Summary
Thomas is a London photographer worshipped by and bored of models and actresses. When tired, he roams the city and parks for new photographic subjects and ends up accidentally photographing a murder and being spotted by the killer.
My Viewing
Having seen this film only recently, I won’t comment too much on the way this movie sent up a beacon fire that was about to be answered by films like “Bonnie and Clyde,” “Easy Rider,” and “Five Easy Pieces,” and conspiring to end the studio era. It is an exciting time in film history because films were being made outside of the Hollywood Machine, a system we seem to be moving back to today.
I’m glad movies went through that phase but I have to admit that I am not always a fan of the early films in a movement, preferring instead the more polished later iterations which will emerge.
However, since we are doing Italian films this week, I thought, “Why not start with one of the greats?” Michaelangelo Antonioni director of “L’Avventura” (1960) and “The Passenger” (1975).
My Thoughts
I started “Blow-Up” and was not feeling it from the get go. People who follow my reviews will know that, while it is not a deal breaker, I do tend to have a negative knee jerk reaction to films about photographers or filmmakers/writers. This film started out much the same.
The first act of the film, though well framed and necessary for what was coming, didn’t grab my attention too much as it seemed to be simply another story of a disillusioned artist, in this case a photographer (played by David Hemmings, “Deep Red”), who has tired of the game that surrounds their art.
I can’t even really tell you why this movie seems to win me over from this criticism. A part of me wants to dislike it because it treads to close to trendy for my taste but perhaps because of the movies themes, I end up feeling like I might watch this one again.
For its day, this was a shockingly lascivious film, but today most 14 year olds have seen worse than what is depicted here. The shock factor is all but completely erased from a modern viewing yet what is most shocking to me is how deliberate and philosophical the film becomes.
On its surface, a typical thriller, “Blow-Up” actually ends up asking a host of questions through its silence. There are several long scenes of Thomas observing others and taking their pictures. One especially long sequence shows him building out a scene of an murder he believes he somehow photographed but didn’t see.
These scenes are the key. We are left to observe just as he does, without interaction, question, or answer. We begin to ask the questions of the voyeur. “Is this real, because they do not know I am here?” “How can I have been there, attentive to detail, and yet not see a murder, right before my eyes?” “Have I been missing things all along?”
The film may wrap up its more thrillery loose ends quite nicely but the philosophical questions about art, experience, observation, and recreation are simply brushed upon, leaving the mind plenty of room with which to muse.
Unfortunately, I do find that the treatment of women as, for the most part, objects is more than I care for in a movie. I know that Antonioni is commenting on it but it never seems to do much more than say, “see how dismissive and horrible the industry is toward women?” Yeah. I see it. We all see it. What are you saying about it, director? In the end, not much.
It’s a shame that a film which revolves around that which is seen and unseen and paying attention to detail, could have such a large blind spot. Perhaps that is the shame of our culture but one that I think I am only now beginning to have my heart as open to as my eyes.
I wish this film did more to grab me but it doesn’t. It’s a solid film, don’t get me wrong.
The plot itself is just not enough to hook me, nor is the unimpressive acting style, but for once, the frustrated artist has struck a chord with me and has me still thinking, hours after the film has ended. Not bad for a 60 year old film.
Review Written By: