Copyright © 2010 by James Clark
There is a moment, in the middle of Blow-Up (1966), which seems the right starting point for us. A busy young commercial photographer and Londoner-about-town, “Thomas,” pores over reams of negatives covering an impromptu shoot in a park. That bit of seizing the moment had begun to take on a life of its own, insofar as what had been seized was (soon-to-be-apparently) an act of murder. Thomas had been impressed by a woman’s serpentine determination to recover those vignettes, some of the frames of which featured her and what appeared to be a lover. Now rid of her, he quickly moves toward discovery of what great importance he has engaged. And, to assist his enlarging the special revelations, he comes up with a magnifying glass of major proportions. As he works with it, his face frozen in anticipation, we have to think of Sherlock Holmes. We almost reprove ourselves for such an incongruity, Thomas (in spite of his Victorian name) being the epicenter itself of modernity. (To take one instance, his studio/home base is the envy of all those who would be cool, an industrial behemoth on a grotty street, flashing its not-for-the-faint-of-heart grungy, coal era struts, but sprouting an apotheosis of just-in, top-of-the-line commercial and residential appointments—spare, metallic and glassy—punching out features like sliding doors in candy colors.)
But is he? He prints enlargements and discovers that the woman, romancing an older man in a grey business suit, often shows forth as looking toward a clump of woodland beside the broad expanse of solid,
well-tended English lawn. Now sweating and moving amidst his imposing equipment with that killer instinct he had previously displayed in dealings with business associates, he pushes the enlargements to extra strength, recreates the parkland by positioning the developed sheets on three walls, and, going to a troubling spot and quantum-leaping the enlarger and contraster, he discovers a man’s face looking out of the bushes and then discovers that the mysterious element is pointing a hand gun at the man being romanced by the woman with whom he had matched wits and taken to bed. Before he gets down to pedalling his machinery to the metal, there is the doorbell and, using the gambit, “You weren’t expecting us, were you?” two very young aspiring models he had given short shrift en route to the park. Setting in stark relief his unpreparedness for the new-wave challenge at hand, there ensues an episode with these naifs, who were definitely not averse to sleeping their way to the top, involving much groping, tearing clothes away, the girls squabbling and him calling out, “Go on! Give her a left hook!” a rush to his pristine fashion-shoot studio where they laughingly rip down a floor-to-ceiling lavender backdrop and all three writhe in its shambles. On coming to, they now dressing him, his eye catches the sleuthing set-up and he re-examines a couple of pieces while they watch in puzzlement. He gets out his magnifier, chases them out and manages a tight little smile as he thinks himself to be closing in on another successful conclusion among many photographic calculations. He had, midway through the first phase of investigation, phoned his agent, “Ron,” and prematurely announced, “Something fantastic’s happened! Somebody was trying to kill somebody. I saved a man from being killed!” Subsequently he pushes things beyond comfy gratifications, realizing he’s been outfoxed in the business end of the mystery he presumed to be amenable to the kind of rational talents and dogged mobility with which Sherlock Holmes was amply endowed. He drives to the park to confirm his chilling discovery, and we notice he has failed to bring his camera along. The matter at hand had careened beyond his comfort zone. On returning home, he was confronted with further evidence that his former stance of being on top of the world was illusory—all (but one) of the enlargements and all of the negatives had become the property of someone else.
Antonioni’s first venture away from Italy could not draw upon his standard means of registering the deep setbacks that had become an obsession with him. The actress, Monica Vitti, his angel of Angst, had made it imperative to explore the abysses of public and personal action in uniquely physical scenarios. Shifting his scope to 1960s London and its flighty, fluffy and yet still somewhat Holmesian manufactures of a much-bruited ne plus ultra of cool, he would gravitate to a far more discursive and verbally pointed schema (assisted by playwright, Edward Bond, for idiomatic cogency) to touch upon regions of remorse La Vitti could nail with the low beams accompanying the slightest turn of her head. Whereas the public context of the Italian works had consisted of various materially thriving technicians, to be upstaged by the actress’ far from sufficing sensual output, in Blow-Up we do have a technician-superstar showing what he’s made of, but the antithesis emerges in that same sensibility. What sets in relief his discoveries and predicaments (and prompts the format of convoluted mystery adventure entirely foreign to Monica Vitti’s skills) is an epoch in thrall to a particular brand of egotistical intimidation, a trade Thomas has mastered to celebrated heights.
Thus we are ushered into the ticking time bomb this film enacts, by its credits in the form of staid designations the font of which roils with vignettes of the camera shark demonstratively conducting a fashion shoot. To carry along that piece of unfinished business, the first stage of the narrative confronting us involves an open jeepload of white-noising mimes in deathly whiteface and perky costumes, invading a commercial plaza and then staging an infantry charge through streets they would conclude to require the anarchic energies being delivered by wonderful them. Juxtaposing this manic offensive, is Thomas (dressing way down) along with various faded figures departing a flophouse along the objective of that army, which swishes past a couple of immigrant nuns as if they were street furniture. They encounter the hero at the moment when he relocates himself behind the wheel of his black Rolls Royce convertible. They swarm that chariot and demand a handout which the young noble is happy to provide, and in doing so he signals by his body language he’s with them in shaking up a moribund history. These extortionists, typically locating themselves in a mob, will reappear at the end, and Thomas’ response to them at that time will make more remarkable sense to us.
He will go on to tell the two birds we have already considered, who had asked him for a couple of minutes of his time, “I haven’t got a couple of minutes to have my appendix out,” thereby identifying himself as both frighteningly productive and yet feeling some need to expunge a discredited complement to his factually productive powers. His having lots of time for the improv guerrillas directly coincides with indicators that Thomas was, for all his disdain toward the “appendix,” looking for profit centres over and above the fashion industry. Seeing him in an uneasy kinship with the disadvantaged and an advantageously easy kinship with the glib sport of reverencing those in material distress, we begin to comprehend his being at the Rolls Royce level of fluency with popular, commercially sound vapidity. On pulling away from the cosmetic Samaritans, he grabs the speaker of his remote system and barks out field marshal orders to a compliant staff person with an old-fashioned vocabulary, “…Roger, Wilko and out…” Then he’s into his to-die-for digs, getting an efficient underling, “Reg,” to do the scut work for his artistry with a skeletal, high-cheekboned Slavic model who puts him on notice with, “I have to catch a plane for Paris at eleven.” He puts her in her place by inquiring, with a disgusted perusal, “Who the hell were you with last night?” and proceeds with a precisely staged photo essay of her presumably dazzling sexuality, destined—with multi-purpose smarts—for both a fashion magazine’s quick-wave at art and for a coffee table book. They slip into a register of steamy tryst they no doubt had run through before, and his aural contribution is not only a means of placing the present point of his counterattack on behalf of change, but an alert that pithy, ironic phrases (often out of his own mouth) would dog his dabbling with the real deal. “Give it to me!…really give it to me…that’s very good…c’mon, work, work, work!… (Straddling her) Stretch yourself!…Lovely…Make it come…yes, yes, yes!” His “no, no, no!” attitude to a flock of fashion model birds—“Hoy! No chewing gum! Get rid of it! Not on my floor!…Terrible!… Start again. Re-think it…—intensifies the portrait of crisis. A factually improbable but thematically validated aspect of that episode reveals Thomas demanding they close their eyes to regain a professionally acceptable range of composure, and then leaving the building. (On returning and being even more nonplussed, he orders them to continue their eyelid yoga, and he cuts out again.)
Before his alighting on the park, there are a couple of other touches to enable us to take a more rounded reading of the spiral of distemper he has latched onto. Across the courtyard of the industrial-complex edifice he calls home are two friends whose marriage has turned into major gridlock. There is “Bill,” an abstract painter, who says things about his work on the order of, “They don’t mean anything when I do them. They’re just a mess…but a painting sorts itself out [in retrospect]… It’s like finding a clue [doing Holmesian classical logic] in a detective story.” And there is his beautiful wife who, noticing Thomas is a bit under the weather—he couldn’t wait to tell her, “Been all night in a dosshouse”—is eager to massage him back to health—“Don’t stop. Just rub me.” As the take-charge and charmingly reckless guy goes back to the studio, she follows him with an admiring gaze. Thomas had expressed an interest in buying the painting Bill had just completed (save for the “making [conventional] sense” part), but canny Bill (who was also non-committal to his friend’s proposal he give it to him, gratis) was waiting till the reviews were in to be sure of its value. On his clearing the premises for a second time—leaving the two young wannabes in the swoosh of his cool deliberations—we look into his windshield from above, showing reflected foliage and architecture; and, beaming out from that, merrily lip-syncing to his peerless sound system, Thomas is the spitting image of Sir Paul Himself. We could remark a fringe of effervescence to rather awkwardly cap off the blunt ambition; but Antonioni, now well into a metaphorical vehicle (including Mike Hammer and the crescendo of Kiss Me Deadly) putting his protagonist through a very tough job application, would be primarily unimpressed with that gift of being fresh, but not really.
That said, Thomas does exude a form of athleticism, and his getting more than he bargained for at the playground comes to him as a welcome challenge. The park abuts an antiques district, and his incursion is bookended with visits to two incarnations pointing up a readiness in him for the new. At the first instance, he is stonewalled by a geriatric clerk, unforthcoming as if bitterly determined not to share with someone from a younger generation the solaces of days gone by he would only sneer at. The actor, David Hemmings, in addition to being able to cover a Beatle, has the heavily lidded visage and ready-to-pounce carriage of Elvis, and his sifting through memorabilia (mainly as irreverential props to lend novelty and whimsy to the magazine fodder) recalls the King’s fondness for Teddy Bears and the like. The acrid impudence of the old man introduces a note of intractability to a procession that hitherto had met only deference and adulation. On completing the eerie speed bump that was the demanding photo subject in the park—having to be rebuffed in terms of, “It’s not my fault if there’s no peace…Most women would pay me to photograph them”—he comes back to the shop where the young proprietor (now on the scene, her troll/employee now deferentially washing windows) is amenable to lowering her prices due to being “fed up with antiques” and being ready to give Nepal a try. “Nepal is all antiques” is Thomas’ intimation to her (and to himself) that the world at large holds big disappointments for the young and the beautiful, like them. Then he spies something just for him, a large, shellacked, mahogany airplane propeller, sure-fire as a Brancusi sculpture and with irony no one could miss. He leaves the infatuated dabbler (who is much more anxious than he about damage to his car from using it as a truck) with the demand, dripping with a reflexive sense of entitlement to things easily falling into place, “It better turn up today.”
Then he is with Ron, who is well underway with an instance of the expensive meals he can count on by accommodating Thomas. They’re going over proofs of his shoot at the no-cost lodgings, lucratively exploitive of others’ embarrassment, along lines of Mike and Velda’s manipulation of divorce combatants. “They’re great!” Ron says. “It rings truer;” and we can see propeller-like irony. (He refers to the addition of the “very peaceful” park scenes to set in relief the horrors.) The artiste adds a touch of viscosity to all this celestial payoff, with, “I’ve gone off London this week. It doesn’t do anything for me.” He can’t resist putting himself on the spot in terms of, “I wish I had tons of money. Then I’d be free.”/ (Ron, cottoning on to the “edginess” of the moment, points to a picture of one of the self-destructive inmates and asks, “Free like him?” Thomas notices a man on the street doing surveillance on him as he sits at the window table of the restaurant, rushes out to confront him, loses sight of him, drives homeward and has to wait for an anti-nuclear weapons demonstration (shadows of bomb-enhancer, Dr. Soberin, who frequently interrupts Mike’s progress in the noir touching upon this narrative). One of the contrarians shoves a placard into the back seat of his inconspicuous vehicle, a far cry from the antiques protester who was so careful about that fabulous upholstery). It reads, “Go Away.” Steadfast friend of the fatuous, he smiles complicitly and says, “That’ll be alright.” When he reaches his street—a neutron bombing scene, as usual—he leans on his horn, hoping to have offended someone, still caught up in the seemingly promising paunchiness of the theatrical outcry.
What his noise does rustle up is the woman from the park, her compatriot at the restaurant window having put her on the scent. “I’ve come for the photographs!” Her stress level—“My personal life is a mess as it is”—cues Thomas’ (at this point only) slightly wilted savoir-faire toward a level he can discern only as a package of ominous distemper. “So what? Nothing like a little disaster for sorting things out.” As they manoeuvre for advantage—he, like Mike, intrigued by the fuss and ugliness surrounding his puzzling discovery, and quite steadfast (again) in his typecast role of irresistible man of action (offering to facilitate her in a career as fashion model—“You’ve got it…Not many girls can stand like that”—and teaching her how to be cool in face of his music—“Slowly, slowly…against the beat…That’s it!”)—both Hemmings and Vanessa Redgrave (as the petitioner) convey expertly the triteness they cleave to as default orientations, and how damaging such crudity has become for them. He leaves the room to get a glass of water for her; she takes the camera with the hot roll of film and scurries toward the door; he’s there, like Elmer Fudd with Bugs Bunny: “Do I look a fool, Luv?” He reproves her with, “Your boyfriend’s a bit past it.”/ “Why didn’t you say that was what you want?”/ (She strips, to the waist, as does he.) And, therefrom, a coy, self-conscious spate of gestures rolls by. There is a split second when both of them try to generate loving. It had been preceded by his fielding a phone call (scrambling around the furniture like a sitcom player, looking for the phone) from a woman—“It’s my wife…Sorry, Luv, the bird I’m with won’t talk to you…She isn’t my wife, really…We just have kids…No, we don’t, not even kids…She’s not beautiful, but she’s easy to live with… No, she isn’t…That’s why I don’t live with her… Even beautiful girls, you look at them, and that’s that.” He pretends to give her the film she wants. She pretends to give him her phone number. The propeller arrives and she’s suddenly brimming with decorator advice.
The ransacking of his chic surround prompts him to do some brainstorming with Ron. En route to the latter’s whereabouts that night, he catches a glimpse of the thief; but by the time he parks the car she’s gone. He’s drawn to the electronic buzz of a Yardbirds concert at a nearby building and joins a crowd of youngsters standing stock still and with a blank, noncommittal, studiously cool expression on their face. The singer frequently repeats the bluesy phrase, “(I’m) strollin’ on,” and we see the protagonist, who is all about “strollin’ on,” but more immediately about being diverted, fitting right in with the diversionary conclave. Like him, the band runs into bugs with their electrodynamics, and they start bashing a sputtering speaker getting in the way of effective transmission. (However, they could have been availing themselves of the eerie aspect of such compromise, in the spirit of early rock guitar researcher, Link Wray. They did seem to be enjoying the vandal gestures.) One of the guitarists (not cherubic Jimmy Page, who seems to be at another concert altogether), a young Jeff Beck, in fact, on wrecking the fretwork of his instrument, throws it on the floor, stomps on it and tosses the debris into the crowd, which has an alarm clock effect on those frozen bodies. Ever the Alpha, Thomas comes up with the prize, runs from the hall and, on reconsideration, discards the offending matter, depositing it on the sidewalk. Then it’s on to trencherman Ron, whose performance entails smoking two joints at a time at a party in a mansion. Before engaging his distracted friend, he runs into the orgasmic model, and unaccustomed cheek. “I thought you were in Paris.”/ “I am in Paris.” For perhaps the first time in his free agency, Thomas does not occupy a commanding vantage point, showing instead—in this scene, so recently agreeable to him, of fashionably bombed trend-setters—as (despite a few friendly waves) decidedly out of the loop, no longer a bracing figure of salubrious barbarism. “Someone’s been killed,” he blurts out to the entertainment specialist. “We’ve got to get a shot of it!” Why on earth would he consult with so patently limited a source at a time like this? Why, unless his work and his life had become so bewildering, painful and dangerous that he was intent on crawling back into a gratifying corporation, and Ron could be counted on to confirm the wisdom of that reaffirmation of child-rule. “I’m not a photographer,” grumbles Ron, displeased to be interrupted at what he’s good at, and emboldened by being in Paris. Far from Paris himself, Thomas bites out, “I am.”/ “What’s wrong with him?…What did you see in the park?”/ “Nothing.”
Nothing is what he sees at the park in the light next morning, in place of the corpse of the previous night, the one that couldn’t make the Yardbirds gig. As he stands there, silently reviling the fates, a (broken?) sign atop a commercial building by the park flashes “FOA” over his head—perhaps an incomprehensible obscurity; perhaps hinting at “Fear On Arrival,” at a place of DOA. Arriving with typical rebel yells, the triumphant street fighters and their jeep take over the tennis court where he, dejected, may be compared with the spent, sidewalk traffic of the earlier uprising. A boy and a girl mime a tennis match while the others follow the “ball” with coy amazement. Thomas finds himself smack in the middle of this rendition of give and take, and after a while it transpires that the “ball” has cleared the enclosure and “landed” near him. There is a sharp moment when all eyes are upon what clearly has been seen to be a not very significant outsider and pedestrian—his tailored, dark green jacket, contrasting off-white pants and lack of makeup, and also his desolate demeanor (he does manage an unconvincing grin which does not sit well with the quiet alarm in his eyes) marking him as a piece of work for devious reformers like this band of his betters. He is expected to pick up the “ball” and throw it back into play. He is expected to be a good chap and suspend all disbelief. He does, being thereby instrumental in fortifying the charade. As he stands amidst this comprehensive rejection of physical fact, he can hear the sound of a ball being hit, his instinct for comforting common sense being predominant. He walks away, stops; and the camera soars, leaving him apparently little more than a speck.
But we have accompanied him to the point where the placard saying, “Go Away” poses an arresting historical nightmare for one who luxuriated in alliances with all the best people. Not for him the bang of tripping Pandora’s Box open with more nerve than could be balanced by finesse. Rather, Thomas seems torn between now wildly suspect stylishness and fear, the surmounting of which would leave him in accordance with the putatively ironclad state of “rather have the blues.”
With his good friend, the wife of the painter, he had proclaimed, “I saw a man killed this morning.”/ “Who was he?”/ “Someone.” Thomas would insist upon every individual registering in the scheme of things, every centre of intent putting out a compelling saga. In light of his actual practice, that would amount to politic cant, a rhetorical accessory to the brutal facts of clan exclusiveness and adventure. (On his car phone to deal with the acquisition of antique props, he touches upon some realities of real estate values as affecting retail prices, and in the same breath he touches upon clannish resentment toward an association competing with his own guild as pertaining to the avant-garde: “The area’s already crawling with queers and their poodles.”) She goes on to ask him to help her with enduring Bill. (“Why don’t you leave him?”/ “I can’t.”) Thomas of course can’t be bothered with such stragglers, snared in tedious details. (“I wonder why they shot him.”) By the time he hits the tennis game, he is fully aware of being a “Someone” and, to all intents and purposes, a “no one.” He hasn’t, however, been entirely consigned to road kill. The saucy barbarians have left him the gift of their trained bodies in concert, the negation of factual content leaving (to those with an eye for such things [and, in the increasingly peevish run with the fashion models, Thomas has “stretched” himself in that way, if only for fleeting moments]) a seriously regenerative carnality, and kinship beyond fatuous violence.
Thus the Yardbirds’ song does, for all its sputtering, speak to Thomas, who is very much a work-in-progress, and not enjoying it a bit.
Strollin’ on, cause it’s all gone
The reason why you made me cry
By tellin’ me you didn’t see
The future bore our love no more
If you want to know I love you so
And I don’t want to let you go
I’m strollin’ on
Gonna make you see
I’m strollin’ on
You wish you’d never lied
You’re gonna change your mind
But you ain’t gonna find
Any more of my kind
‘BLOW-UP’ is as much about the photgrapher in the film as it is about Antonioni, who is also the photographer of the movie. In the movie when Hemmings develops the photos he is trying to put together the reality of the scene, and he is trying to impose a narrative on the scene he has viewed just as the director himself through a sequence of scenes is creating a narrative. Can reality ever really make sense though? Here, the photographer is going over photo after photo in order to try and recreate the past moment that he witnessed. Interestingly enough while we are watching the scenes there is no sound or music except the haunting sounds we heard in the park of the leaves of the trees rustling in the wind. Through these sequences of shots a marvelous build up of drama is created as we speculate about what he is going to find. Eventually he does find a man in the woods holding a gun, and believes that he has prevented a murder. It is through a series of shots like these that Antonioni’s genius for film making is conveyed. After blowing up a few more photos he finds a body and realizes that someone was killed after all.
One scene that is important in the film that shows an artist in his studio who makes a comment that he often doesn’t know what he has made until after the fact. And it is only after he has had some time to view the painting that some aspect of it begins to have meaning for him. It is at this point that he has then imposed meaning on the image. This could be said to be the way Antonioni works through his own work as a director. When the photographer goes back to the park to see if the body is there it is to verify the reality of what he has seen in the photos. After he sees the body in the park he then must find someone else in order to verify his view because reality only has meaning in a social context. But then when he goes back to his studio he finds that someone has stolen the photos, and so the evidence of the murder is gone. When he returns to the body in order to photograph the body it also is gone. Now he can’t prove that there was a murder. The blown up photos look like one of Bill’s abstract paintings where there was no meaning until the artist imposed one on the image, just as Hemming’s character too has imposed meaning on the photos he has taken. By blowing up the photos it is as if he has revealed layers under layers to find meaning, but has he found any meaning if he can’t now prove it to anyone else? Vanessa Redgrave’s character appears again and then disappears. Constantly we are led through this labyrinth where the truth remains elusive. Meaning is shown as only having meaning if it is in a social context as meaning is a social construction. Hemming is never able to verify his reality since he can never get anyone to see the corpse.
In the last scene, with the mimes, we have a group of people participating in the illusion of a tennis game which the photographer witnesses. We are shown that the imaginary tennis game has meaning because this group of mimes buy into this reality. Eventually Hemming’s character also buys into this reality as he goes to retrieve the imaginary ball that was hit over the fence. Even the camera buys into this reality as it too follows the flight of the imaginary ball which flies over the fence and rolls over the grass. Ultimately Hemming’s character disappears which seems to reaffirm that this is the director’s reality that he has created.
“Blow-Up” is about these layers of meaning that are constantly being pealed away as if there is no true reality that can be seen since reality is constantly shifting depending on the context or point of view.
Thanks for your thoughtful input here, Bill.
You pose two very engaging questions: “Can reality ever really make sense?”; and, “Reality only has meaning in a social context.”
We first see Thomas very well-connected, socially and professionally, and very confident about what matters. In losing his footing where he was so sure-footed, he comes up against a range of consciousness that leaves him frightened and depressed. He isn’t used to being a loner, an outsider; but like it or not that is where he has put himself.
I take it Bill you think “reality only has meaning in a social context”. Is this not circular? As I put it in an college paper in the late 60s: life has no meaning has no meaning. Reality is not a concept, it is a construct: what each consciousness constructs of the sensory perceptions ‘out there’. We construct our own reality and social confirmation is unnecessary – we act on our perceptions not on some socially verified reality. Each of us is Antonioni’s photographer constructing our own reality from the artifacts of existence .
Excellent points, Tony.
Movie artists know they have been blessed with a medium well-suited for shining out vast constructs from the depths of individual sensibility.
Visually it’s gorgeous. The thin flanks of English girls rolling around in a huge sheet of purple paper, our hero (chest bare and hairless) helping the delivery man bring in the enormous propeller. Noisy mimes sweeping through London like locusts. A roomful of Mods staring silent at the wailing Yardbirds. (Glad you posed the lyrics in this definitive review of the film.) The cinematography is perfect.
But what’s the point? What’s the point of all the murder-mystery setup if we’re not going to have an explanation? The point is, naturally, that there is no point. In 1966 this was shocking and important. In 2001, there’s the sense that we’ve been through that revelation and come out the other side. But that doesn’t mean that we don’t need to be reminded now and then. And if nothing else, it’s refreshing to remember a time when the meaninglessness of existence and the indeterminacy of truth were still thrilling and scary, rather than vaguely problematic bits of the background scenery.
You raise a great question, Frederick. Does Antonioni discover that there is “no point” to life, or that there is no sufficient point to the long-standing resources, and discovering a new range of sufficiency is no walk in the park?
Mark Romanek”s Never Let Me Go (that I’ll be tackling next) includes a lamb to the slaughter, named “Tommy,” who, in an early scene, begins to field a ball hit by a tennis racquet and then gives up the chase, because it has cleared the fence and as livestock he knows better than to go beyond the fence. He later lives in a building complex not unlike the one invaded by the circus troupe. Thomas could see his dilemma as more like a walk in the park, were he aware of Tommy.
I wish I liked this film more than I do. I love much of Antonioni’s work, but this faddish effort is caught in a time warp. Some people believe that obscurity is some sign of genius. The film look snice, but it adds up to very little. This is outstanding and valiant criticism, that I don’t at all mean to insult, Jim.
Your point is well taken, Frank. The Monica Vitti films are fascinating, where Blow-Up is a crash scene with a jerk on the sidewalk. But, like him or not, his dilemma is all over a pathway we have to walk. That is why Mark Romanek brings him along, with shades of Mulholland Drive and Alice in Wonderland, in Never Let Me Go.
Jim, I’m excited to hear you’ll be dealing with NEVER LET ME GO, as Lucille and I will be seeing this on Saturday evening!
Jim, this is a very intricate and studied assessment, that I (again) must congratulate you on. More than any other art film of its time, BLOW-UP was hip and fashionable for those hankering for cryptic cinema that embraced the use of symbols and made suggestive use of color. The film is strikingly disconnected, as it regularly poses the questions of ‘what is illusion?’ and ‘what is reality?’, and it can be compellingly posed that the camera is a devise to distort reality.
Although my view has been opposed at another site, I always found the film dated, and nowhere as resonant as Antonioni’s great masterpieces, (L’AVENTURA, L’ECCLISSE, LA NOTTE, RED DESERT)but there’s no question it exerted enormous influence, and it brought the masses into the art house fold, even moreso than Bergman, whose legions were more narrowly defined.
I agree with you and Frank. A dated film that induces unintentional laughter when I watch it. Overly intricate and well organized essay by James is at the service of a movie that retains as much modern currency as a Country Joe And The Fish album. Still I praise him for his flexibility to write about both this film and something as different as Pee Wee’s Big Adventure.
Maurizio, I really am enjoying my Country Joe costume today 🙂 Add to that I had stumbled into Allan’s nameplate for a while!
One thing, though. You’ll have to figure out, along with me and all those Blow-Up fans out there, why Mark Romanek (in Never Let Me Go) considers that movie still of interest today.
Fixin’ To Die Rag is just as relevant now as then. Blow Up in Vietnam by proxy. You figure it out.
When you listen to The Velvet Underground or even something like The Band you can here echoes of their music still being copied now by younger musicians. It has a spark and vitality. Country Joe needs a time warp that can take you back 40 years to appreciate in my estimation. You had to be around back then to enjoy his dated music… Besides the fact that his albums are loaded with filler and unable to stand up album length wise. Some artists age like fine wine with time, others grow old and stale. Even if you look at the 90’s when I was a teenager…. some acts like My Bloody Valentine, Talk Talk, and Slint grow stronger with time. Others that I once loved like Superchunk or Archers Of Loaf are now hopelessly dated and not meant to continue on into future decades holding the same esteem. Country Joe was probably okay in his time….. but while Venus In Furs and White Light White Heat still sound exciting and modern, Fixin To Die Rag went out with Bean Bags, Peace Signs, and using “Groovy” in one’s vocabulary. Just my opinion guys….. :0)
Maurizio, I don’t know Country Joe’s albums from Adam but personally I think Fixin to Die still has bite. Yes the music itself is rudimentary – it’s the lyric that stands out – but as that is what the song is going for (a basic singalong with cutting words) I can’t criticize it for that. Anyway, Country Joe always makes for a good interview in docs on the era; it might interest you (though of course it’s not relevant to your point) that he’s actually pretty critical of some of “the 60s” – in particular, no love lost between him & Jane Fonda (poor Jane, taking it from Country Joe one minute, Godard the next!).
Your perceptions about Blow-Up being a ludicrous rendition of cool are impossible to refute, Sam.
Blow-Up is ugly, no doubt about it. I’ve included it in my scope about loners because Antonioni lays out here in an accomplished way the unravelling of a smug top dog, and in doing so touches quite excitingly upon the deficit of sensuality bringing him down.
It is, I admit, hard not to see him counting on the same vapid bandwagon he dismisses, in order to drive ticket sales.
Most coincidentally, our friend Ed Howard at ONLY THE CINEMA just this past week (Thursday, September 21) penned an essay on the film. (Critic David Ehrenstein is excellent in the comment section to boot) Ed’s typically superlative insights are a perfect supplement for Jim’s extraordinary effort (and vice-versa):
http://seul-le-cinema.blogspot.com/2010/09/blow-up.html
Thanks for the info, Sam. I’m looking forward to reading that work.
I like this film, and your discussion of a key scene involving the Yardbirds… I’ve always wondered what it would have been like had he gotten the Who like he wanted. Rather then have Jeff Beck (my personal favorite of all the guitarists that sat in with the Yardbirds, and their tunes are the best with him IMHO) imitate Pete Townshend he could of had the genuine article. I believe the Who’s management team was responsible for them not being in it, and it’s a shame. I gotta think those youths wouldn’t have been so docile had they had the genuine article fussing and fighting (and smashing) in front of them.
I ‘ll read this great essay and return with more thoughts. Great work though Jim (as usual).
Roger The Engineer is a great album. The Yardbirds best actually…..
Couldn’t agree more. ‘Over, Under, Sideways, Down’… man, what a spellbinding, crazy, circular riff.
Maurizio do you (or what are your thoughts) on Beck’s albums in the 70’s with Jan Hammer? Most famously ‘blow by blow’? Seems. from other comments you’ve made about other stuff you like that you’d be a fan. Another Beck instrumental from that era ‘I Can’t Give Back the Love I Feel For You’ (though it’s a cover I believe) I’d count as one of my favorite instrumental tracks in Rock History.
I’m not crazy about his solo stuff.
Thanks, Jamie.
Like you, I wish Antonioni had been able to give some serious recognition to the integrity of aspects of the music of that time.
I like your portrait of Thomas as a kind of unintentional drop-out, somebody who no longer flows with his hip stream and becomes more sympathetic, if more consciously unhappy, in the process. I like Ebert’s take on the character as someone who only comes alive in his work but this does not quite capture the transitional flavor which you point out. “Steadfast friend of the fatuous” – that made me laugh, and as for Page – he does look oddly chipper doesn’t he? A far cry from the Prince of Darkness image he would later cultivate…
When I first saw Blow-Up I was not a fan, and my reaction was very similar to many of the commentators here – dated, empty, smug. Return viewings were more effective, but I’ll concede that had more to do with a newfound affection for the time period and the music so that what had seemed dated now seemed desirable. But the fact remains that Antonioni really didn’t get this scene he so coldly dismisses (while milking it for all it’s worth, like his protagonist).
It’s not really as rich a picture as L’Avventura or L’Eclisse (I’m not a great fan of La Notte), but it shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand – a quick comparison with A’s next film, Zabriskie Point, which really IS a mess (albeit an intriguing one and at times fantastically beautiful – the explosive ending is among my favorite conclusions in cinema history) should remind us that whatever else Blow-Up is, it’s fully cohesive and effective filmmaking, accomplishing exactly what it sets out to with great skill. It does tap into a pompous side of Antonioni (like Bresson, he’s a director whose holier-than-thou schtick can get a bit irritating) but he’s so goddamned talented, the self-importance hardly matter and indeed even becomes a vital part of the overall flavor.
The Who would never have worked in that rock scene, because they wouldn’t have fit into the film’s rather flippant, jaundiced view of soulless youth culture (in fact, whatever its flaws it was anything but). The Yardbirds are a little more esoteric and not as bombastic, but even they break through the spell Antonioni’s trying to weave – whenever I see the film I perk up and grin at their scene, it’s just so much fun to see them, however mercilessly the mise-en-scene hems them in (one reason I’m glad it’s them and not Townshend & co. in action is that it’s also much rarer to see footage of them, between their lesser fame, shorter career, and frequent line-up changes). Among other things, Roger’s got one of the best LP covers of the era.
On the film’s perhaps hypocritical disapproval of swingin’ London, I’ll let Pauline Kael have the last word here: “Antonioni is the kind of thinker who can say that there are ‘no social or moral judgments in the picture’; he is merely showing us the people who have discarded ‘all discipline,’ for whom freedom means ‘marijuana, sexual perversion, anything,’ and who live in ‘decadence without any visible future.’ I’d hate to be around when he’s making judgements.”
2 addenda to my comment above:
1. I do like the film; I’ll watch it if its on, seek it out once in a while, and generally enjoy it (getting more out of it on each viewing) but it doesn’t leave as my satisfied (or restlessly satisfied? satisfyingly restless?) as Antonioni’s best films.
2. I do think a satirical take on Swingin’ London is warranted, just that Antonioni seems to throw out the baby with the bathwater, and what’s more kisses the infant on the forehead before defenestration commences!
Great observations, Joel.
I’ve often wondered about the role of co-writer and white-knuckle playwright, Edward Bond, in this.
Antonioni has always struck me as gaining more traction with things (particularly features of the city) than with humans. In Monica Vitti he had a human who could function as a pristine element. I suspect he’d have been happy doing primary cinematic research, the way James Benning does. But he had to stay with the features business, often putting himself on the spot to do more than he was prepared for, or temperamentally suited for.
Good question. I’ve been trying to pay writers more mind lately but they still tend to slip under the radar, both because directors tend to get all the press and because writers tend to come and go on projects (particularly in early Hollywood, a period I’m reading up on a bit now). For what it’s worth, I do lean auteurist – I think the most important stamp is put on a film by the director, both because it’s a visual medium and because the director tends to have a hand in the most aspects of the work, but cinema tends not to be a one-man show. Long way of saying, I’d be interested to know what Bond brought to Blow-Up.
I don’t like this film, personally. Actually, I don’t like any of the Antonioni I’ve seen. But this, especially, struck me as really cloying and forced. Everything from the 60’s mod atmosphere, the resolutely unresolved pseudo-mystery to those insufferable mimes– it’s all so damn twee to me. No thanks. I’ll take De Palma’s “Blow Out” over this any day.
Bob, what’s your view on The Conversation?
Love it. Only weak spot is that dream sequence somewhere near the end. It might be Coppola’s best, but I’m also a sucker for “Apocalypse Now Redux”.
Bob, I feel your pain. As I mentioned to Joel, I think Antonioni was an ascetic who pursued sensualist issues to an upshot of serious light, but not serious heat. It leaves me quite speechless that an oil rig fire like Catherine Breillat is a big fan of L’Avventura. She must track that movie strictly with a view to Vitti’s primal elegance.
A tremendous treatment on one of my favorites from one of the great decades in cinema.
I could go on forever about this film, its meaning, and its meaning to me since I fiorst saw it many years ago.
Dennis,
Hearing from you is always a treat, and doubly so here because, as you’ve probably noticed, I had a hard time getting across that, despite some off-putting factors, Blow-Up has a lot on the ball.
For an illustrated précis of this film by someone who was actually there at the time visit http://hooton.photo/?p=1109