What started as a very in depth character development, turned into a 111 minute film without major conflict, and without really any plot at all. The rounded and in depth depiction of British culture of the mid- 1960s is alone worth the watch, but for a stimulating plot, this film more than missed the mark. Antonioni was never really much in the way of a complex three act structure with introduction and resolution - his films could be much better described as studies, in my mind, than movies, especially with this, his first English-speaking film. With that said, the film was interestingly acted, the most notable performances by the amazing Vanessa Redgrave, as well as the quirky David Hemmings, who has had made a unique career for himself. The film exhibits scenes, that for the 1960s were extremely controversial, most notably multiple scenes that showed full, frontal female nudity - a first for Britain. I appreciated this film for the depiction of photography, processing, and printing, but in a way I assume only those who study photography might recognize. All in all, this is hailed as a historically and culturally representative film, and that though it may be, most of that seems lost in translation to those of us in 2010.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/14/2010
2 comments:
Hey Dean,
Blow Up is awesome. Antonioni was never one to shoot for a conventional three-act structure, so it seems unfair to grade the film on those grounds. The second half of the film is far from "nothing happening", rather it's a brilliant study in perception and memory. It's all about how Hemmings views the picture, turning the scene over in his head and even adding details that were never really there. He gets so invested in solving this ostensible "murder" that he arguably goes mad. The final scene is instructive in this regard; he joins in on a game with mimes, suggesting the illusion of reality he has grappled with the whole time. Not to mention Antonioni's pictorial beauty is astounding.
Thanks for the insight, Carson. I wish I could have pulled that interpretation from the film, but I do have to admit, I felt like I needed a reader, or something to that effect, to further explain the action and really understand the film after it was over.
I did notice the cinematographic beauty he brought to the screen, and appreciated it, but all things in filmmaking must work together, and I guess when it comes to films like these, I might lean more towards the mainstream, straightforward - even Hollywood-esque - films. I like the three act structure, the climax, the resolution, and I think the typical movie-going audiences do, as well.
There is a substantial and distinct difference between liking the film and appreciating the film, and though, no, I didn't like the film, I certainly did appreciate it.
Post a Comment