Blow Up by Michelangelo Antonioni, 1966.
imdb 7.6 – undeserved.
Cinematheque, saw by myself. Thank goodness. I was in a foul mood getting out. Viewed summer 2009.
Antonioni’s first American film – shot in English – and in 1966 technicolour. Like Demy’s ‘Model Shop’, which is 1969. Demy’s film is better. However, Blow Up has a fantastic plot, perfect for cinema – which is almost buried in a second (or perhaps third, or fourth) rate tv-worthy melodrama of the tacky pass-times of a photographer. The famous plot of a photograph taken in the park of an unknown couple making out (one of whom is Vanessa Redgrave) is everything we could hope for. It’s visually low-key, and the the storyline (this part of the storyline) is carried by the images, not by dialogue. This is perfect for film. Also, there’s the wonderful dimension of having the scene where he’s taking the pictures (in the park), followed later by the scene where’s he’s in the studio blowing up the photos, realizing that there is more there then simply a couple having what may be an extra-martial affair. There’s a gun. You can hardly see it. So he revisits the ‘film’ (motion) sequence with his still-shots, teh same way we, the entertained viewer, revisit the film later in broken down sequences, like still-shots. It’s great. Like a more art-house rendition of ‘Rear Window’ – but with a possible murder, it’s just like rear Window, with that same classic narrative appeal.
So what went wrong? Why did I almost walk out? Why did I want so badly, for almost the entire film, want to walk out? OK, it was not as excruciating as the ending of “L’Elipse” (the other Antonioni film I have seen – and I’m done. I’ll never watch another). We can see the reason in a look at two stills from the film.
The first shot, B&W, shows the photographer inspecting his print to find teh mysterious circumstances. We are hooked.
The second shot, a promotional poster, gives us the spice! It’s fashion, and hot chicks. And yes, they were pretty hot. And unappealing. And our great photography treats them all like garbage – which is fine. What do I care if my investigator is a nice fellow? I don’t. But why do we have to spend 85% of the film watching this fellow run around town in his convertible Rolls, seducing worthless wannabe models in his tacky ‘boho’ photography studios, and generally showing that whatever skills he has as a photographer, he is certainly, when it comes to everyday life, a worthless individual. But Antonioni must like it. The great plot gets a scattered 15 minutes of screen time, but the ‘hero’ showing everyone how clever he is by being impolite and pretentious gets the rest. It’s like reading a national enquirer article about Conrad Black, or better, Pierre Trudeau. Take someone with a brilliantly interesting story, and spend all your time trying to demonstrate how lurid their salacious private life is. That’s Blow-Up. A potentially great film. An excerpt from a great film.
I remember years ago seeing a Mel Brooks film with a short spin-off portion, where Mel Brooks if framed but there’s photo they keep blowing up – bigger and bigger – 10′ tall – to prove that Mel Brooks was innocent, because he was actually in a glass elevator visible way in the background. Mel Brooks knew which part of Blow-Up was worth emulating (it was a credited comical rip-off, and it must have been good, I can remember it from when I was about 12).
Now let’s give some credit. The film has a magnetic, memorable quality. It belongs in the cannon. Sure, its’ 85% pulp, and the ending – provide us a great plot, and purposely throw it away? Is it really that ‘clever’ top just stop a film dead in what is clearly the middle of the plot? Is that what art is? Give me a break. And it makes one ill to think how the pretentious gliterary will love it. Wow. That’s me giving it some credit. But that one snippit of plot, about teh photograph, was magnetic. So it is a film with a good portion, if one can endure the whole.
