Pssst, want to check out Blowup in our new look?
See all comments
Michelangelo Antonioni's Blow-Up (1966) begins what I will call my Boredom Trilogy, not because I think any of the following films are boring, but because they are all quiet, artful, slow-moving films that deal with boredom or stillness in some way. And yes, because I think many WILL find them boring. I'm a whole other animal, however. (Note that I didn't watch them in sequence on purpose, I was just pulling stuff off the shelf alphabetically!) So Blow-Up is a repertoire film that I'd hear about in film class long ago, but had never seen. It wasn't what I was expecting. David Hemmings stars as a Swinging 60s photographer who (I must say, eventually) takes candid shots of Vanessa Redgrave in a park. She desperately wants the photos, and he discovers, by blowing them up, clues to a murder. While that's the plot, most of the film feels essentially plotless, with many tableaux evoking still photography, and scenes that cause the film critic on the commentary track throw up his hands in defeat. They work for me though. The film is in many ways about the reliability of images. Things are consistently taken out of context to see if they still have meaning (the blown-up detail, the piece of guitar, the propeller) and the film is itself an image (albeit a moving one) that proves unreliable. Things are not well explained and by its dearth of dialog, the characters don't give up their secrets. It's the point of mimes at the end who share an unreal perception (an invisible ball) the Hemmings character eventually adopts. And at the heart of this unreliable image is the youth culture of the Swinging 60s, shown in the film to be superficial though sought after. Why does the Hemmings character go into an antiques store, and why does the shopkeeper tell him nothing's for sale? It's part of the character's quest to find meaning in his life, something the pure image of his culture has not given him (and he's not the only character looking to get out of that London). He looks for meaning in the old, but the past is also denied him, just as evidence of the murder also disappears. It's the kind of movie that is mystifying while you watch, but the reveals itself afterwards, and I could literally do a sequence-by-sequence or even frame-by-frame analysis of it.
how come he didn't hear the gunshot?
@ClassicLady: This is hardly representative of the whole decade's output.
to see which of your friends have seen this movie!
In 17 official lists
View all lists this movie is in
This movie ranks #34 in Cannes Film Festival - Palme d'Or
This movie ranks #49 in 100 Best British films
This movie ranks #60 in BFI 100
This movie ranks #62 in Roger Ebert: the great movies
This movie ranks #72 in Amos Vogel's Film as a Subversive Art
This movie ranks #78 in 100 Must-See Films Of The 20th Century
This movie ranks #98 in They Shoot Pictures, Don't They?
This movie ranks #100 in Sight and Sound 2012 - Combined List
This movie ranks #102 in 500 Essential Cult Movies
This movie ranks #105 in The Best 1,000 Movies Ever Made
This movie ranks #110 in TimeOut's 1000 Films to Change Your Life
This movie ranks #111 in The Guardian's 1000 Films to See Before You Die
This movie ranks #183 in Harvard University's Suggested Film Viewing List: Narrative Films (2012)
This movie ranks #249 in Halliwell's Top 1000: The Ultimate Movie Countdown
This movie ranks #446 in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die
This movie ranks #667 in Have You Seen? A Personal Introduction to 1,000 Films
This movie ranks #1009 in The Criterion Collection