songs of the period without implying any political commentary. 149.159.109.122 07:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were certainly right to remove this. In my opinion (yes, "original research"), anyway, "blowin' you and me" is just a joke, a parody of bad lyric writing. To the extent it means anything at all, it means we're all in on this: It endorses "political activism" (that is, the song does, not the film), but in the blandest, vaguest, most commercial way, which is part of the joke. TheScotch (talk) 22:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Explanations Missing

This article really ought to explain more of the details of what is being parodied. "The New Main Street Singers" are "The New Christy Minstrels", "The Folksmen" are "The Kingston Trio", etc. By the way, "blow" has another meaning that has nothing to do with the wind. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 17:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) Probably the New Main Street Singers are based in part on the New Christy Minstrels, and probably the Folksmen are based in part on the Kingston Trio, but, in the first place, for the article to maintain this it would need a good source, and, in the second place, Main and Folks are not likely based exclusively on Christy and Kingston. Note, for example, that Main in the film is a "neuftet" (which is a joke, of course), whereas Christy had fourteen members, and that Kingston had two guitars, whereas as Folks has a guitar, banjo, and bass. 2) The thing "being parodied"--essentially--is broader: commercial "folk" music during the "folk music revival". 3) I strongly doubt that blow in the title song is supposed to be a double entendre or any kind of a play on words.

In re: point 3, the double entendre was definitely intended; don’t have a citation, but in at least one interview Guest, Shearer and McKean gave, it was suggested that they thought it was one of the funniest lines in the movie, given that it effectively is the punch-line at the end of the film, and were surprised it didn’t get a bigger laugh. The problem there, I think, being that the ostensible meaning has far greater currency than any implied innuendo. Jock123 (talk) 10:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TheScotch (talk) 23:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HAROLD LEVENTHAL?

Just came across a trbute concert that took place in NYC for folk music manager HAROLD LEVENTHAL. Could he be the real life inspiration for Irving Steinbloom? The thing is that both the film and the concert are from 2003. Which came first? Anyone know? Seems too similar to be just a coincidence. Anyone? Lafong (talk) 06:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is. The Weavers' 1980 reunion concert has utterly nothing to do with this film, which is based explicitly on the tribute to the ailing but still living Leventhal in 2003. I'm adding a note with NYT source to that effect.

Here is the relevant passage from the New Times article "source: "Mr. Leventhal was also widely, if tacitly, acknowledged to have been the inspiration for Irving Steinbloom, the folk impresario whose memorial concert sets in motion the plot of the 2003 film comedy 'A Mighty Wind.'" The only persons in a position to "acknowledge" the source are the film-makers, and since, in the first place, the film-makers are a small group incapable by definition of doing so "widely" and, in the second place, the New York Times does not attribute this "acknowledgement", I think we need to consider the choice of the term sloppy writing and sloppy editing. Rather, Leventhal was "widely" assumed to be the source for Steinbloom. I'm changing the Wikipedia article accordingly. If the article wants to state flatly that Leventhal was the source for Steinbloom, it must cite someone like Christopher Guest (directly or indirectly). TheScotch (talk) 22:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Movie title origin?

Re: "The title alludes to the folk standards 'Blowin' in the Wind' and 'Wasn't That A Mighty Storm', popular folk cover songs of the early 1960s. The title may also allude to a phrase from the William Blake poem, "Holy Thursday," from Songs of Innocence."

This is unsourced. Presumably, the movie title strikes "Blowin' in the Wind" a glancing blow, but wind is continually referred to in "folk" songs of the period parodied. The movie's "Mitch and Mickey" appear to be based primarily on the real-world Ian and Sylvia, whose first album, for example, was Four Strong Winds. There is also Dylan's famous, "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows", from which the radical political group the Weathermen got its name. I'm not familiar with "Wasn't That a Mighty Storm?," but the term mighty was also favored by "folk song" lyricists at the time.

Also: the term cover is ridiculous in this context. TheScotch (talk) 22:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above quote has since been removed from the article, but one thought I had on the title is whether it may have been taken from the opening passage of the now-"out of favor" New English Bible, a "modern English" translation completed between 1961 and 1970.

You can expand "Genesis 1:1–3" in the infobox on the NEB article to see the usage of the phrase, which NEB critics have derided as an inaccurate interpretation.^[1] Seems like the kind of odd info Christopher Guest would have rolling around in his head. Not that I'm suggesting this be added to the article without a solid citation for it, of course. Been too long since I've listened to A Mighty Wind's commentary track to remember whether Guest and Levy address title origins at all... --Dan Harkless (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "New English Bible". www.bible-researcher.com. 2012-01-20. Retrieved 2019-06-28.

Credits Sidebar

It seems a bit unfair that John Michael Higgins has been missed out of the list of starring cast, as his is certainly a principal rôle; secondly, why is the music credited to Christopher Guest alone? He is just one among several involved in the writing of the music, rather than a sole or main author. Jock123 (talk) 10:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Live tour

I can't find online evidence at the moment so I'm not putting it in the article just yet, but I was there so I know it happened: the Mighty Wind live tour had a date in Vancouver BC. Mingmingla (talk) 23:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Undid O'Hara->Annette O'Toole edit

An editor made the above change as "correcting an error". I undid it saying unsourced (and secondarily, looks wrong). Just noting it here in case it is sourcable (and accurate) North8000 (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Potential material for future editors

Today a large amount of material was removed for being unsourced. The material looks plausible and good for the article. Future editors may wish to look at the deleted material and look for sourcing. North8000 (talk) 18:50, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "New English Bible". www.bible-researcher.com. 2012-01-20. Retrieved 2019-06-28.

[1]