If you believe that the ending makes the movie, Blowup is for you. The first 30 minutes seem aimless and wandering, but they set up the main character and what is he is to discover about himself, about his occupation and about art in general. Antonioni builds tension (or frustration as you're watching it) not with plot, but with anti-plot. You want to scream at David Hemmings's character to: focus! screw those models! do something! But as the film unfolds you will see why Antonioni chose this actor, this profession and those girls. A wonderful manifesto about the dangers of voyeurism and what it does to a man's sexuality that is 40 years ahead of its time. The symbolism might get heavy handed at times (mimes, a broken guitar), but the sets are so full of creativity and the actors so beautiful (this will give my age away, but Vanessa Redgrave, who knew?) that you forgive Antonioni (he's Italian after all). Hemmings is Hugh Grant before Hugh Grant, but in this role at least, much more interesting. He's highly sexual, but unlike his painter roommate, his chosen art form represses him, all in the name of the shot. And when he finally gets the perfect shot in the perfect light, it's so perfect that someone steals it, and for good reason. Did those events actually take place or just through his camera lens? When the photos are the proof of what you see, then when that proof is taken away, did you see?
351 Reviews
Great cinematography, terrible dialogue, repulsive protagonist
richard-178730 January 2023
I realize that this is a cinema classic, taught in cinema courses everywhere. And I recognize that there is some pretty remarkable stuff here. But some of it I found very off-putting.
First, to the good: the cinematography is almost constantly remarkable. The way scenes are framed, the constant variation of camera angles, the switches between close and far, etc. I almost would have preferred this without sound. There was so much of interest to watch.
There was little of interest to hear, however. The dialogue is inane. And the protagonist is an egotistical, selfish, thoroughly repugnant excuse for a man. Maybe he's alienated from his world. Why would I care? He does everything to demonstrate that he cares about nothing and no one but himself.
Just past the midpoint of this movie, it starts to become interesting when the photographer detects something in the background of one of his photos. When it turns out a man was murdered, he wants to know more. But why? He's never shown any interest in anything other than himself up until then?
And, finally, he seems to forget about it all.
Watch this once for the amazing camerawork. But as for the plot, the characters, and the rest, don't expect to be engaged. I certainly wasn't.
First, to the good: the cinematography is almost constantly remarkable. The way scenes are framed, the constant variation of camera angles, the switches between close and far, etc. I almost would have preferred this without sound. There was so much of interest to watch.
There was little of interest to hear, however. The dialogue is inane. And the protagonist is an egotistical, selfish, thoroughly repugnant excuse for a man. Maybe he's alienated from his world. Why would I care? He does everything to demonstrate that he cares about nothing and no one but himself.
Just past the midpoint of this movie, it starts to become interesting when the photographer detects something in the background of one of his photos. When it turns out a man was murdered, he wants to know more. But why? He's never shown any interest in anything other than himself up until then?
And, finally, he seems to forget about it all.
Watch this once for the amazing camerawork. But as for the plot, the characters, and the rest, don't expect to be engaged. I certainly wasn't.
a beautiful, small and curious film
hypersynesthesia14 January 2005
The person that recommended this film to me told me that very little actually happens, and that its beauty comes from its ambiguity and the way it portrays swinging London. I didn't sit down anxiously awaiting a structured plot and narrative. In the event it turned out to be much more straightforward than I imagined. Some people might interpret it as an exploration of the questions - "what is real? how do we know if it is or isn't?". Yet it's certainly not the only, or most important interpretation to be had.
There's little point in rehashing the story, as plenty of other reviews here have already saved me the trouble. The thing that caught me about it was its sense of real-time. Blow Up's been called slow-moving, but in fact the events of the film don't happen over a matter of weeks. From what I can tell, they barely span 24 hours, give or take. The transition of thought and attitude and confidence that Thomas goes through in that small space of time is artfully handled, with no clumsy epiphanies or idiotic, unrealistic moments of revelation. You share the confusion that has crept up on him and seized him before he actually realises it - HIS confusion exactly, not the confusion of an uninvolved viewer watching an arty, labyrinthine film. Antonioni injects you, Alice-In-Wonderland-like, right into his head.
Thomas is from the start magnetic but brutal; someone you wouldn't expect pity or benevolence from; a man who is aware of his own power in the world, despises everything around him and acts kindly only if it's in his own interests to do so. By the end of the film, as an imaginary ball is tossed accidentally across a park by a ghostly teenage pack of mimes, the look on his face as he retrieves it for them suggests empathy; a sense of understanding that was lacking when we first met him. The events of the film are not explosive or loudly momentous; yet we understand that they are enough to change him, and by the end of the film we understand why. The sharp little shocks of distraction throughout - in particularly his encounter with the would-be models - are startling and realistic in their unconstructed spontaneity, as such experiences often really are. It's easy to see how Blow Up came from a short story; it has the elusiveness of one, and those who didn't appreciate it as a feature film might enjoy it more if perhaps they watched it again as a detailed anecdote rather than expecting a crashing epic.
There's little point in rehashing the story, as plenty of other reviews here have already saved me the trouble. The thing that caught me about it was its sense of real-time. Blow Up's been called slow-moving, but in fact the events of the film don't happen over a matter of weeks. From what I can tell, they barely span 24 hours, give or take. The transition of thought and attitude and confidence that Thomas goes through in that small space of time is artfully handled, with no clumsy epiphanies or idiotic, unrealistic moments of revelation. You share the confusion that has crept up on him and seized him before he actually realises it - HIS confusion exactly, not the confusion of an uninvolved viewer watching an arty, labyrinthine film. Antonioni injects you, Alice-In-Wonderland-like, right into his head.
Thomas is from the start magnetic but brutal; someone you wouldn't expect pity or benevolence from; a man who is aware of his own power in the world, despises everything around him and acts kindly only if it's in his own interests to do so. By the end of the film, as an imaginary ball is tossed accidentally across a park by a ghostly teenage pack of mimes, the look on his face as he retrieves it for them suggests empathy; a sense of understanding that was lacking when we first met him. The events of the film are not explosive or loudly momentous; yet we understand that they are enough to change him, and by the end of the film we understand why. The sharp little shocks of distraction throughout - in particularly his encounter with the would-be models - are startling and realistic in their unconstructed spontaneity, as such experiences often really are. It's easy to see how Blow Up came from a short story; it has the elusiveness of one, and those who didn't appreciate it as a feature film might enjoy it more if perhaps they watched it again as a detailed anecdote rather than expecting a crashing epic.
Success and image; fantasy and reality (SPOILERS)
DC197710 December 2003
Antonioni's Blow-Up was the biggest hit of the Italian director's career, the superficial elements of the fashion world, Swinging London and orgies on purple paper ensuring its commercial success.
Models such as Veruschka (who appears in the film), Twiggy and fashion photographers at the time have complained about its unrealistic depiction of the industry and claimed that its central character, Thomas (played by the late David Hemmings) was clearly based on David Bailey.
To look at Blow-Up as an analysis of the fashion business in the Sixties is to misunderstand the film's intentions. In any case, when watching this film it may be difficult to tell what its all about if you're unfamiliar with Antonioni's films but it obviously has little to do with the fashion world which is merely the setting for the story and nothing more.
Antonioni made the clearest statement of his motivation as a filmmaker at the end of Beyond the Clouds when he talked about his belief that reality is unattainable as it is submerged by layers of images which are only versions of reality.
This is a rather pretentious way of saying that everyone perceives reality in their own way and ultimately see only what they want to see.
With this philosophy in mind, Blow-Up is probably Antonioni's most personal film.
Thomas' hollow, self-obsessed world is shattered when he discovers that he may have photographed a murder when casually taking pictures in a park. He encounters a mysterious woman, Jane (Vanessa Redgrave) who demands he hand over the film and when he refuses she appears at his studio, although Thomas never told her his address.
When the evidence disappears shortly afterwards, Blow-Up seems to deal in riddles that have no solution. Redgrave re-appears and then vanishes before the photographer's eyes, Thomas returns to the park without his camera and sees the body. The film concludes with Thomas, having discovered the body has disappeared, watching a group of mimes playing tennis without a ball or rackets in the park where the murder may have taken place.
It is only in the final scene of the film where the riddle is solved. Thomas throws the imaginary ball back into the court and watches the game resume. The look of realisation on his face is all too apparent as the game CAN BE HEARD taking place out of shot.
There is a ball, there are rackets and this is a real game of tennis. What we have seen up until this point is the photographer's perception of reality: the murder, the mysterious woman in the park, the photographic evidence and the body.
The following exchange between Hemmings and Redgrave is the key to the film:
Thomas: Don't let's spoil everything, we've only just met.
Jane: No, we haven't met. You've never seen me.
Models such as Veruschka (who appears in the film), Twiggy and fashion photographers at the time have complained about its unrealistic depiction of the industry and claimed that its central character, Thomas (played by the late David Hemmings) was clearly based on David Bailey.
To look at Blow-Up as an analysis of the fashion business in the Sixties is to misunderstand the film's intentions. In any case, when watching this film it may be difficult to tell what its all about if you're unfamiliar with Antonioni's films but it obviously has little to do with the fashion world which is merely the setting for the story and nothing more.
Antonioni made the clearest statement of his motivation as a filmmaker at the end of Beyond the Clouds when he talked about his belief that reality is unattainable as it is submerged by layers of images which are only versions of reality.
This is a rather pretentious way of saying that everyone perceives reality in their own way and ultimately see only what they want to see.
With this philosophy in mind, Blow-Up is probably Antonioni's most personal film.
Thomas' hollow, self-obsessed world is shattered when he discovers that he may have photographed a murder when casually taking pictures in a park. He encounters a mysterious woman, Jane (Vanessa Redgrave) who demands he hand over the film and when he refuses she appears at his studio, although Thomas never told her his address.
When the evidence disappears shortly afterwards, Blow-Up seems to deal in riddles that have no solution. Redgrave re-appears and then vanishes before the photographer's eyes, Thomas returns to the park without his camera and sees the body. The film concludes with Thomas, having discovered the body has disappeared, watching a group of mimes playing tennis without a ball or rackets in the park where the murder may have taken place.
It is only in the final scene of the film where the riddle is solved. Thomas throws the imaginary ball back into the court and watches the game resume. The look of realisation on his face is all too apparent as the game CAN BE HEARD taking place out of shot.
There is a ball, there are rackets and this is a real game of tennis. What we have seen up until this point is the photographer's perception of reality: the murder, the mysterious woman in the park, the photographic evidence and the body.
The following exchange between Hemmings and Redgrave is the key to the film:
Thomas: Don't let's spoil everything, we've only just met.
Jane: No, we haven't met. You've never seen me.
My extended review of the film
sol-31 August 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Spoilers; limited review due to word limit.
This film is an intense character study, essentially about emptiness in life. Thomas feels that everything in his life is superficial, and he wants to do something more than just take photographs. If he could solve a mystery, then his life would have a definite purpose. Therefore, he sees what he wants to see, and invents a mystery from one of his photographs.
What he sees is essentially part of his imagination. There are many factors that indicate this, such as his friend the artist who mentions that a detail in a painting "is like a clue in a detective story". Thomas plays detective in the film, however life is full of distractions, and ultimately he is unable to solve the mystery.
Time management is a key idea through the film, as Thomas is a procrastinator. He knows that there are many things that he needs to do, and he uses them as an excuse at one point, saying "I haven't even got a couple of minutes to have my appendix out", even though he fiddles with a coin, and just before that he had visited some friends. He has lost his dedication to his work. He does things because they need to be done, not because he wants to. He indulges himself in antiques, then on the spur of the moment, goes to a park.
Ultimately, Thomas wants to escape from his life. Reminders of escapism follow him about, such as a sign that a protester places in his car, with the words "go away" on it. The sign later falls out and is run over by another car, indicating how futile trying to escape life is. He meets an antiques dealer who wants out her job, and from her he purchases a propeller - a device that can be used to fly away with.
Thomas is often presented in an isolated environment, whether it be running down alleyways or wandering through a park. He is removed from the world, with no real friends or family. At one point he says that he has a wife, then he changes his mind and says that they just have kids together. Then, he admits that he has no children, and that his wife is not beautiful, but just easy to live with. Following this, he changes his mind once again and says that she is not easy to live with. Thomas wants a family, but he does not have one. He wants a wife (who need not be beautiful, since the models who he photographs are superficially beautiful) and children.
Thomas feels that his life is empty, and his photography - his work - has replaced his sex life. In one scene he photographs a model by sitting on top of her in a sexual position, and the things he calls out could be used as expressions during sex. However this is not pleasure for him - it is work. He later indulges himself with group sex, but after watching two of his friends making love, he realises how meaningless sexuality is for him.
For all these reasons, Thomas sees what he wants to see - a possible murder - something that he can take credit for. Much of the film involves this notion of seeing what one wants, which is represented by the mimes. The mimes are contrasted in the opening sequence against the gloomy England workers. At nighttime, Thomas visits the park where he photographed the supposed murder, and lo and behold, a corpse is lying there. This scene is unrealistic, as it is highly unlikely that someone would leave a corpse lying around, or that no one else had spotted it yet, however Thomas is seeing what he wants to.
After visiting the park, he tries to find someone who he can confide in about the body. He treks through a building where a rock band is playing along his journey. The fans are mostly just standing or sitting around with blank expressions. Their lives are as empty as Thomas feels that his is. They idolise rock musicians who are crazy and smash their guitars. From there, he goes to a party for sophisticated, upper-middle class people, however they are mostly smoking dope and wasting away their time. Their lives are empty too.
In the morning, Thomas visits the park again, but he is no longer as excited as he was before, and this is shown through his slow pacing and long distance photography. After seeing that others have empty lives - and are happy with them - he is unsure if he should be happy too. In the park, there is no longer the body, as he not seeing what he wants to see anymore.
The mimes return, and Thomas watches them 'play' tennis. The camera follows the imaginary ball around. The mimes seem so happy, and therefore, Thomas joins in when he has a chance. After he throws "the ball" back to them, we can hear tennis rackets hitting a ball. Thomas is still alone and isolated, even though he is finally seeing what he wants to see. His life is still empty. There is not much of a resolution to the film, and from what there is, it is bleak, but as a character study, it is engaging stuff.
The technical side of the film is great - especially the sound in some scenes, showing how isolated Thomas is that he can hear soft sounds. Every shot is set up with care, and Hemmings is superb. 'Blowup' is not the type of film that will satisfy every taste, but it has quite a lot to it.
This film is an intense character study, essentially about emptiness in life. Thomas feels that everything in his life is superficial, and he wants to do something more than just take photographs. If he could solve a mystery, then his life would have a definite purpose. Therefore, he sees what he wants to see, and invents a mystery from one of his photographs.
What he sees is essentially part of his imagination. There are many factors that indicate this, such as his friend the artist who mentions that a detail in a painting "is like a clue in a detective story". Thomas plays detective in the film, however life is full of distractions, and ultimately he is unable to solve the mystery.
Time management is a key idea through the film, as Thomas is a procrastinator. He knows that there are many things that he needs to do, and he uses them as an excuse at one point, saying "I haven't even got a couple of minutes to have my appendix out", even though he fiddles with a coin, and just before that he had visited some friends. He has lost his dedication to his work. He does things because they need to be done, not because he wants to. He indulges himself in antiques, then on the spur of the moment, goes to a park.
Ultimately, Thomas wants to escape from his life. Reminders of escapism follow him about, such as a sign that a protester places in his car, with the words "go away" on it. The sign later falls out and is run over by another car, indicating how futile trying to escape life is. He meets an antiques dealer who wants out her job, and from her he purchases a propeller - a device that can be used to fly away with.
Thomas is often presented in an isolated environment, whether it be running down alleyways or wandering through a park. He is removed from the world, with no real friends or family. At one point he says that he has a wife, then he changes his mind and says that they just have kids together. Then, he admits that he has no children, and that his wife is not beautiful, but just easy to live with. Following this, he changes his mind once again and says that she is not easy to live with. Thomas wants a family, but he does not have one. He wants a wife (who need not be beautiful, since the models who he photographs are superficially beautiful) and children.
Thomas feels that his life is empty, and his photography - his work - has replaced his sex life. In one scene he photographs a model by sitting on top of her in a sexual position, and the things he calls out could be used as expressions during sex. However this is not pleasure for him - it is work. He later indulges himself with group sex, but after watching two of his friends making love, he realises how meaningless sexuality is for him.
For all these reasons, Thomas sees what he wants to see - a possible murder - something that he can take credit for. Much of the film involves this notion of seeing what one wants, which is represented by the mimes. The mimes are contrasted in the opening sequence against the gloomy England workers. At nighttime, Thomas visits the park where he photographed the supposed murder, and lo and behold, a corpse is lying there. This scene is unrealistic, as it is highly unlikely that someone would leave a corpse lying around, or that no one else had spotted it yet, however Thomas is seeing what he wants to.
After visiting the park, he tries to find someone who he can confide in about the body. He treks through a building where a rock band is playing along his journey. The fans are mostly just standing or sitting around with blank expressions. Their lives are as empty as Thomas feels that his is. They idolise rock musicians who are crazy and smash their guitars. From there, he goes to a party for sophisticated, upper-middle class people, however they are mostly smoking dope and wasting away their time. Their lives are empty too.
In the morning, Thomas visits the park again, but he is no longer as excited as he was before, and this is shown through his slow pacing and long distance photography. After seeing that others have empty lives - and are happy with them - he is unsure if he should be happy too. In the park, there is no longer the body, as he not seeing what he wants to see anymore.
The mimes return, and Thomas watches them 'play' tennis. The camera follows the imaginary ball around. The mimes seem so happy, and therefore, Thomas joins in when he has a chance. After he throws "the ball" back to them, we can hear tennis rackets hitting a ball. Thomas is still alone and isolated, even though he is finally seeing what he wants to see. His life is still empty. There is not much of a resolution to the film, and from what there is, it is bleak, but as a character study, it is engaging stuff.
The technical side of the film is great - especially the sound in some scenes, showing how isolated Thomas is that he can hear soft sounds. Every shot is set up with care, and Hemmings is superb. 'Blowup' is not the type of film that will satisfy every taste, but it has quite a lot to it.
Undeservingly hated.
darth-chico4 October 2001
It is hard to find people who will readily defend this movie these days. It is commonly thought of as pretentious, overly artsy, and lacking coherence. If you don't connect with the film that is fine, but to call it trash is a mistake. Many people try to pin this as being a 60's statement. It is not however. Antonioni was a veteran filmmaker who got lumped in with the new wave scene because he was around at the same time. This was initially a hit, though that probably had little to due with it's actual merits as a film.
It is the story of an artist. The photographer Thomas, who has lost all feeling of passion for his work. He hangs around London taking fashion photographs. He is cruel to his models and other women in his life. He seems interested in other's art but cannot be roused to create any of his own. He will soon be releasing a book of photographs, all of which are uninspired photos of the poor, sick and dying. While in the park he takes a series of shots he hopes will be a nice epilogue to his collection. They are of a couple playing in the park. These pictures, however, are not what they seem.
Antonioni makes great use of insinuation. He tantalizes us with the possibility of what could have been. In us he insights the same passion that is in Thomas. In the end, I don't think he disappears so much as he returns. He does not return as the same person, though. He is changed by the passion for his art and the challenge of reality. He is no longer playing the game of catch the murderer, or faking the motions of being a photographer, or posing as a deep artist by taking sad pictures. He is now truly inspired.
Today many people hate Thomas. And with good reason. He is definitely not a nice person, but he is one of my favorite anti-heroes. There is a scene many people may miss. It is short. He is driving in his car, I think after speeding off from some want to be models, he turns on the radio, and starts bobbing his head and making funny faces to the music. This is the scene that redeems his early self to me. When he is alone, we see he still has an innocent streak despite his cruelty.
All that being said, I only recommend this to the more serious moviegoer. 10/10
It is the story of an artist. The photographer Thomas, who has lost all feeling of passion for his work. He hangs around London taking fashion photographs. He is cruel to his models and other women in his life. He seems interested in other's art but cannot be roused to create any of his own. He will soon be releasing a book of photographs, all of which are uninspired photos of the poor, sick and dying. While in the park he takes a series of shots he hopes will be a nice epilogue to his collection. They are of a couple playing in the park. These pictures, however, are not what they seem.
Antonioni makes great use of insinuation. He tantalizes us with the possibility of what could have been. In us he insights the same passion that is in Thomas. In the end, I don't think he disappears so much as he returns. He does not return as the same person, though. He is changed by the passion for his art and the challenge of reality. He is no longer playing the game of catch the murderer, or faking the motions of being a photographer, or posing as a deep artist by taking sad pictures. He is now truly inspired.
Today many people hate Thomas. And with good reason. He is definitely not a nice person, but he is one of my favorite anti-heroes. There is a scene many people may miss. It is short. He is driving in his car, I think after speeding off from some want to be models, he turns on the radio, and starts bobbing his head and making funny faces to the music. This is the scene that redeems his early self to me. When he is alone, we see he still has an innocent streak despite his cruelty.
All that being said, I only recommend this to the more serious moviegoer. 10/10
Rated "Why?"
eye328 July 1999
Only film schools, screenwriting classes, and 60s-trivia freaks keep this flick from dissolving in the can.
It has one clever notion - a photographer uncovering an assassination - but goes absolutely nowhere and does absolutely nothing. Antonioni wasn't a storyteller; he took a short story and surrounded it with fluff that's supposed to be "film" or "cinema" (God, I hate those words!)
I don't want a study, I want a story!
Know the bit where Vanessa Redgrave disappears into the crowd, and we can't see how? Take another look at how the passing crowd overlaps her: her body shifts angles at an unnatural speed - a classic mark of sloppy editing.
I mention that paragraph above to point out that this movie isn't all that clever - except to hold "film students" and professors constantly agog at its (and their own) pretensions for over 30 years now. Grow up, already!
For me, the only interesting part was - no, not the proto-Led-Zeppelin Yardbirds - but something pointed out by critic Roger Ebert: in its day, "Blowup" was a scandal in its day for its supposed frank sexuality. Today Ebert finds it notable because the photographer treats his models like garbage and they just take it, which nobody remarked on back then.
Few have remarked on it since.
It has one clever notion - a photographer uncovering an assassination - but goes absolutely nowhere and does absolutely nothing. Antonioni wasn't a storyteller; he took a short story and surrounded it with fluff that's supposed to be "film" or "cinema" (God, I hate those words!)
I don't want a study, I want a story!
Know the bit where Vanessa Redgrave disappears into the crowd, and we can't see how? Take another look at how the passing crowd overlaps her: her body shifts angles at an unnatural speed - a classic mark of sloppy editing.
I mention that paragraph above to point out that this movie isn't all that clever - except to hold "film students" and professors constantly agog at its (and their own) pretensions for over 30 years now. Grow up, already!
For me, the only interesting part was - no, not the proto-Led-Zeppelin Yardbirds - but something pointed out by critic Roger Ebert: in its day, "Blowup" was a scandal in its day for its supposed frank sexuality. Today Ebert finds it notable because the photographer treats his models like garbage and they just take it, which nobody remarked on back then.
Few have remarked on it since.
What the Eye Truly Sees...
nycritic9 March 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Is an image really there when you see it in closer zoom-ins? Or does it become even more indistinct, confusing the eye even more? Was there or wasn't there a crime being committed in the middle of the day in a London park? Are there any answers, and is this whole "mystery" even worth even investigating? These are questions that are the root of the matter, and Michaelangelo Antonioni toys with what happens, and what doesn't happen, what is, what is not, what is real, and what is unreal. The story, if there truly is one, moves slowly and deliberately: David Hemmings portrays an unsympathetic fashion photographer -- he is credited as Thomas but we never hear him called this way -- who seems to wallow in his own prowess as a photographer. He treats women like mincemeat -- to him, they're only objects for his lust as when he meets Veruschka and practically rapes her through a photo shoot -- or mannequins who can't pose worth anything and only fuel his anger. He also has a painter friend who's girlfriend (Sarah Miles) seems to have a certain interest in him, but whom he ignores, like all other women who come in contact with him. After what turns to be a lousy photo shoot he does some meandering and comes to a park, and from a distance witnesses a woman and a man (Vanessa Redgrave and Ronan O'Casey), in an apparent, romantic interlude, enjoying the day and the semi-privacy within the park's confines. He takes pictures, walks closer, takes more pictures, walks even closer... almost predatory so, much like a voyeur.
That is, until she sees him and demands he return to her the film roll -- he can't take pictures just like that, and is against her consent. He declines so and gives her a different film (after almost having her beg for it). And a little after halfway through the story, he develops his film... and sees what looks to be like a body on the ground, the outline of a man with a gun hidden within some thick bushes. And her reaction, full of angry surprise.
Has he truly photographed a murder in progress? Is he privy to more than he should be, and could this have some danger in store for him? Antonioni toys with the audience, never letting in on Redgrave's character, but letting us experience the world through Hemmings untrustworthy eyes and superficial values that momentarily seem to have been thrown out of whack due to this disquieting incident. The problem is, what Hemmings sees may or may not be true -- a classic shot where he tries to find Redgrave and he sees her in the middle of a walking crowd and she literally makes an about-face and disappears from view. Just like that. And his grasp of the mystery emanating from his brush with her at the park, like even Hemmings at the end, is gone, dissolved into the grass.
This is not a film for people looking for action and adventure as quite the opposite happens here. It's a film that echoes the French New Wave as it tells a story about an antihero who has a moment of crisis and decides to (maybe) take action, and is left suspended at the end. Influential for Coppola's THE CONVERSATION, this is a fascinating puzzle which is missing its last, vital piece.
That is, until she sees him and demands he return to her the film roll -- he can't take pictures just like that, and is against her consent. He declines so and gives her a different film (after almost having her beg for it). And a little after halfway through the story, he develops his film... and sees what looks to be like a body on the ground, the outline of a man with a gun hidden within some thick bushes. And her reaction, full of angry surprise.
Has he truly photographed a murder in progress? Is he privy to more than he should be, and could this have some danger in store for him? Antonioni toys with the audience, never letting in on Redgrave's character, but letting us experience the world through Hemmings untrustworthy eyes and superficial values that momentarily seem to have been thrown out of whack due to this disquieting incident. The problem is, what Hemmings sees may or may not be true -- a classic shot where he tries to find Redgrave and he sees her in the middle of a walking crowd and she literally makes an about-face and disappears from view. Just like that. And his grasp of the mystery emanating from his brush with her at the park, like even Hemmings at the end, is gone, dissolved into the grass.
This is not a film for people looking for action and adventure as quite the opposite happens here. It's a film that echoes the French New Wave as it tells a story about an antihero who has a moment of crisis and decides to (maybe) take action, and is left suspended at the end. Influential for Coppola's THE CONVERSATION, this is a fascinating puzzle which is missing its last, vital piece.
Beauty in the sound
ellkew8 August 2002
This film is remarkable in many respects but for me it is one of those rare films that uses sound to tell a story and create fabulous atmosphere. The wind in the park is something that stays with you long after the film has finished. Antonioni liked to control the environment around him to tell his stories. He used sound to contribute to the overall design of the film. Also he likes to create a character out of the landscape. Often in Antonioni films a street corner will stay in shot long after the characters have left frame. It is as though the imprint of the story is still there and he lets us wait. Maybe if we waited long enough another couple would walk in and we would follow them. Blowup is a great looking film thanks in part to Carlo di Palma's photography. Often I think cities look good when they are stylised which is what Antonioni does. We have Swinging London with empty streets and strange carnivals. We are left to think about what is in front of us. Is it all a game? Did we see what we thought we saw? A good film asks questions to the audience and does not pander to them as so many modern films do. This is a great film that nourishes the viewer. See it at the cinema to get the true experience.
I really expected to hate this film...
AlsExGal18 April 2021
.... because, for one, the sixties is just not my decade for film. Generally, films of that era feel free of the production code for the first time in 30 years and make sex the point of the film, and they just seem archaic today. The intended "shock value" sometimes gets in the way of what would have been a good film with the distraction removed. Also, I was told by some people that this film was slow and boring. Instead, I found it intriguing.
There is quite a bit going on at several levels. David Hemmings as Thomas, a fashion photographer, goes to great lengths to get gritty photographs for a book he is making. He even spends the night in a homeless encampment. He is always looking for interesting subjects, but at the very beginning of the film, he passes by a carload of mimes in various costumes, somebody who appears to be a member of the Queen's guard just walking down the street, and a group of men in native African dress. He doesn't notice them. He treats his models like objects. They bore him. When two girls enter his office and want him to photograph them he shoos them away. Then when he tries to buy something in a shop, the shopkeeper shoos him away. He doesn't get the connection. To anything. Unless it is in a photograph. And it is in some photographs of a couple having some kind of secretive romantic moment in a secluded tree surrounded glen of a public park that he finds something that jars him. But he has to see it in a "blow up" of the photographs he took to realize there is something else there that he never noticed. And you are an hour into the film before this happens.
He goes to confirm what he thought. It is true. He tries to get somebody to help him. They ignore him. Ultimately he seems to be like John Sims in the 1928 film The Crowd. The next morning, stripped of any evidence to the contrary, he just gives in to the false narrative signified by him throwing an imaginary tennis ball to some mimes who are faking a tennis game.
In an American film he would have been shadowed by the perpetrators, taken captive and brought to their lair, told the significance of what he saw, and just before he is killed by them, the police would break in, save him, and capture the bad guys. This is not an American film.
There is quite a bit going on at several levels. David Hemmings as Thomas, a fashion photographer, goes to great lengths to get gritty photographs for a book he is making. He even spends the night in a homeless encampment. He is always looking for interesting subjects, but at the very beginning of the film, he passes by a carload of mimes in various costumes, somebody who appears to be a member of the Queen's guard just walking down the street, and a group of men in native African dress. He doesn't notice them. He treats his models like objects. They bore him. When two girls enter his office and want him to photograph them he shoos them away. Then when he tries to buy something in a shop, the shopkeeper shoos him away. He doesn't get the connection. To anything. Unless it is in a photograph. And it is in some photographs of a couple having some kind of secretive romantic moment in a secluded tree surrounded glen of a public park that he finds something that jars him. But he has to see it in a "blow up" of the photographs he took to realize there is something else there that he never noticed. And you are an hour into the film before this happens.
He goes to confirm what he thought. It is true. He tries to get somebody to help him. They ignore him. Ultimately he seems to be like John Sims in the 1928 film The Crowd. The next morning, stripped of any evidence to the contrary, he just gives in to the false narrative signified by him throwing an imaginary tennis ball to some mimes who are faking a tennis game.
In an American film he would have been shadowed by the perpetrators, taken captive and brought to their lair, told the significance of what he saw, and just before he is killed by them, the police would break in, save him, and capture the bad guys. This is not an American film.
Its all about tennis
David_Frames27 July 2004
Or is it? I've never been that interested in who killed the man who fondled Vanessa Redgrave, what I want to know is which mime artist won the tennis match at the end? When Antonioni cuts away to Hemmings it looks like 30-15 to the bloke but that last point (a fault naturally) leaves it all wide open. Does the fact that the ball doesn't exist mean the game will be void anyway? It was recently suggested to me that none of it happened anyway because Hemmings smokes far too much and probably can't tell fantasy from reality. Perhaps we, the audience don't exist and it's the film itself which is a collective fantasy - the projection of Redgrave's unconscious mind. If this is the case then none of us have the right to comment on it any further.
As for who killed the older man, it's obvious. It was Hemmings. He shot him you see. I thank you.
As for who killed the older man, it's obvious. It was Hemmings. He shot him you see. I thank you.
In a World of His Own...
Xstal11 December 2022
What you see is not what you get, but what you take in you may never forget, as perceptions engulf and direct what you do, are you under control, just what is guiding you? Searching for something to fill many gaps, the buttons are pressed, absorbing many snaps, dreaming of places that seem out of reach, ideas and visions from peripheries leach. A camera that captures an instant in time, could it be that someone's committed a crime, a WYSIWYG shutter abstracts and distorts, can you trust your instincts and the things they purport?
It's a wicked piece of filmmaking and gets exponentially better upon repeated developments, diffusions and confusions.
It's a wicked piece of filmmaking and gets exponentially better upon repeated developments, diffusions and confusions.
Eerie And Suspensful At Times, Indulgent And Boring At Other Times
ArmandoManuelPereira1 August 2020
I have watched Blow-Up twice now, and their is no denying that its main storyline, having to do with the murder, is eerie and suspensful. In fact, its probably what I most like about the film. Its just that some of the peripheral scenes depicting Swinging London don't always work, and can seem indulgent and distracting. Especially the one where Thomas rolls around on the studio floor with the two girls. The scene where Redgraves character comes to visit him is also a bore. So my evaluation is that its a good film, that could have been even better.
I hope you get more out of it than I did.
I_Ailurophile21 August 2022
Yes, personal opinions vary as it is when it comes to cinema; I think more than not I tend to be quite open-minded and generous. Not least with that in mind - it doesn't happen often, but every now and again I come across a film that's generally held in high regard, and for whatever reason I just don't see eye to eye with the broad consensus. Maybe something about a title rubs me the wrong way, maybe I "just don't get it"; I'm sure this happens with everyone at times. I sat to watch 'Blow-up' without any foreknowledge or expectations, and I walk away at best indifferent. There are aspects of this that I appreciate, but I just don't find it impactful in any meaningful sense. And for that lack, I'm rather taken aback.
Plot is minimal in the first place, and so meager and scattered in the first hour especially that my confidence in the picture was placed in severe jeopardy. None of the characters are very interesting; they just Are in the most bare-bones sense. Compared to the beginning of the film, by the very end we're supposed to recognize a change in protagonist Thomas, but I don't see it: he was aloof, detached, anti-social, and downright mean-spirited in the earliest scenes, and the only shift I discern is in the proportions in which these traits are exhibited later on. That's not a character arc. Set these elements aside, and most scenes are empty white noise, if not an outright hollow and/or cacophonous.
In a reflection of Thomas' occupation - and his preoccupation - there's significant emphasis in 'Blow-up' on visuals. I quite admire the costume design, hair and makeup work, the filming locations, and the set design and decoration. Carlo Di Palma's cinematography is sharp and vivid, and director Michelangelo Antonioni demonstrates a keen eye for shot composition. Between all these facets, the many vibrant colors throughout the film really pop out. Does any of this matter in a picture where the content is so blase?
I read analysis of 'Blow-up' as others have assessed, and I think "that sounds like a great movie" - only, I'm not sure we were even watching the same feature. There are good ideas here, I believe, but they don't feel connected, or fleshed out, and some seem like they're altogether injected into the wrong movie. I wish I could see this the same way other folks have, but I'm just at a loss. Clearly there are many people who check out 'Blow-up' and find it to be a compelling, rewarding picture. I'm not one of them, and even acknowledging that personal opinions and preferences vary, I don't know how I could earnestly twist discussion into a recommendation except to say, "I hope you get more out of it than I did."
Plot is minimal in the first place, and so meager and scattered in the first hour especially that my confidence in the picture was placed in severe jeopardy. None of the characters are very interesting; they just Are in the most bare-bones sense. Compared to the beginning of the film, by the very end we're supposed to recognize a change in protagonist Thomas, but I don't see it: he was aloof, detached, anti-social, and downright mean-spirited in the earliest scenes, and the only shift I discern is in the proportions in which these traits are exhibited later on. That's not a character arc. Set these elements aside, and most scenes are empty white noise, if not an outright hollow and/or cacophonous.
In a reflection of Thomas' occupation - and his preoccupation - there's significant emphasis in 'Blow-up' on visuals. I quite admire the costume design, hair and makeup work, the filming locations, and the set design and decoration. Carlo Di Palma's cinematography is sharp and vivid, and director Michelangelo Antonioni demonstrates a keen eye for shot composition. Between all these facets, the many vibrant colors throughout the film really pop out. Does any of this matter in a picture where the content is so blase?
I read analysis of 'Blow-up' as others have assessed, and I think "that sounds like a great movie" - only, I'm not sure we were even watching the same feature. There are good ideas here, I believe, but they don't feel connected, or fleshed out, and some seem like they're altogether injected into the wrong movie. I wish I could see this the same way other folks have, but I'm just at a loss. Clearly there are many people who check out 'Blow-up' and find it to be a compelling, rewarding picture. I'm not one of them, and even acknowledging that personal opinions and preferences vary, I don't know how I could earnestly twist discussion into a recommendation except to say, "I hope you get more out of it than I did."
A confusing but thought provoking film!
wonderman17 April 2003
Antonioni was not a director that worried too much about people completely understanding his films. In fact I'd bet that he actually hoped they didn't understand everything. So I did not find it strange or surprising when after finishing the movie I felt quite confused. But the movie made me think for a very long time, which in my opinion is what a good film should do. There are so many aspects to this film that if you give them a chance and think about them, they will keep you reeling for hours on possible interpretations. The first and probably most important aspect of this film dealt with love. From what I have seen of his films, love is Antonioni's favorite subject. But this love was different than that of past films; it is much more shallow and un-centered. Thomas, the photographer, is surrounded by women, he goes from one to the next without thinking twice, treating them like dogs the entire time. But he can do this and get away with it because he is a famous photographer and can make the women what they all desperately want to be, Beautiful. For The first half of the movie I honestly did not like his character whatsoever. Whereas in the past the director has chosen mainly to explore the ups and downs of married life, or the problems of being hopelessly devoted to one person, he now points the camera at the single, care free, over sexed, youth of the sixties. Half an hour into the movie I found myself wondering what the heart of the film was going to be. We were introduced to Thomas and his world, but there seemed to be no conflict driving the story forward. Then came the quasi-murder mystery. This is what is really interesting and unique about this film in my opinion. Antonioni for a while leads us to believe that the movie is going to turn into some suspense thriller, or murder mystery, but never seems to quite get there. He has all the elements ready to go, but never follows through with them. He introduces this alluring and mysterious woman who is in on the murder and then never brings her back. The murder victim is discovered, but his identity is never revealed, nor a motive given for his murder. Thomas, after a very energetic and exciting photo investigation seems to not really care too much as to what happens with the investigations results, only telling a couple of his friends who couldn't care less. Antonioni seems to have used this whole murder mystery convention as some sort of glue to hold the rest of the real story together. The story of a mindless, beauty obsessed, celebrity idolizing, drug addicted, and violence obsessed culture. Probably my favorite scene in the film is after fighting over the piece of broken guitar with the other fans; Thomas just discards his prize as garbage. Something that kept bugging me was the antique shop. I kept wondering what in the world it had to do with anything in the movie; it stuck out like a sore thumb. But I knew it that there was some major purpose or explanation for its existence in the film, and then it just kind of clicked. Upon his first entry into the Antique store Thomas encounters an angry old man who we eventually find out is not the stores real owner, the true owner is a beautiful young woman who is planning to sell the old place and travel the world in search of something new. All this stuff she owns, the gold of past cultures, is old and useless now. She has a hard time making a living because nobody wants the stuff any longer. Here is where I think Antonioni's major message is hidden: That is the way life is, it moves on constantly, things change, people die, cultures evolve and the only thing that remains in the end is nature itself. Antonioni finishes the film beautifully, Thomas stands alone in a large field of grass, the only thing heard is the wind and the trees, as the camera backs away slowly, he disappears leaving nothing but the grass blowing in the wind, for like all the antiques and all the people that created them in the past, eventually Thomas's life will end and so will the current popular culture in which he takes part. Change is life's only constant.
The best color film by Antonioni
vyto348 January 2003
This, along with L'Eclisse, is one of the two best Antonioni movies. It is very different from his earlier films in that it is much less overtly intellectual and is purportedly a thriller. However, it is no more a standard thriller than is The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. Instead, it is an examination of reality and illusion and an exploration of what distinguishes the one from the other. The movie has an exceptional lyrical quality to it, which of course is also not associated with thrillers. The color is gorgeous and Vanessa Redgrave is a total surprise. I have generally not found anything appealing about her, but in this movie, master-magician Antonioni transformed her into a ravishing beauty. Sarah Miles is also very sexy as the next-door neighbor. Young Jane Birkin plays a groupie who gets to roll around nude in the photographer's backdrop paper. As in L'Eclisse, the final scene is stunningly poetic.
Fascinating 1966 film still pertinent 40 years later
john_pingree14 July 2004
Although released in 1966, BLOWUP is remarkably pertinent today, nearly 40 years later. Its theme of reality/illusion, with people seeing or not seeing what they want not to see, is still pertinent in this era of "missing" weapons of mass destruction.
Also, the movie's jaded view of a society distracted from reality by random sex, drugs and immediate sensation is still sooooooo true today.
The Mod fashions for the photo shoots look bizarre to us now -- but you'll see equally bizarre fashions in VOGUE, at least the European issues. And what's wrong with David Hemmings' white jeans?
Also, the movie's jaded view of a society distracted from reality by random sex, drugs and immediate sensation is still sooooooo true today.
The Mod fashions for the photo shoots look bizarre to us now -- but you'll see equally bizarre fashions in VOGUE, at least the European issues. And what's wrong with David Hemmings' white jeans?
Ingenious as well as arresting picture about a mod photographer caught into a twisted intrigue
ma-cortes12 April 2015
Intelligent and provoking suspense movie with magnificent acting by David Hemmings and perfect direction by Antonioni . Known author Julio Cortázar wrote the original short story on which Blow-Up is based . It deals with a mod London photographer called Thomas (David Hemmings , though photographer David Bailey was also considered for the character) seems to find something very suspicious in the shots he has taken of a mysterious beauty in a desolate park . Thomas carries out a deep investigating and he discovers surprising results . As Thomas refines and re-refines the photographs , as he interprets what he sees in different ways and then discovers a shattering revelation . Later on , a woman (Vanessa Redgrave) gets in his studio and attempts to seduce him out the snapshot .
Michelangelo Antonioni's first British film , resulting to be a compelling examination into what is or not reality . This interesting flick turns out to be a powerful statement about pop-culture , privacy , guilty and casual discovery ; being ¨photography¨ as the basis and theme of the film . The picture contains thrills , symbolism , emotion , thought-provoking issues and plot twists during the last reel . It has some nudism , reportedly the first British feature film to show full frontal female nudity . As the picture was really censored and a way of bypassing the Production Code , the powerful MGM created "Premiere Productions" , a dummy company . The title of the original short story by Julio Cortázar , who has a cameo , translates into English as "The Spit Of The Devil" . Nice acting by David Hemmings as a photographer who takes a simple snapshot resulting in amazing consequences . However , Terence Stamp was originally cast as Thomas , but was dropped two weeks before shooting began in favor of the then-unknown player Hemmings . His role is loosely based on the careers of Swinging London's ace fashion photographers David Bailey and Terence Donovan . Support cast is frankly well such as Sarah Miles , John Castle , Gillian Hills , Tsai Chin , Peter Bowles and Jane Birkin .
Evocative and appropriate cinematography , rich in colour , by Carlo Di Palma , Woody Allen's ordinary cameraman . However , Antonioni unhappy with the color of the grass in Maryon Park , London , had it sprayed green so he could re-shoot the scene . Jazzy musical score by Herbie Hancock , the film contains a rare performance of The Yardbirds during the period when Jimmy Page and Jeff Beck were both in the band . Being well produced by MGM , this production company did not have to cut the full frontal nudity or other sexually explicit scenes and maintained all rights to the film, when the film opened to rave reviews and excellent box office, this defeat was considered the final blow for the Production Code's credibility and was replaced with a ratings system less than two years later.
This well-made motion picture was stunningly directed by Michelangelo Antonioni . The picture achieved success at box office , it allowed him to go abroad and to work on international scale in English language : Zabriskie Point (1970) in the USA as well as Professione: reporter or The passenger (1975) with Jack Nicholson and Maria Schneider . Antonioni's initial films dealt with neo-realism , reflecting his bourgeois roots like in his first movie Story of a love affair (1950) or La Signora Senza Camelie (1953) or The friends (1955). His biggest success was the trilogy about non-communication and silent with many layered meanings such as The adventure (1960), The night (1961), and The eclipse (1962), with which he won several prizes . His films frequently starred Monica Vitti or other statuesque actresses . A stroke in 1985 severely inhibited his productivity until his death in 2007 . ¨Blow-up¨ is essential and indispensable seeing for thriller and suspense lovers .
Michelangelo Antonioni's first British film , resulting to be a compelling examination into what is or not reality . This interesting flick turns out to be a powerful statement about pop-culture , privacy , guilty and casual discovery ; being ¨photography¨ as the basis and theme of the film . The picture contains thrills , symbolism , emotion , thought-provoking issues and plot twists during the last reel . It has some nudism , reportedly the first British feature film to show full frontal female nudity . As the picture was really censored and a way of bypassing the Production Code , the powerful MGM created "Premiere Productions" , a dummy company . The title of the original short story by Julio Cortázar , who has a cameo , translates into English as "The Spit Of The Devil" . Nice acting by David Hemmings as a photographer who takes a simple snapshot resulting in amazing consequences . However , Terence Stamp was originally cast as Thomas , but was dropped two weeks before shooting began in favor of the then-unknown player Hemmings . His role is loosely based on the careers of Swinging London's ace fashion photographers David Bailey and Terence Donovan . Support cast is frankly well such as Sarah Miles , John Castle , Gillian Hills , Tsai Chin , Peter Bowles and Jane Birkin .
Evocative and appropriate cinematography , rich in colour , by Carlo Di Palma , Woody Allen's ordinary cameraman . However , Antonioni unhappy with the color of the grass in Maryon Park , London , had it sprayed green so he could re-shoot the scene . Jazzy musical score by Herbie Hancock , the film contains a rare performance of The Yardbirds during the period when Jimmy Page and Jeff Beck were both in the band . Being well produced by MGM , this production company did not have to cut the full frontal nudity or other sexually explicit scenes and maintained all rights to the film, when the film opened to rave reviews and excellent box office, this defeat was considered the final blow for the Production Code's credibility and was replaced with a ratings system less than two years later.
This well-made motion picture was stunningly directed by Michelangelo Antonioni . The picture achieved success at box office , it allowed him to go abroad and to work on international scale in English language : Zabriskie Point (1970) in the USA as well as Professione: reporter or The passenger (1975) with Jack Nicholson and Maria Schneider . Antonioni's initial films dealt with neo-realism , reflecting his bourgeois roots like in his first movie Story of a love affair (1950) or La Signora Senza Camelie (1953) or The friends (1955). His biggest success was the trilogy about non-communication and silent with many layered meanings such as The adventure (1960), The night (1961), and The eclipse (1962), with which he won several prizes . His films frequently starred Monica Vitti or other statuesque actresses . A stroke in 1985 severely inhibited his productivity until his death in 2007 . ¨Blow-up¨ is essential and indispensable seeing for thriller and suspense lovers .
one of 10 best films ever
LesHalles8 July 2002
Warning: Spoilers
For me this is one of the 10 best films ever made.
It is certainly an art film for the dedicated appreciater of film, not a film at all for the consumer of Hollywood entertainment. It is a film that makes you think, as you can see from the numerous long comments; a film in which the viewer has to work to appreciate as a participant.
Antonioni's films are slow,langorous, visual, driven neither by plot nor by character, but by the unfolding revelation of the perception of our situation itself. In this they are unique, and represent a challenge to the viewer, to drop the expectations of fantasy gratification that film usually exploits. If the viewer can lose the speed of modern life and just flow along with the film, much deeper rewards are to be found here, as attested by the many posted reviews.
When sound was added to film, many filmmakers were worried that the artistic value of film as visual motion would be lost to the complexities of text, which has largely been the case. Antonioni's films, however, have explored and deepened the visual aspect of film as a means for making profound communications. The dialogue doesn't, for the most part, "tell" anything about the message, but is merely a supporting aspect of the visual metaphor. His last film, the superb "Beyond the Clouds", is more talky and gives some verbal clues about Antonioni's world view.
I feel that Antonioni's films are artistic and spiritual landmarks of cinema; but of all his films I have seen, this is the most accessible, with the most conventional presentation, plot, etc.
The rest of this includes my interpretation of the film and might include spoilers.
A lot of the comments here are excellent. I will just add that for me, the film is about our attempt to observe and understand our world through our placement of our attention. The photographer is just us as the observer; his professional work reflects our customary perception of the world through pre-conception, kitsch, convention. It is meaningless, exploitive, alienating, even cruel.
On the other hand, when he observes reality rather than artificiality, when he turns up the intensity and magnification until things are no longer recognizable, he is seeing the essence of things and not his conceptual projections. He discovers a crime- for me this murder is a metaphor for the murder of real perception, along with real feeling, by a society which alienates us from our own natural ability to see things as they are.
From here, the film goes even deeper into the meaning of this crime, and how one can live with it. Yet the film never gets into any obvious deep speculations; it makes its point completely in the domain of visual images and metaphors that also serve as plot devices, until the enigmatic conclusion of the film.
Like any great work of art, the meaning of the film lies in the symbols and metaphors and cannot be reduced to words; the success of the film lies in the tremendous emotional impact it has on its viewers who probably often, like myself the first time I saw it, don't even realize it has such deep levels to it. Antonioni has constructed something that has a life of its own, with the ability to reflect profound meanings that arise from an interaction of the film and the viewer.
It is certainly an art film for the dedicated appreciater of film, not a film at all for the consumer of Hollywood entertainment. It is a film that makes you think, as you can see from the numerous long comments; a film in which the viewer has to work to appreciate as a participant.
Antonioni's films are slow,langorous, visual, driven neither by plot nor by character, but by the unfolding revelation of the perception of our situation itself. In this they are unique, and represent a challenge to the viewer, to drop the expectations of fantasy gratification that film usually exploits. If the viewer can lose the speed of modern life and just flow along with the film, much deeper rewards are to be found here, as attested by the many posted reviews.
When sound was added to film, many filmmakers were worried that the artistic value of film as visual motion would be lost to the complexities of text, which has largely been the case. Antonioni's films, however, have explored and deepened the visual aspect of film as a means for making profound communications. The dialogue doesn't, for the most part, "tell" anything about the message, but is merely a supporting aspect of the visual metaphor. His last film, the superb "Beyond the Clouds", is more talky and gives some verbal clues about Antonioni's world view.
I feel that Antonioni's films are artistic and spiritual landmarks of cinema; but of all his films I have seen, this is the most accessible, with the most conventional presentation, plot, etc.
The rest of this includes my interpretation of the film and might include spoilers.
A lot of the comments here are excellent. I will just add that for me, the film is about our attempt to observe and understand our world through our placement of our attention. The photographer is just us as the observer; his professional work reflects our customary perception of the world through pre-conception, kitsch, convention. It is meaningless, exploitive, alienating, even cruel.
On the other hand, when he observes reality rather than artificiality, when he turns up the intensity and magnification until things are no longer recognizable, he is seeing the essence of things and not his conceptual projections. He discovers a crime- for me this murder is a metaphor for the murder of real perception, along with real feeling, by a society which alienates us from our own natural ability to see things as they are.
From here, the film goes even deeper into the meaning of this crime, and how one can live with it. Yet the film never gets into any obvious deep speculations; it makes its point completely in the domain of visual images and metaphors that also serve as plot devices, until the enigmatic conclusion of the film.
Like any great work of art, the meaning of the film lies in the symbols and metaphors and cannot be reduced to words; the success of the film lies in the tremendous emotional impact it has on its viewers who probably often, like myself the first time I saw it, don't even realize it has such deep levels to it. Antonioni has constructed something that has a life of its own, with the ability to reflect profound meanings that arise from an interaction of the film and the viewer.
Here -- let me help.
FilmSnobby17 August 2004
Feel free to ignore the smart-alleck comments from the teenagers here. *Blow-Up* is a classic film -- not a masterpiece, but a very influential movie that still holds up. Let's clear the air a bit by saying at once that Antonioni's symbolism is meant to be shallow: it's as shallow as David Hemmings' fashion photographer and his milieu. Antonioni is by no means trying to pull a fast one on you, so don't feel like you're the king of the world if you "figure it out". *Blow-Up* is a movie whose techniques are all on the surface, as befits the Swinging London scene in which it was made. The question is: how do you respond to it? If the comments here are any guide, it would seem that at least half the viewers of today have put all their eggs in the symbolism basket and have therefore claimed a triumphant superiority to the film. But that's okay -- in the Sixties, the kids assumed that Antonioni was simply digging their scene. These very different responses tend to strengthen the film's claim to enduring importance rather than the reverse. The movie somehow manages to be smarter than every audience that happens upon it.
If anything, the original audience of *Blow-Up* was on the more correct track. The movie earns demerits due to its hypocrisy: Antonioni DOES dig this scene, no matter how much he pretends to excoriate it by peopling the film with shallow nitwits. At least these nitwits aren't stumbling around in the malaise inhabited by the director's upper-class sad-sacks in his earlier films *L'Avventura* and *La Notte*. It becomes clear pretty quickly that Antonioni was seduced by the wild freedom of London's denizens, as the generally light mood of *Blow-Up* suggests. The director's usually trenchant commentary seems rote in this film, and the misery-index is low compared to his earlier work. But to be seduced by the Sixties is better than having exploited the Sixties, as Mike Nichols did with his *Graduate*.
(And as Kubrick was soon to do with *A Clockwork Orange*, whose main character Alex bears no small resemblance to Hemmings' arrogant, misogynistic photog.)
And unlike Antonioni's earlier upper-crust anti-heroes (or whatever one calls them), this film's anti-hero actually possesses constructive skills. Much of the film's famous centerpiece -- the gradual revelation of an inadvertently photographed murder -- consists of Hemmings eventually arriving, bit by tedious bit, at his discovery by virtue of his own talents in the darkroom. Imagine if Gabriel Ferzetti had taken this much effort to find his missing girlfriend in *L'Avventura*! It's as if Antonioni is conceding the overall positive value of these Swinging London kids as compared to the ineffectual bourgeois glamorpusses, trapped in their eggshells of ego, in his older films. Granted, we'll end up disappointed with how Hemmings acts upon his discoveries, but the film makes it clear that this is not entirely his fault. Whenever Antonioni shakes a disapproving finger at the characters' actions (cf. the pot-party scene, the "orgy" scene, etc.), we don't buy it, because everybody -- including the director -- is simply having too much fun. Decadence, after all, does not necessarily portend the Downfall of Civilization: sometimes, decadence is merely hip. And that's okay! Lighten up, Michelangelo!
He's on much firmer ground when delineating the paranoia uniquely endemic in our modern civilization. The movie has several classic sequences that are downright spooky, including any of the scenes at that deserted park with its ceaselessly whispering trees. Occasionally, Hemmings is trailed by shadowy figures. And the emergence of the killer's face in the bushes of the park, after Hemmings has blown up the photo, connotes the paranoia of post-Dealey Plaza conspiracy theories. It comes as no surprise that Hitchcock was deeply impressed with this movie, concerned as it is with the Master's own laundry-list of modern-day problems such as surveillance, selfishness, greed, conspiracy, murder, sexy girls, and voyeurism.
But hey kids, by all means stick with more honest productions like, say, *The Lord of the Rings*, wherein the moral problems are solved far in advance.
If anything, the original audience of *Blow-Up* was on the more correct track. The movie earns demerits due to its hypocrisy: Antonioni DOES dig this scene, no matter how much he pretends to excoriate it by peopling the film with shallow nitwits. At least these nitwits aren't stumbling around in the malaise inhabited by the director's upper-class sad-sacks in his earlier films *L'Avventura* and *La Notte*. It becomes clear pretty quickly that Antonioni was seduced by the wild freedom of London's denizens, as the generally light mood of *Blow-Up* suggests. The director's usually trenchant commentary seems rote in this film, and the misery-index is low compared to his earlier work. But to be seduced by the Sixties is better than having exploited the Sixties, as Mike Nichols did with his *Graduate*.
(And as Kubrick was soon to do with *A Clockwork Orange*, whose main character Alex bears no small resemblance to Hemmings' arrogant, misogynistic photog.)
And unlike Antonioni's earlier upper-crust anti-heroes (or whatever one calls them), this film's anti-hero actually possesses constructive skills. Much of the film's famous centerpiece -- the gradual revelation of an inadvertently photographed murder -- consists of Hemmings eventually arriving, bit by tedious bit, at his discovery by virtue of his own talents in the darkroom. Imagine if Gabriel Ferzetti had taken this much effort to find his missing girlfriend in *L'Avventura*! It's as if Antonioni is conceding the overall positive value of these Swinging London kids as compared to the ineffectual bourgeois glamorpusses, trapped in their eggshells of ego, in his older films. Granted, we'll end up disappointed with how Hemmings acts upon his discoveries, but the film makes it clear that this is not entirely his fault. Whenever Antonioni shakes a disapproving finger at the characters' actions (cf. the pot-party scene, the "orgy" scene, etc.), we don't buy it, because everybody -- including the director -- is simply having too much fun. Decadence, after all, does not necessarily portend the Downfall of Civilization: sometimes, decadence is merely hip. And that's okay! Lighten up, Michelangelo!
He's on much firmer ground when delineating the paranoia uniquely endemic in our modern civilization. The movie has several classic sequences that are downright spooky, including any of the scenes at that deserted park with its ceaselessly whispering trees. Occasionally, Hemmings is trailed by shadowy figures. And the emergence of the killer's face in the bushes of the park, after Hemmings has blown up the photo, connotes the paranoia of post-Dealey Plaza conspiracy theories. It comes as no surprise that Hitchcock was deeply impressed with this movie, concerned as it is with the Master's own laundry-list of modern-day problems such as surveillance, selfishness, greed, conspiracy, murder, sexy girls, and voyeurism.
But hey kids, by all means stick with more honest productions like, say, *The Lord of the Rings*, wherein the moral problems are solved far in advance.
A Film To Watch More Than Once
Tony Dummett28 November 2005
I've often contemplated my large DVD collection and wondered why in the hell I paid good money for some of the titles I have collected. Sometimes it's because I saw the films as a kid in the 1960s and remembered them as good films. Other times I've just been in the "right" place at the "right" time and purchased on a whim. Many I have only watched once, disappointed that they didn't re-meet my expectations (or others', on whose opinions I had relied). Working from the other end of the equation - films I'm glad I've purchased - I've tried to consider what makes a good addition to a film collection, like Blow Up: a film that I want to watch again and again.
In the case of Blow Up, the reason I can watch it often is the atmospherics. The sound of the dismal London breezes in the park where the central pivotal action of the film takes place. The damp greenery that accompanies the breeze. The nihilism of the photographer. Even the photography itself. I spent many a long month trudging through parks in London, Paris and other places making "decisive moment" photographs, just like Thomas (the main character) did. I can appreciate the loneliness of this aspect of his work, as opposed to the studio sessions where he has a large, yet virtually mute cast of robotic assistants who do his bidding without so much as a please or thankyou from him. Peripatetic photography is - by definition - something you have to do alone, and Thomas is alone. One gets the feeling that candid photography is his true love, where he gets closest to the truth, the only part of his craft that he is emotionally excited about.
Thomas is surrounded by others, mostly because they're paid to be with him - models, staff, agents, shopkeepers, the London traffic itself - but he hates his existence and the hangers on in his life. I think that is why he's so disdainful and rude to everybody near him. He resents the space they occupy.
When he finally becomes interested in a woman (Vanessa Redgrave) she enters and exits his life by suddenly appearing and just as suddenly disappearing, as if by magic. Blink twice and she's gone. All he has left are his photographs of her, taken in a "blink", but remaining as permanent images on film. In them he first sees her with her lover and then, enlarging the images, sees something more sinister. Is she really who he thought she was? These revealed truths and questions lead him first to wonder if he really did see what he photographed, and then to ponder what course of action he should take. Real life has come up and head-butted him, and he has to respond in some way. But no-one else seems to care, not his friends or business associates. He is on his own again.
We see him at the end of the film back in the park, accompanied by the same lonely, damp London breeze, revisiting the scene of his photographs taken just 24 hours before. Whether what he saw was real or not we don't know for sure by this stage... and neither does he. Just about every scrap of evidence that he was there such a short time ago is gone: the woman, the man she was with, the photographs. He has only his imagination to rely on. As his painter friend in the first act painted his artworks and only then sought meaning in them, so Thomas found meaning in his photographs only after the act of creation - the opening of the shutter - was over. But by then it is too late. As he picks up an imaginary tennis ball and throws it back to some frolicking mimes playing imaginary tennis he smiles and realises that what he saw (or thinks he saw) in the park the day before is none of his concern. It's as if what happened never happened, as there is no record of it any more. The leaf fell in the forest and there was, for practical purposes, no-one there to witness it and bring back proof that it fell.
An excellent, complex film about a lonely, arrogant man who, for once, wants to care about something, but can't find anyone who believes in him. Full of atmospherics and rich photography. A film that I can definitely watch again and again, each time learning more about the many ways reality can be viewed and, most importantly, interpreted.
In the case of Blow Up, the reason I can watch it often is the atmospherics. The sound of the dismal London breezes in the park where the central pivotal action of the film takes place. The damp greenery that accompanies the breeze. The nihilism of the photographer. Even the photography itself. I spent many a long month trudging through parks in London, Paris and other places making "decisive moment" photographs, just like Thomas (the main character) did. I can appreciate the loneliness of this aspect of his work, as opposed to the studio sessions where he has a large, yet virtually mute cast of robotic assistants who do his bidding without so much as a please or thankyou from him. Peripatetic photography is - by definition - something you have to do alone, and Thomas is alone. One gets the feeling that candid photography is his true love, where he gets closest to the truth, the only part of his craft that he is emotionally excited about.
Thomas is surrounded by others, mostly because they're paid to be with him - models, staff, agents, shopkeepers, the London traffic itself - but he hates his existence and the hangers on in his life. I think that is why he's so disdainful and rude to everybody near him. He resents the space they occupy.
When he finally becomes interested in a woman (Vanessa Redgrave) she enters and exits his life by suddenly appearing and just as suddenly disappearing, as if by magic. Blink twice and she's gone. All he has left are his photographs of her, taken in a "blink", but remaining as permanent images on film. In them he first sees her with her lover and then, enlarging the images, sees something more sinister. Is she really who he thought she was? These revealed truths and questions lead him first to wonder if he really did see what he photographed, and then to ponder what course of action he should take. Real life has come up and head-butted him, and he has to respond in some way. But no-one else seems to care, not his friends or business associates. He is on his own again.
We see him at the end of the film back in the park, accompanied by the same lonely, damp London breeze, revisiting the scene of his photographs taken just 24 hours before. Whether what he saw was real or not we don't know for sure by this stage... and neither does he. Just about every scrap of evidence that he was there such a short time ago is gone: the woman, the man she was with, the photographs. He has only his imagination to rely on. As his painter friend in the first act painted his artworks and only then sought meaning in them, so Thomas found meaning in his photographs only after the act of creation - the opening of the shutter - was over. But by then it is too late. As he picks up an imaginary tennis ball and throws it back to some frolicking mimes playing imaginary tennis he smiles and realises that what he saw (or thinks he saw) in the park the day before is none of his concern. It's as if what happened never happened, as there is no record of it any more. The leaf fell in the forest and there was, for practical purposes, no-one there to witness it and bring back proof that it fell.
An excellent, complex film about a lonely, arrogant man who, for once, wants to care about something, but can't find anyone who believes in him. Full of atmospherics and rich photography. A film that I can definitely watch again and again, each time learning more about the many ways reality can be viewed and, most importantly, interpreted.
Demanding, intriguing enigma doesn't meet you halfway...
moonspinner5518 March 2006
David Hemmings stars as a tireless, exacting fashion photographer in London who accidentally takes pictures of a murder; he fleetingly gets to know a woman involved in the killing but can't break through her alienation (or, indeed, anyone else's). Dazzling piece of colorful eye-candy from director Michelangelo Antonioni, who also co-wrote the screenplay with Tonino Guerra from Julio Cortázar's short story "Las babas del diablo", has a careful, studied pace and a lot of desperate, moody characters. Unfortunately, the last 45 minutes drops off sharply, what with mimes in the park and the Yardbirds showing up for a concert. Handsome albeit demanding film--sort of a cinematic enigma--will not please everyone, although audiences of the Swinging '60s really tapped into the stylish, chic confusion and isolation. Two Oscar nominations, including Antonioni as Best Director. Three BAFTA nominations, including Best British Film. Antonioni received the Palme d'Or (the highest prize) at the Cannes Film Festival. **1/2 from ****
There are two types of people who see this movie...
Siglitz10 January 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Those who 'get it' and those who don't. Those who get it, love it. Those who don't, hate it. That is why you see either great reviews or horrible reviews. There is no middle ground for this film
I've been in both camps. My first time watching it I did not get it and as a result I didn't like it.
Saw it again about 10 years later and 'I got it' and I realized how incredibly brilliant it is.
Despite what other reviewers say, this film is not about a photographer who may have stumbled across a murder victim. Yes, that happens, but that's not what the film is about. If you think that's what this film is about, you won't get it.
This film is about "reality" and how it's perceived depending on your view of it. This filmed is summed up great by Antonioni's own quote "Reality is unattainable as it is submerged by layers of images which are only versions of reality." An 'image' or photo only sees 'reality' from one point in space and time. An image from another point in space and/or time may show that the reality the first image shows, is quite different when viewed from that different perspective. Both images capture what is really there, but they tell different stories. And as we try to examine them closer (blow them up) they become even more ambiguous. This is the theme that runs through the movie.
The best summation of this reality is determined by perspective is the scene with the Yardbirds when Jeff Beck trashes his guitar. The zombie-like crowd is suddenly thrown into a frenzy when he tosses the broken guitar into the crowd and everyone clamors to get it - with our protaganist David Hemmings getting it as he is chased out the club by the crowd. From the perspective of that crowd in the club, that broken guitar was valuable and everyone wanted it. But as soon as Hemmings is outside on the sidewalk it's just a 'broken guitar' and he discards it only to have someone else pick it up and also discard it. The two perspectives - inside and outside the club - gave that guitar two totally different 'realities'.
And one of the most pretentious quotes (or perceived as such) is actually one of the most critical, taking on new meaning when put in the context of the real meaning behind the film. Hemmings to girl: "I thought you were in Paris?", girl: "I am in Paris".
This film looks shallow, but runs deep.
I've been in both camps. My first time watching it I did not get it and as a result I didn't like it.
Saw it again about 10 years later and 'I got it' and I realized how incredibly brilliant it is.
Despite what other reviewers say, this film is not about a photographer who may have stumbled across a murder victim. Yes, that happens, but that's not what the film is about. If you think that's what this film is about, you won't get it.
This film is about "reality" and how it's perceived depending on your view of it. This filmed is summed up great by Antonioni's own quote "Reality is unattainable as it is submerged by layers of images which are only versions of reality." An 'image' or photo only sees 'reality' from one point in space and time. An image from another point in space and/or time may show that the reality the first image shows, is quite different when viewed from that different perspective. Both images capture what is really there, but they tell different stories. And as we try to examine them closer (blow them up) they become even more ambiguous. This is the theme that runs through the movie.
The best summation of this reality is determined by perspective is the scene with the Yardbirds when Jeff Beck trashes his guitar. The zombie-like crowd is suddenly thrown into a frenzy when he tosses the broken guitar into the crowd and everyone clamors to get it - with our protaganist David Hemmings getting it as he is chased out the club by the crowd. From the perspective of that crowd in the club, that broken guitar was valuable and everyone wanted it. But as soon as Hemmings is outside on the sidewalk it's just a 'broken guitar' and he discards it only to have someone else pick it up and also discard it. The two perspectives - inside and outside the club - gave that guitar two totally different 'realities'.
And one of the most pretentious quotes (or perceived as such) is actually one of the most critical, taking on new meaning when put in the context of the real meaning behind the film. Hemmings to girl: "I thought you were in Paris?", girl: "I am in Paris".
This film looks shallow, but runs deep.
FUNERAL for a FRIEND.
Lorenzo H.1 February 2002
I am in mourning. I have lost a good friend. Twenty-three years ago, as a college student, I caught my first screening of Michaelangelo Antonioni's BLOW-UP. I remember exiting the theatre in a state of pure bliss, stunned and mesmerized by what I had just seen. Surely this was the most profound and imaginative film of all time, I told myself. Subsequent viewings over the next dozen years just served to confirm my first impression. When last I saw it in the early 90's, I was still quite convinced that it deserved a spot on my top 10 list of all time favorites. For over two decades I have carried it in my head, not just as a great movie, but as a sort of philosophy. Yet something quite disconcerting happened recently after my latest viewing of the film. It suddenly dawned on me that BLOW-UP, though still quite fascinating in many ways, definitely fails as a motion picture. This is due mainly to an extremely slow and almost insubstantial first half in which nothing really happens. The film's decided lack of truly compelling characters does help the situation either. So why such a radical shift in my opinion now, after all these years? Perhaps the main reason for this is that in my younger days I tended to measure a movie's greatness' by its arty cinematography and moody atmosphere. I would become so enthralled by these qualities that I would often blind myself to the other aspects by which a film should also be judged, such as its acting, script and characters. Twenty-three years of subsequent movie-going has allowed me to understand that a truly successful motion picture is composed of many key ingredients, most of which come together, whether by accident or design (or both), to form a truly satisfying whole.
BLOW-UP, nevertheless, does have its virtues. The film's dreamlike second hour contains some of its finest moments, among them a raucously bizarre concert scene featuring the Yardbirds and a truly lyrical finale that is totally devoid of dialogue. This last scene, involving the main character, a mime troupe and an imaginary tennis match, culminates in one of modern cinema's most quietly devastating moments of revelation. To this day that scene is as symbolically poetic and existentially haunting as anything I've ever seen on film. In fact, I believe that BLOW-UP's great reputation among many critics and viewers (including that young college student of 23 years ago) comes in large part due to this memorable ending. Overall however, and mainly because of the 2 reasons cited above in paragraph one, Antonioni's hypnotic film does not consistently work its magic from start to finish and therefore fails, despite moments of greatness, to be a completely satisfying experience.
Rest in Peace dear friend. There will always be a special place in my heart for you. It's just that regretfully, from now on, I shall be visiting your grave a lot less often.
FINAL VERDICT: ` 7 ' (Down from my original 10).
BLOW-UP, nevertheless, does have its virtues. The film's dreamlike second hour contains some of its finest moments, among them a raucously bizarre concert scene featuring the Yardbirds and a truly lyrical finale that is totally devoid of dialogue. This last scene, involving the main character, a mime troupe and an imaginary tennis match, culminates in one of modern cinema's most quietly devastating moments of revelation. To this day that scene is as symbolically poetic and existentially haunting as anything I've ever seen on film. In fact, I believe that BLOW-UP's great reputation among many critics and viewers (including that young college student of 23 years ago) comes in large part due to this memorable ending. Overall however, and mainly because of the 2 reasons cited above in paragraph one, Antonioni's hypnotic film does not consistently work its magic from start to finish and therefore fails, despite moments of greatness, to be a completely satisfying experience.
Rest in Peace dear friend. There will always be a special place in my heart for you. It's just that regretfully, from now on, I shall be visiting your grave a lot less often.
FINAL VERDICT: ` 7 ' (Down from my original 10).
The camera never lies
TheLittleSongbird5 January 2019
Michaengelo Antonioni is an interesting director for me, but do more appreciate him and recognise his influence in films than love him and consider him a favourite. His films are extremely well made and thematically interesting (some like urban alienation being ground-breaking), his directing style is unique and deservedly influential and he does get the best out of good casts in his best work. He is though a polarising director, for while his films fascinate and transfix many they alienate and perplex others and he has been criticised for detatchment, self-indulgence and ambiguity.
His first English language film 'Blow-Up' epitomises all of this for me. Absolutely love 'L'avventura' (though it took me more than one viewing to do so), 'L'Eclisse' and especially 'La Notte', but while acknowledging its numerous good things 'Blow-Up', hailed as a work of genius in its day and considered daring with the at the time innovative use of nudity, left me very conflicted and somewhat cold. This epitomises everything that has been perceived by me of what is generally thought of Antonioni, good and bad, and while it is actually not hard to see why it is highly thought of by some and appreciate what they've said it is equally not hard to see why it has garnered criticism. Don't think it is his most accessible film (of the films seen of his that's 'La Notte', which also emotionally connected with me the most), if anything it's his, or one of his, most polarising and among his more troubling ones.
'Blow-Up' looks fantastic, so cleverly shot and the long takes are a thing of beauty. The setting is evocatively and handsomely rendered too and the editing excites even when relatively understated at times. The minimal use of music is both dream-like and haunting. On a thematic level, 'Blow-Up' is very intriguing and insightful (if not ground-breaking, urban alienation is a common theme in Antonioni films and was explored more effectively before).
Was enticed admittedly when it started and initially it did grab my attention, before the film started trying too hard. Apart from an uncomfortable-looking Vanessa Redgrave, though she does look luminous, the acting is fine. David Hemmings especially does a very good job, creepy and enigmatic, in what was clearly not an easy role for him, considering understanding the character himself from an audience perspective was one of the film's more troubling elements. There are moments of brilliance here in 'Blow-Up' and Antonioni's direction does have thoughtful and striking moments.
Unfortunately these moments of brilliance are too fleeting and my main issue with 'Blow-Up' was not being able to connect with it, whether emotionally or any other way. Not all of Antonioni's films lacked emotional impact, was actually very moved by 'La Notte' and 'L'avventura' and 'L'Eclisse' in their best moments are also powerful. Everything here just felt very detatched emotionally for me and like it was all going for style at the expense of substance (and later sense), and as the film progressed it felt like in this respect it was trying too hard and some of it got very ostentatious. The arty route Antonioni increasingly took over-time in the film became heavy-handed and swamped everything needed to give a film any depth or emotion. The symbolism is confusing in some places and too obvious in others while sometimes adding little. The thrills for the mystery aspect of the very thinly plotted story aren't really here, suspense is but fleetingly and the sexual aspect that was daring at the time doesn't allure enough. Anybody not crazy about ambiguity will find themselves very confounded by 'Blow-Up'.
Ambiguity is not a bad thing sometimes, there have been instances where it has worked and where open-endedness sparks a good deal of fascinating debate. 'Blow-Up' is one of the few Antonioni films for me though where the ambiguity is taken too far and things are left too vague (anybody that found the character development vague in 'L'avventura', and some were, will find it meaty compared to the non-existent development here with a complete cipher of a main character as one can get from any of his films), meaning that it severely affects the coherence. Usually do not have a problem understanding films, but goodness was trying to make sense of too much of 'Blow-Up' a chore or what? Personally found the ending visually striking but incomprehensible, for an ending of an Antonioni film that stays with one forever in a good way the epitome of that is 'L'Eclisse'. With so little emotional impact and a story with not much to it, this is an example where a deliberate film actually feels much slower than it should be and it does get ponderous and heavy-handed. The sparse dialogue is banal at best.
In conclusion, cannot not acknowledge that there are a good number of great things with 'Blow-Up' and it is interesting to see from a historical perspective. But am really, really sorry, it just didn't connect with me and this is being said with deep regret. 5/10 Bethany Cox
His first English language film 'Blow-Up' epitomises all of this for me. Absolutely love 'L'avventura' (though it took me more than one viewing to do so), 'L'Eclisse' and especially 'La Notte', but while acknowledging its numerous good things 'Blow-Up', hailed as a work of genius in its day and considered daring with the at the time innovative use of nudity, left me very conflicted and somewhat cold. This epitomises everything that has been perceived by me of what is generally thought of Antonioni, good and bad, and while it is actually not hard to see why it is highly thought of by some and appreciate what they've said it is equally not hard to see why it has garnered criticism. Don't think it is his most accessible film (of the films seen of his that's 'La Notte', which also emotionally connected with me the most), if anything it's his, or one of his, most polarising and among his more troubling ones.
'Blow-Up' looks fantastic, so cleverly shot and the long takes are a thing of beauty. The setting is evocatively and handsomely rendered too and the editing excites even when relatively understated at times. The minimal use of music is both dream-like and haunting. On a thematic level, 'Blow-Up' is very intriguing and insightful (if not ground-breaking, urban alienation is a common theme in Antonioni films and was explored more effectively before).
Was enticed admittedly when it started and initially it did grab my attention, before the film started trying too hard. Apart from an uncomfortable-looking Vanessa Redgrave, though she does look luminous, the acting is fine. David Hemmings especially does a very good job, creepy and enigmatic, in what was clearly not an easy role for him, considering understanding the character himself from an audience perspective was one of the film's more troubling elements. There are moments of brilliance here in 'Blow-Up' and Antonioni's direction does have thoughtful and striking moments.
Unfortunately these moments of brilliance are too fleeting and my main issue with 'Blow-Up' was not being able to connect with it, whether emotionally or any other way. Not all of Antonioni's films lacked emotional impact, was actually very moved by 'La Notte' and 'L'avventura' and 'L'Eclisse' in their best moments are also powerful. Everything here just felt very detatched emotionally for me and like it was all going for style at the expense of substance (and later sense), and as the film progressed it felt like in this respect it was trying too hard and some of it got very ostentatious. The arty route Antonioni increasingly took over-time in the film became heavy-handed and swamped everything needed to give a film any depth or emotion. The symbolism is confusing in some places and too obvious in others while sometimes adding little. The thrills for the mystery aspect of the very thinly plotted story aren't really here, suspense is but fleetingly and the sexual aspect that was daring at the time doesn't allure enough. Anybody not crazy about ambiguity will find themselves very confounded by 'Blow-Up'.
Ambiguity is not a bad thing sometimes, there have been instances where it has worked and where open-endedness sparks a good deal of fascinating debate. 'Blow-Up' is one of the few Antonioni films for me though where the ambiguity is taken too far and things are left too vague (anybody that found the character development vague in 'L'avventura', and some were, will find it meaty compared to the non-existent development here with a complete cipher of a main character as one can get from any of his films), meaning that it severely affects the coherence. Usually do not have a problem understanding films, but goodness was trying to make sense of too much of 'Blow-Up' a chore or what? Personally found the ending visually striking but incomprehensible, for an ending of an Antonioni film that stays with one forever in a good way the epitome of that is 'L'Eclisse'. With so little emotional impact and a story with not much to it, this is an example where a deliberate film actually feels much slower than it should be and it does get ponderous and heavy-handed. The sparse dialogue is banal at best.
In conclusion, cannot not acknowledge that there are a good number of great things with 'Blow-Up' and it is interesting to see from a historical perspective. But am really, really sorry, it just didn't connect with me and this is being said with deep regret. 5/10 Bethany Cox
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
