Session 009 - Blow-Up
Who saw it and what are your thoughts on it?
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(88)
-
▼
October
(9)
- Film Script's Top 7 - Horrorifying Movies
- In the Screening Room - Michel Gondry's Human Nature
- Gone, Baby, Gone (Ben Affleck, 2007)
- Month of Movies: October 2007
- In the Screening Room - Ingmar Bergman's The Seven...
- MTTM (#3) - 1408
- Recent Watches: October 2007
- In the Screening Room - Michelangelo Antonioni's B...
- Your Completely Topic-Free Discussion Forum for An...
-
▼
October
(9)
Followers
Contributors
Labels
Essential Links
- A.O. Scott
- All Movie Guide
- Brian's Richmond.com Articles
- Brian's Temple News Articles
- Bright Lights Film Journal
- Dark Horizons
- Film Reference
- Filmspotting
- Greatest Films
- Hollywood Elsewhere
- The Hot Blog
- The House Next Door
- Internet Movie Database
- Mean Dawg Movie Reviews
- Metacritic
- The New York Times - Movie Section
- Pinewood Dialogues
- Roger Ebert
- Rotten Tomatoes
- Sean Burns
- Senses of Cinema
- They Shoot Pictures, Don't They?
- Turner Classic Movie Database
- Watching the Directors
The Most Popular Film Script Posts
Widget by Blogger Buster
The Film Script E-Mail
Lists of Bests
4 comments:
I have quite a bit to say about this film. I actually watched it twice and took notes on the second viewing because I found it so intriguing. I may talk in depth about the edning and the plot, so you have been warned that spoilers probably will pop up.
First let me say that Antonioni's direction is nearly flawless here. He captured London perfectly as well as the sense of culture and style it radiates. I thought the framing and the movement of the camera were used to create art within each frame. And it is all so subtle. He never overdoes it or goes out of his way to make memorable imagines, they just happen to be memorable through sheer use of his skills as a director. Some scenes that stood out in particular were an extremely orgasmic photo session, a still park, and of course the amazing editing that goes on when the blowups are revealed. Even in one seen of Thomas driving, he uses the camera in such a unique way that no wonder this man's recent death was such a loss to the medium.
The movie tackles the topic of perception is a really interesting way. He uses this whole mystery about the body sort of as a MacGuffin as Thomas begins to find joy and passion once again. Thomas lives a life of excess...drugs, sex and money. He wanders through live like a zombie doing photo sessions as well as wandering the ghettos to document the less fortunate. His life is one many would want, yet he now finds it boring. Once this "murder" occurs, he finally becomes invigorated with energy as he must solve this crime. It never matters whether or not the crime actually occurred, but just to witness a man find passion for life once again.
Once the ending comes, we the viewer also question whether or not we just witnessed what we believed we did or not. Thomas participates with some mimes as they play tennis. We don't actually believe there is a ball there just as Thomas does, but than we begin to hear the ball as it gets hit back and forth. Suddenly we perceive it to be there. Antonioni plays some wonderful tricks on us as we suddenly witness the protagonist vanish right before the end. Was Thomas real or not? Was there a murder? Why does London have so many mimes? None of this really matters as it is all an exercise in perception.
Finally, I just want to reiterate that the world portrayed here itself, much like Thomas, is like a void. The park is empty except for the one couple. The fashion world is sterile (except when they are frolicking naked in it :). Even the youth at the Yardbirds concert (wasn't that a trip) were so sullen and empty until Jeff Beck goes and smashes his car. Perhaps Antonioni justs wants to comment on society similarly to Romero does in Dawn of the Dead. Our lives have become so routine that we must sometimes even conjure some fantastic mysteries to remind ourselves what it feels like to be alive.
I really loved this movie. It is a movie I think I could watch many times and always witness a new facet of it's both simple, yet complex ideas. Best so far. I have finally found my diamond in the rough.
Well, it seems it only took an infamous Italian filmmaker to make us agree again.
I liked Blow-Up quite a bit, though I will say not as much as you seem to have. The story was involving and definitely innovative. The idea of capturing something on film or on tape and only slowing coming to realize what it is and what it reveals is intriguing on its own and spawned such copycats as Francis Ford Coppola's The Conversation and Brian De Palma's Blow Out (would I have to revoke my 'mr. filmsnob card' if I said I still prefer both those movies to this one?)
My hesitations, and there are only a few, seem to be mostly with Antonioni's filmmaking style. He lingers a little too excessively for me. And I know that I love filmmakers like Terrence Malick and, well, he's probably the only one who lingers moreso than Antonioni... but he has such wondrous shots that he makes blowing leaves and grass interesting.
Antonioni is not the same type of visual artist. He composes some of the most gorgeous stills (mostly evidenced in the photographer's own photo shoots - as in the film's poster), but I don't feel like Antonioni can keep me visually entranced in the same way as Malick. So when he lingers on Thomas (who I had some reservations about as a character as well), I don't find it as fascinating. What he's doing sometimes is (as in the extended sequence where he is blowing up the photographs) but really, if there's nothing else going on here we're just watching someone do a job they're good at doing.
How the murder mystery aspect of the story is handled is very compelling in its uniqueness though. The murder itself is almost an afterthought. The murder itself is not investigated so much as whether or not there even was a murder in the first place. And you're right about it drawing Thomas out of the doldrums of his life, it gives him something he finally feels inspired to work on again.
And I'll definitely have to go back and revisit the ending because I overlooked some things and want to watch it again after the way you've presented it. It didn't strike me as totally effective the first time, but maybe watching out for certain things it will?
Really I'm going out of my way to point out little things I didn't like 100%. Even Antonioni's lingering shots though are not something that I felt took away from my overall enjoyment of the film. They're just things that kept me from loving it as much as you did. It's a very good film and one I'd welcome rewatching as well.
In addition, I'm even that much more interested in catching up with Antonioni's The Passenger with Jack Nicholson now. But next up, I'm really looking forward to seeing The Seventh Seal. Bring on the Bergman
Finally you are talking some since after so many weeks of being wrong:)
One can't argue style. If it didn't work for you the same way Mallick does, I can't really say you're wrong. I will say that this film with the right director probably could have been a 90 min film. There is "excess" to cut, but I think it lends to all of the monotony and boredom that Thomas feels. Maybe by making the viewer a little bored too, Antonioni has made an extremely gutsy move, but just like Thomas we feel alive once the "murder mystery" arrives. I gotta say that the more I think about this film the more and more I absolutely appreciate ever choice Antonioni made.
Definitely interested in his other works, but for now I'm deep into Bergman, which I hope will continue peace in the screening room.
Oh and I haven't seen Blow out yet, but I will say that Conversation and this film are two amazing films that I find very hard to say which is better. One influenced the other so much, but Converstaion is its own animal entirely. Hackman is fantastic in it, much better than Hemmings is as Thomas.
Yeah, that's the only real dissent I had with it was that the style didn't really work for me. It was a little plain and stretched out. Still a good movie regardless though and one I probably need to watch again at some point to really wrap my head around what the director was going for... but for now, onto the next film.
And I would definitely recommend checking out Blow Out since you haven't. I'm kind of a De Palma apologist (although he's making it harder and harder to be in recent years), but I think he does a great job taking the Blow-Up story ideas and, well, pilfering them. Haha. A very good John Travolta role as well... although De Palma can't help but play up the things he's become synonymous with in the opener (thrills and female exposure, haha). Still, it's kind of a personal favorite. Really enjoyable stuff, if not quite the art film Blow-Up is.
Post a Comment