CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › Culture & Entertainment › Movies › Blow-Up (1966) - Directed by Michelangelo Antonioni

Blow-Up (1966) - Directed by Michelangelo Antonioni

Started by Michelle Howard2 · · 👁 6 views · 29 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants Michelle Howard2Jason Morgan7AJoshua Reed73Sophia Williamsstormyviper11Justin Patelironcrane7Maria BarnesJose Miller17restlessviper20Douglas Robinson12Jerry Martin19Anthony Kim18Elizabeth Ruiz65Peter Ortiz4lonelynx16Robin Taylor2
Michelle Howard2 Michelle Howard2 MemberOP
38 messages
joined Dec 2002
#1 ·
This one is a lock for my personal Billboard Top 100. Has anyone actually sat down with this one, and are you feeling up for a deep dive? I also want to get into how much time can actually be an enemy to a movie. It’s pure arthouse gold wrapped in a crime plot, leaving you plenty of room to just wander through your own interpretations.

Take that scene where the photographer shows his album shots to his editor, and they both agree to wrap up a collection of pretty gritty images with something soothing from a park. But if you look closely at that "soothing" shot, hidden in the grain, there's actually a nasty murder lurking there. What you think you're seeing isn't necessarily the whole truth; there’s always something deeper beneath the surface. And even the stuff you *don't* see can start to feel real, like that mime playing tennis at the end of the film. If you really lean into the game, you might actually hear the ball hitting the racket...
Jason Morgan7 Jason Morgan7 Newcomer
4 messages
joined Dec 2002
#2 ·
What a massive film. It hits you right away by questioning the whole point of rock and roll, and it does it in such a hilarious way—like that scene where The Yardbirds' guitar, absolutely trashed from a gig, just ends up lying in the middle of the street, only for some random passerby to glance at it with this look of pure, visceral disgust.
A Anonymous Veteran
3.6K messages
joined May 2005
#3 ·
Carl Bennett78, if you're asking whether she was actually watching him...😳

She was just acting...😳 well, not me, but my avatar😁 remember that whole ménage à trois setup😉

I absolutely love that movie🙂)) have you guys read the short story by Julio Cortázar that the film was based on?
Michelle Howard2 Michelle Howard2 MemberOP
38 messages
joined Dec 2002
#4 ·
Ha, so it really is Jane Birkin. Honestly, she’s easily the best avatar on this whole forum, even if she's looking a little bit oversized here. 😉
I haven't actually sat down with the story yet, so what do you think—is it worth my time?
A Anonymous Veteran
3.6K messages
joined May 2005
#5 ·
Regarding the sizing... I actually took advantage of that one day when you guys allowed size 70 😉

I always recommend reading Julio Cortázar...😉 🙂
Joshua Reed73 Joshua Reed73 Newcomer
6 messages
joined Dec 2004
#6 ·
So, I guess we’re talking about the Uvecanje of Michelangelo Antonioni.

I remember the first time I saw it, back in the early eighties, watching on a local station in Chicago. I can still see the news anchor, Ante Peterlic, looking incredibly serious—he had this way of pressing his lips together tightly and forming a little triangle with his fingers before announcing, “Ladies and gentlemen, tonight we are presenting an anthology masterpiece by Michelangelo Antonioni, Blow-Up — Uvecanje.” And honestly, it wasn't just that one night; many times since then, I’ve found myself circling back to those exact words, and I suppose I have to admit he was absolutely right.

The film was actually based on Julio Cortázar's story “Devil's Ball,” which I’ve been hunting for years, and when I finally tracked it down, I was honestly a bit surprised by how much Antonioni drifted from the actual spirit of the original prose. I don't think it was just my take, either; apparently, even Cortázar himself felt that way, which supposedly pushed him to write a whole new story—Apocalypse in Solentiname—where he takes a somewhat cynical look back at how Antonioni handled his work. Interestingly enough, you can actually spot Cortázar in the movie itself, appearing in one of those photographs that Hemings shows the editor during their lunch at a restaurant. It’s right then that Hemings drops that line after looking through those photos of exhausted, disillusioned workers, saying, “I got something fab for the end, very peaceful, very still. Rest of the book is pretty violent, so it's better to end it like that."

What Hemings describes as something soothing is actually a murder. It’s recorded unconsciously and then, through a specific sequence of events, reconstructed by enlarging parts of the photographs. But once that reconstruction happens, it simply vanishes. Truth is deceptive; it reveals itself most clearly in the heavy grain of a photograph, yet at that very moment, it is lost forever. I guess it’s almost cynical how Hemings ends up in the studio—after finally realizing a murder took place and finding the body—staring at a photo taken at the highest magnification possible, which can prove absolutely nothing, while simultaneously forcing him to face exactly what happened. Once he uncovered the murder, it just disappeared. Reality isn't something tangible or provable. And it works the other way around, too.
So, at the very end, while they're watching this little tennis match played out by mimes—just a bunch of people swinging at nothingness—Hemings finally gives in to the game, agrees to play along, "catches" the non-existent ball, and... well, he actually hears it bounce.

In the works of Cortázar, the camera lens doesn't just record reality; it actually reshapes it. I guess the question he’s constantly wrestling with is whether art truly holds any power over our actual existence. His protagonist never really gets that certainty—he never quite knows if his work actually made an impact before the dark, gritty side of everyday life simply opens its jaws and swallows him whole. Then you look at Antonioni, where David Hemings finds himself facing the undeniable truth that he hasn't achieved anything at all, leaving him staring down a completely different vision of how fantasy bleeds into the mundane. Art and life, the real and the imaginary—it all feels like one and the same, or so both Cortázar and Antonioni seem to be telling us.

Today, nearly thirty years after it was filmed, Uvecanje feels somewhat charmingly old-fashioned in its portrayal of swinging London. Set against a soundtrack by Herbie Hancock, we see The Yardbirds along with that guy, Jimmy Page, who would go on to form Zeppelin just a few years later. It also marks the first time David Hemings appeared on screen alongside Vanessa Redgrave. The film actually snagged the Palme d'Or 1967, and because of its win, they established a jury prize that ended up going to Sase Petrovica's The Feather Collectors. After churning out a series of films exploring dehumanized modern societies—like Adventure, Nights, Eclipse, and Red Desert—I guess you could say Antonioni reached his peak with Uvecanje. What followed was a more or less failed attempt at critiquing American society with Zabriski Point, and then a more successful effort featuring Jack Nicholson, Profession: Reporter, which features that magical shot where the camera moves in and out through a hotel room window.

Following in the footsteps of Uvecanje, Coppola ended up making one of his four absolute best films—that's Blow-Up, though I suppose people usually think of Brian De Palma's Blow-Up starring John Travolta when they talk about that kind of vibe.

And finally, last but not least, there’s this local version of David Hemings wandering around. He’s always strutting about with a camera in hand, acting like some kind of expert while lecturing his friends on the proper way to drink espresso, and he goes by "Herr" or something like that. I guess you could wonder if he, too, has eventually reached the conclusion that in the frantic race between art and life, nobody actually holds an advantage.
Sophia Williams Sophia Williams Active Member
77 messages
joined Aug 2003
#7 ·
Fair enough—I can definitely get behind that. (Though I wouldn't go so far as to say Coppola had this specific film in mind when he made "The Conversation"... To me, his focus was more on the paranoia sweeping through American society at the time—that sarcastic lesson where the hunter becomes the hunted... And while De Palma certainly paid tribute, it feels ironic—almost like he's playing with his own profession and the very essence of cinema...)

I’ll add a few thoughts of my own—without just repeating what’s already been said about the movie. Just some of my own theories...

First, I don't think Antonioni was actually trying to replicate Cortázar's text.
It felt more like a desperate attempt to grasp a younger generation—one he was already losing touch with back then.
And I can't help but see a parallel with modern-day Bertolucci, who—from "To Steal Beauty" all the way to "The Dreamers"—seems to suggest that you can't truly understand the "soul of a generation" just by filming beautiful actresses...


Second, it wasn't just Hemings—Jane Birkin also made her big breakthrough during that era.
We saw her naked... and honestly, that scandal mattered much more to everyone than debating how "accurate" the adaptation was. Which, I suppose, is a bit unfair to the author—likely the only Latin American writer I actually respect...
Sophia Williams Sophia Williams Active Member
77 messages
joined Aug 2003
#8 ·
I should also mention that casting Sarah Miles and Veruschka von Lehndorff—it really shows how much thought Antonioni put into intentionally stirring up a scandal...
stormyviper11 stormyviper11 Active Member
81 messages
joined Nov 2007
#9 ·
I think I’m going to have to give this movie another shot. It’s one of those rare Antonioni flicks that just didn't click for me on the first watch. Though, if I'm being honest, my main issue is probably going to be the exact same thing that tripped me up last time: the sound, specifically the score.
What really gets me about Antonioni's earlier stuff—especially in Adventure—isn't actually that stunning visual beauty everyone loves to obsess over, but something even more captivating: the soundscape. Those films are packed with these heavy, dominant sounds... foghorns out at sea, the low hum of industrial plants, the roar of traffic... I’m so obsessed with that layer of sound that I’ve actually been thinking about ripping the audio from those movies onto cassettes, just so I can listen to them in isolation, strip away the visuals, and see if they still hold up on their own.
Starting with Uvecanje, Antonioni begins using music much more aggressively, but unfortunately, he loses a huge chunk of that unique sense of sound in the process (even if he can still pull it off for maybe the most intense, visceral moment in a film, as that ping-pong ball scene proves). See, once you start layering music into a film, you force the audience to make a judgment call on whether they actually like the tunes or not. Hancock's music isn't bad—not by a long shot—but it doesn't pull me into the world the way Pink Floyd or Jerry Garcia does in Zabriski Point. Even though that movie didn't totally blow me away either, I found myself getting way more sucked into the auditory experience.
In my opinion, Antonioni won't truly find that perfect synergy between sight and sound again until his controversial, somewhat underrated film, Identification of a Zen. That’s the only place where I think Tangerine Dream, John Foxx (and maybe David Sylvian, if my memory serves), will provide the kind of musical texture needed to color the characters' emotional states, much like the raw ambient noises and drones did back in the early sixties. I don't know, maybe that kind of balance exists in Blow-Up too, I just haven't been able to quite touch it yet... which is why I'll probably try watching it again sometime soon.
Sophia Williams Sophia Williams Active Member
77 messages
joined Aug 2003
#10 ·
Man, if global administrations were even half as efficient and lightning-fast as film moderators, we probably wouldn't have to deal with the headache of—well, bureaucracy...
🙄
Justin Patel Justin Patel Active Member
117 messages
joined Sep 2003
#11 ·
If anyone happens to have this movie on DVD, please shoot me a PM.
ironcrane7 ironcrane7 Member
38 messages
joined Apr 2004
#12 ·
stormyviper11 said:What truly captivates me about early Antonioni films—specifically in Adventure—isn't that mesmerizing visual beauty everyone constantly obsesses over, but rather an even more fascinating soundscape. These movies are saturated with concrete, overwhelming sounds: ship horns echoing through the fog, the low thrum of industrial plants, the constant drone of traffic...

I have to agree here. Adventure is an incredibly sonic film, feeling almost organic in its delivery. In Red Desert, the sound is used much more artificially and suggestively than the cinematography, and the score itself feels quite dominant.
(Not sure about this part yet; I'm still working my way through the cycle. 😁 )
In Blow-Up, I find the scene where Hemings films Redgrave in the park perhaps even more poignant. The rustling of leaves acts as this strange contrast to the excessive visuality and the sheer flatness of Hemings's life, leaving that moment as the only truly sensory beat in the entire movie.
Maria Barnes Maria Barnes Active Member
105 messages
joined Dec 2005
#13 ·
Aside from that rustling canopy in the park I can hear right now, there are at least two other legendary "sonic" scenes out there. A Yardbirds concert! 👍 And then that final punchline where the sound suddenly cuts in during that imaginary tennis match.
Jose Miller17 Jose Miller17 Active Member
162 messages
joined Sep 2003
#14 ·
Blow-Up is one of those movies you can watch a hundred times and still spend an equal amount of time debating... unless you and whoever you're talking to immediately agree it’s a masterpiece. In which case, you can just skip the debate and move on.
restlessviper20 restlessviper20 Member
13 messages
joined Nov 2013
#15 ·
Blow-Up isn't just one of those early films where you see an actress fully nude for a split second; it’s also one of the first to depict the use of psychoactive substances so openly (like when she says, "I AM in Paris").

The movie serves as a somewhat ironic commentary on swinging London, though I don't think Antonioni went so far as to question the soul of rock and roll itself. To me, the concert scene is more about the importance of context: a guitar at a show is a prized possession that everyone fights over, but out on the street, it seems completely worthless to Hemings—which is why it ends up trashed and tossed aside...
ironcrane7 ironcrane7 Member
38 messages
joined Apr 2004
#16 ·
To performance by The Yardbirds felt pretty tragic to me. I had no clue who the band even was, and they struck me as being about as convincing or "cool" as that girl group playing psychedelics in 'Beyond The Valley of The Dolls'. Honestly, seeing Page get flustered was kind of amusing, though it felt more like a staged attempt to take the spotlight from Townsend. And who is that pimply singer?
My apologies for my elementary ignorance regarding the macho rock pantheon, assuming I've scrambled the chronology or the key players.

In my humble opinion, the scene featuring Jane Birkin is just a hair too long and far too wooden. Everyone loves to quote Birkin from this film, but Veruschka was actually the true embodiment of the swinging sixties. That said, I have to admit Birkin played her role as the naive yet enthusiastic nymph quite charmingly.

I'm not sure how much irony is intended in the depiction of swinging London; it feels more like we're seeing the scene through the lens of Antonioni acting as an outsider and observer. The acting—even Hemings's—is rather stiff, and several lines of dialogue feel incredibly forced, eliciting a different kind of laughter in the theater than what was likely intended.

As for the philosophical implications... I suspect Antonioni is primarily a stylist. In this film, he supposedly moves away from existential themes to begin questioning the very nature of reality itself. Supposedly. Perhaps. It seems to me that his painter friend's words regarding the interpretation and meaning of his canvases—which are all essentially pastiches of various historical movements—are far more telling. Meaning is imposed based on a specific detail only in retrospect. Much like what happens later with that one remaining photograph: once the detail is oversized and stripped of its context, it loses all meaning. A very successful *a priori* defense on Antonioni's part, if you ask me. Just as it was when he hid behind the camera lens this time to indulge in his shameless voyeurism and exploitation of the female form.
Douglas Robinson12 Douglas Robinson12 Member
35 messages
joined Jan 2009
#17 ·
ironcrane7 said:If you ask me, that scene where he's flirting with Jane Birkin drags on just a tiny bit too long and feels a little too stiff, but hey, that's just my two cents.

Is it even worth mentioning? It was a monumental waste of time—cinematic time, specifically. Honestly, the whole movie was a total wash. At least, if you ask me, which I guess you shouldn't, but hey, that's just my two cents.
ironcrane7 ironcrane7 Member
38 messages
joined Apr 2004
#18 ·
Give me an elaboration. Are we talking about Antonioni’s general style, or this specific, pseudo-intellectual cult classic?
In my humble opinion, Red Desert was nothing more than a complete waste of several precious hours of my life and my sanity.
Douglas Robinson12 Douglas Robinson12 Member
35 messages
joined Jan 2009
#19 ·
That movie and honestly, that specific scene. An elaboration? Man, I don't even know where to start... if I actually find some downtime later, maybe I'll give you a full elaboration. I'm just slammed right now.
Jerry Martin19 Jerry Martin19 Regular
367 messages
joined Nov 2006
#20 ·
Benjamin Gray66 said:Fair enough, I can get behind this. (Though I’m not totally sold on the idea that Coppola was thinking about this specific film when he made "The Conversation"...)

Even if this thread is pretty old, I gotta sign off on this. Even though it feels similar to Blowup, The Conversation is aiming for something else entirely...

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads