Blow-Up

Rating:
Summary: Timeless Message in Dated Format
Review: I first saw this movie several decades ago. I only recall that I came away thinking, "What the heck was THAT all about?". I decided to give it another try and I'm glad I did. This movie has its' faults which include the dated surroundings. One gets the feeling that it starts out as another Austin Powers movie. It's too 60's not to be at least somewhat distracting. The movie is disjointed, the interpersonal interactions seem so phony, and the plot is too haphazard. The problem in assessing these later points is in determining whether it is the fault of or the purpose of the director that they end up this way. The point of the movie (that was lost on me the first time I saw it) is the emptiness of our lives and their purpose. We certainly get this impression (at least if we watch the movie a second time) but could the movie have been more fluid in presenting its' message. I believe it could but I'm not sure that Antonioni was the director who could achieve that.

This is a colorful movie that appeals to the eyes. I was focussed on a particular scene where all building were a bright shade of red for blocks and blocks. I think that this was another message from the director that the facade may be appealing but that doesn't mean that there's anything of substance within. There are a lot of hipsters (ala 1960's style) who also demonstrate this point quite effectively. Their mindless pursuit of the moment ultimately conveys a sense of pointless boredom. My favorite scene was the one in which the Yardbirds were playing. One of the band members (if I were really hip I would have recognized him by name) got fed up with some equiptment problems and busted his guitar. He then threw the neck of the guitar out to the audience who tussled over it until our "hero" got is and dashed off pursued by other who desperately wanted that souvenir. After he made his escape, he tossed it aside as though it were trash. A bystander picked it up and, after looking it over, tossed it away as well. What a comment that was about our fleeting sense of values! One moment an icon, the next moment junk.

There actually is a sort of plot but, although it creates additional messages, is the sort of thing that leaves us (intentially?) unfulfilled. The ending gives us a view of the phoniness of our lives. Given the opportunity to be merely an observer or a participant is the choice that we seem to be left with.

I think that all of this could have been done in a different format. The points could still have been made even if the movie were allowed to flow better and the plot were allowed to consummate itself.

Rating:
Summary: Worth Watching Several Times
Review: I have watched this movie several times, and each time I have seen something I missed previously. With brilliant direction and art design, the movie is very stylish and sexy. The stark photographs of the laborers contrast well with the fashion glamour and color. I haven't yet figured out the symbolism of the mime tennis, other than he can see what others may not see, as in what he finds in the park photographs; but I hope to get more out of that scene during my next viewing (a better understanding).

I am an engineer and have great appreciation for the architecture in this film - his loft, the antique shoppe, etc. I am now seeking a propeller to spruce up my home decor. I also enjoyed the music of this film, reminds me of my older, hippie siblings' favorites. Adds nice flavor to the movie. I have a feeling I will be watching this film twenty years from now and still discovering new things. Highly Recommended.

Rating:
Summary: "The unexamined life is not worth living." Socrates
Review: It's the swinging sixties in London, and Thomas is a fashion photographer who has grown weary of his hedonistic existence and finds himself on a quest for something more. By chance he follows a couple in a park, taking pictures of them as they wander and display their affections. Of course, nothing is as it seems and soon that girl will arrive on his doorstep willing to do anything to get the negatives. Has his camera captured an illicit affair? Thomas intentionally gives her the wrong negatives and immediately developes the right ones. Curiosity? Once developed, he thinks he sees something in one of the photos and proceeds to blowup the questionable image. He studies the results, and the more he searches through the pixels the more he begins to see. A dead body? A crime? He asks the girlfriend of an artist who who works adjacent to his studio, "That's the body? It looks like one of Bill's paintings." Earlier in the film we actually see Bill's work and he explains that trying to make sense of the components of art is like "trying to find a clue in a detective story." Thomas has indeed become a detective, suddenly aware of an existence that lurks under the surface of things. An illusive existence . . . imaginary? Everything about this picture questions structure and the idea of reality. Begining with a great Jazz score (the most improvisational of music), we see Thomas indistinquishable from a mass of downtrodden homeless men only to turn the corner and step into a Rolls Royce convertable. Things are not what they seem. A troup of mimes cruises through London pretending to see and interact with things that are not real and when they make a reappearence at the end of the film, playing tennis with imaginary rackets, we can almost see the ball bouncing from one side of the court to the other. In the end one might ask if Thomas really did uncover a murder or was it only imagined? Perhaps this is a question we might just as well ask ourselves concerning our own realities, but once you start questioning things, the answers will inevitably lead to more questions. In this alone there is value. As Socrates said, if we can believe Plato's account, "The unexamined life is not worth living."

Rating:
Summary: The Significance of the Visible
Review: More than any other film that comes to mind, "Blow Up" illustrates the adage distinguishing the novelist from the filmmaker: the former's concern is to make the significant visible whereas the latter's passion is to bring significance to the visible. Little does it matter that the film's protagonist fails in that quest. Antonioni manages to make the search itself so absorbing that the "whodunnit" motif of the narrative is incidental to the journey itself. "Pictures don't lie" is another old bromide being put to the test by this film's unique thematizing of the photographic process itself, and Antonioni's accomplishment is to preserve the spirit if not the letter of the statement. We leave the film believing in the power of the photographed image even if both its meaning and content remain inconclusive.

Watching the film in the theater was a spellbinding and unforgettable experience. Anyone who has seen the director's out-of-control if not disastrous "Zabriskie Point" and subsequently decided to pass up "Blow Up" should definitely reconsider. Just a couple of caveats: the film does, in fact, transfer quite poorly to a small video monitor, bringing excessive attention to dated features of the pop cultural landscape of the late '60's London scene. Moreover, because video cameras are now the everyman's commodity, while cropping, editing, and enlargening images are common practice in modern-day consumer culture, some of the undeniable excitement experienced by David Hemmings with each of his successive blow-ups is bound to seem much more mundane. And perhaps by now we fancy we know more about photography than either Antonioni or Hemmings, especially after the failure of even instant replay to be definitive about whether a touchdown was scored.

Nevertheless, if you have a large screen, some patience and a memory of the promise and challenges of an earlier technology, "Blow Up" still is capable of working at several important levels--as existential philosophy, as postmodern text, as compelling narrative (Hemmings is wonderful), and as a respite from many current overly loud, fractically edited blockbusters that, despite the sound and fury, signify nothing whatsoever.

Rating:
Summary: Artistic Perspective on Cameras Distortion of Time & Place
Review: Amidst swinging London, students painted their faces white in order to fundraise, and weed was easily obtainable. Pleasure seemed to be sought in every corner, as Puritanical values once had held down the societal freedom to express self, while a new bohemian period was emerging. Philosophy in regards to everything was pondered as nudity emerged as an art form as well as an exploitation. French New Wave had already influenced the world as had the dreamy visions of Fellini, psychosocial introspection of Bergman, and philosophy behind human choices in Antonioni's films such as L' Avventura (1960). The world was about to explode into a colorful spectacle as artistic freedom and expression were pushing the boundaries of censorship and moral value. In the middle of the cultural anarchy, a story about a photographer helped pushing the boundaries, which was one of the milestones that was needed for artists and alike as they sought true freedom.

Blow-Up focuses on what is within each frame of each scene, which is also how the film's hero, Thomas (David Hemmings), sees the world. Thomas is a successful photographer, in a monetary way, as he drives a Rolls Royce convertible, donates money, has a big studio, and has several photo shoots with beautiful models. Yet, Thomas does not like the job as a model photographer, as many of his models seem to be oblivious to what he is trying to accomplish while capturing the aesthetics of the moment. The photographic moment must be caught as if the camera was not there, however, it seems as if many models lack this knowledge or understanding. This ignorance comes across as an insult to Thomas whenever someone stands in front of his camera, which seems to put him in a severely bad mood. Nonetheless, he lives to see what he captures through the lens as he brings the camera wherever he travels.

There are a selected few models that know how to pose properly for Thomas in order to create an aesthetically emotional moment that enhances the texture of the image, which Thomas attempts to capture. In the beginning of the film Thomas returns to his studio dressed in rags while a stunning model is waiting for the photo shoot with him. The model is barely dressed--just enough to cover up her personal parts. Thomas begins the shoot as the model moves seductively and he is slowly drawn to her, as seaman would to the singing of a siren. Closer and closer Thomas gets until they seem to merge into one. The scene is very suggestive in a sexual manner, which seems to please both. The model effortlessly repositions herself in enticing manners as Thomas provides her with admiring comments that urges her to continue with her visual seduction through the lens.

Thomas' true passion for his profession is to capture the present time where the truth is revealed, which is done in all places of life. The truth seems to be the way a person genuinely appears in solitude. Thus, a voyeuristic portion of Thomas appears as he seeks to see the world the way it is without him being present. An early morning Thomas ventures to see his agent, but stops by an antique store. Nearby the small antique store there is a small path that leads to a park where he discovers a couple, a woman and an older man. The couple appears to be of some sort of relation to one another, yet it is difficult to see exactly what the couple is doing. They could be hugging and kissing, yet they could be arguing. Thomas takes cover by trees and bush while he captures the ambiguous moment with his camera. The true nature of the couple will be revealed later through the photos that Thomas develops in his darkroom.

Symbiosis seems to exist between Thomas and the camera as Thomas seems to need the camera as the camera needs him in order to be used. There is an emotional distance between Thomas and reality as the camera seems to be the boundary of moral judgment. The camera offers him an opportunity to observe the world at a safe distance, yet he can partake in what he sees. The safety truly appears when the audience notices the difference between when the picture was taken and when the picture is viewed, as time and place change and leave him at a safe distance from the truth. Time and place appear to be the divider that is provided to Thomas through the camera, which offers him a safe role in his photographic society without responsibilities, or guilt. It also offers him the opportunity to relive a moment, or an experience. Similar notion could be drawn to the experiences that the audience can revive in many museums throughout the world where emotions such as desire, fear, sadness, happiness, joy, and more seem to be trapped in time and place.

Michelangelo Antonioni does a marvelous job directing as each scene offers something for the audience to ponder. Compared to L' Avventura (1960) Blow-Up provides a similar drifty theme, which at times seems to wander aimlessly. Nonetheless, the context in which Blow-Up takes place is unique and despite its directionless touch most scenes seem to be perfectly choreographed together with the outwardly meticulous mise-en-scene. This provides a sense of natural beauty that Antonioni captures through the camera. In addition, the natural beauty offers the concept that there is beauty everywhere, and it most certainly surrounds all viewers too, which should be captured and revived when needed. Blow-Up offers a truly artistic perspective, which could be found tedious for many, however, it is what encourages the processes of contemplation as Thomas is devoured by his passion. Thus, let the artists have their freedom as the audience longs to experience the stored sentiments, which offers morals and enlightening lessons.


Rating:
Summary: Anyone For Tennis? A tentative review of "Blow-Up"
Review: Funky Herbie Hancock music, title's that can only be Swinging London and the dirty green grass of an English park (whose significance will only emerge later). We see a troupe of mimes who race around for no apparent reason causing some confusion and embarrassment. We see the David Hemmings character of the Photographer coming out of a dosshouse and jumping into his Rolls Royce. The old and the new London are shown in a series of beautiful and simple establishing shots. We are increasingly aware of a use of bold colour contrasts by Antonioni - a blue van and a yellow van, an entire street of red houses and a blue house, two black nuns in white habits and a guardsman who seems to be guarding a public street - juxtapositions galore.

The opening minutes of Antonioni's movie are stylishly cold but sexy, perhaps a little dated to contemporary eyes and extremely ambiguous.
Ingmar Bergman said a few years ago that Antonioni had made at least two masterpieces; that is "La Notte" and "Blow Up". It's quite useful to look at Bergmans "Persona" and contrast it's extremely ambitious intentions with the equally challenging "Blow Up", which was released in the same year. Antonioni doesn't immediately appear to go as far as Bergman in deconstructing the established form of the movie but in a slightly less self-conscious way he seems to be pushing the medium into new areas of expression.

An incredible sequence shot in a London park follows. A growing sense of unease and dislocation with the world is being created. The wind is picking-up, leaves are rustling. He is taking pictures of Vanessa Redgrave and an older man in some kind of clandestine encounter. Redgrave try's to get the camera, she bite's his hand - "What's the rush!" is the Photographers response. We sense the dialogue is moving into a more expressionistic area also, it's going in the direction of a kind of minimalist-surrealism. The Redgrave character goes back to the Studio with Hemmings. They share a joint and some wine and she moves awkwardly to the music; almost embarrassingly so. Hemmings starts to process the film and in a series of shots, we hear the rustle of leaves once again, he starts to construct a sequence of events from the seemingly innocent rolls of negatives. The inversion of the increasingly detailed photos yielding a more difficult to interpret image is a satisfying puzzle. The photographer is being challenged with a startlingly different reality from the one he expected to see.

The commentary by Peter Brunette is a slight disappointment.
He seems to make several inexplicable omissions, although the majority of his insights are useful. For instance, he mentions that Antonioni probably had a house painted blue; just after the Photographer has just driven down an amazing street of all red houses. He also doesn't mention the introduction of the sound of the ball being struck by the racquets at the films remarkable finale. I find some of the best commentaries on DVD are a constant stream of interesting background information; Mr Peter Cowie being probably it`s greatest exponent. Mr Brunette seems to leave silence where I'd have really preferred comment.

The trailer and teaser trailer are great pieces of 60's kitsch and if you think the movie seems dated these will seem positively prehistoric.
The quality of the transfer is absolutely spot-on with only a couple of imperfections (a rather irritating vertical line over Redgrave for a minute and the odd rogue hair on the screen) and perhaps the colour seems slightly less saturated than it should be. These are very minor quibbles though, and anyone interested in the potential of films should really own this movie.


Rating:
Summary: Sticks with you...Birth of the Cool
Review: The main character in this film (the photographer played by David Hemmings) is not a very sympathetic character on the surface. He seems to care little about others and is self possessed. This can be a turn off for some viewers. He is a man who seems fed up with the superficial character of the world he lives and works in, that of fashion. He seems to be searching for some form of reality in contrast to the shallowness and artificiality of this world. In his off-hours he takes photos of the contrasting reality of lower class London life. After he takes some photos of a woman (Vanessa Redgrave) and here lover in a park, she is obsessed with getting the photos back. When the Photographer blows up the photos he thinks he sees a murder victim in the photos, or does he. The photos are not that clear. A woman played by Sarah Miles says the blow-ups resemble her husband's abstract paintings. So is he seeing what he thinks he is seeing? After all the body he sees in the park is the same man who is very much alive in the Photographs. The actor Ronan O'Casey plays both. The contrast between the real and the imagined is a theme that runs through the film. When the photographer sees a model he had photographed earlier in the day at a party and says to here "I thought you were going to Paris." She tells him she IS in Paris. To set the this theme in place the film opens with a troop of mimes doing there thing. At the end of the film the mimes reappear in the park were the photographer had thought he saw the murder. The mimes draw him into their imaginary world by getting him to retrieve an imaginary tennis ball. After he throws the imaginary ball back we here the sounds of a tennis game taking place. What is real and what is imagined? I found myself thinking about this film for days after seeing it.
While this film is not about the Swinging scene in London of the sixties, it does give us a glimpse of that time with; the Fashions, protest marchers, a pot party, Sexual freedom, and the Yardbirds featuring both Jimmy Page and Jeff Beck playing at the Ricky Tick Club to an uncharacteristic zombie like crowd. It is a bleak look at that scene though since few seem to be really enjoying themselves. Antonioni said of the parties he attended in London at the time that he didn't really enjoy them he only went as research for the film.
When the film came out British critics didn't look on it kindly. Penelope Gilliant Wrote, "It comes close in its effect to one of those shiny magazine features about this month's swinging depravity. You look at the pictures, admire the eye sense not much reality and recoil." Alexander Walker said, "There was an underlying resentment at an Italian coming over and making a film that was going to be the iconic view of Britain."
The way that the Hemmings charter works in the film was based on fashion photographer David Bailey. Though Bailey didn't have the contempt for models that the Photographer in the film has. Besides Fashion photos Bailey took pictures of many of the famous and infamous during that era. From the film he photographed Sarah Miles and Jane Birkin (one of the wannabe models Hemmings has a romp with.)
For those interested in this era I suggest the books Ready Steady Go by Shawn Levy which is a string of mini biographies of the time and includes a section on the making of Blow up. And Birth of the cool, a book of Bailey Photos.


Rating:
Summary: censored DVD?
Review: I just read an article at DVDbeaver re: this disc and the censoring of a couple of images of female nudity. Although the article claims that this censorship (cropping of the image, use of digital blurring) is only found on the Region 1/4 disc, I discovered - when looking at my exclusive region 1 disc - that, while there is no digital masking, the shot of Vanessa Redgrave has been cropped to remove her [vital organs]. I'm not necessarily suggesting that this is a reason to avoid purchasing this disc - unless you only wanted it for this reason! - but I do find such censorship disturbing. Buyer beware!

Rating:
Summary: For film buffs......
Review: I am glad this is out on DVD. Unfortunately, I don't think it has aged all that well. Daring for its time, but a bit dated now. In a surprise, there seemed to be a dust trail briefly in the movie, which I didn't expect. Most will know the story, so I will comment on the commentary. The commentary is more in the form of a lecture than a conversation or an insight. And perhaps that is fitting since it is done by a professor. The commentary brings out some very interesting things about the movie. Almost no one actually has a name in the movie. There is actually very little music in the movie, and there are periods of long silence and while it seems to move slowly then, it is appropriate for the scene. Some scenes unfold slowly, and the blow up photos are not from the perspective of the photographer, but of the movie maker. The David Hemmnings character is actually quite cruel to the women in the film. The scenes of drug use were daring for the mid sixties, but quaint now. This is a very good film, but true classics do not age, and I feel this movie has. For fans of good films, this is a DVD to get. I would like to give this DVD more than three stars but feel I cannot.

Rating:
Summary: Timeless
Review: The reason this film will stand after others have fallen isn't necessarily because of the perspective it gives us on a transformative era, nor the thinish plot line that's developed. Instead it compares to a film like 8 1/2 in that it's a story about the demands of the creative process.

A photographer, putting together a collection of his photos filled with images of urban despair, believes he's found the perfect image to end his portfolio: a couple embracing in a park. But as our photographer looks closer, he sees something more menacing. In the shadowy background of the image he finds one man holding a pistol and another lying dead on the ground.

The film, infuriatingly directionless at times (like one's twenties), witnesses our young photographer's obsession with returning to the scene and capturing the sensational image of the dead man.

At various points in the film we're shown the frustration of creating -- the photographer utterly disgusted with the models he shoots, a young antique shop owner wearily dreaming of a Moroccan getaway, a disaffected artist who seems to paint only to store his paintings for years at a time never showing or selling them.

They are all looking for that "one thing" that captures their respective visions. What might be called the climax (though I hesitate to call any particular scene climactic) has the Yardbirds playing to a crowd of stultified young people. A glitch in one of the stage speakers sets the guitarist off as he smashes the instrument to bits on the stage. Suddenly, the crowd comes alive as he throws the neck of the guitar into the melee on the floor. The photographer grabs the neck and fights his way through the throng only to emerge outside looking confusedly at this suddenly foreign object. Examining it for a moment he tosses it to the ground. As he struts off screen another person picks the piece up only to throw it right back on the sidewalk.

The guitar neck was an artifact from a momentary event that has meaning only to those who were part of it. And even then, its meaning is fleeting. The difficulty of capturing this moment and giving it lasting meaning infuses the spirit of this film.

I'd recommend this movie only if you're in the mood to devote some real time to it. It's deceptively thought provoking and isn't a great movie to just "give a watch". But given time it is ripe to a number of interpretations and great for all the layers that can be pulled away.