Screening Journal of Blow up
The director had much of Thomas's neighborhood in the film repainted to intensify the bright, primary color scheme. A scheme in which red seems to dominate, but not symbolically. Red (as well as blue) just identifies Thomas's milieu. When the photographer goes into the park, he enters a world of green. Beautiful, almost intoxicating green. Green connects obviously to nature, even in a park landscaped by city planners. But, again, it's not really symbolic (Antonioni does not tend to use symbolism in any conventional sense, if at all, until perhaps the end of this film). Rather, it establishes this alternate environment where Thomas will make a significant discovery.
But whereas in 'Red Desert', the sharp and strong colors were glaringly used to indicate the intensity with which modern industrial decay and pollution can bring a young wife to a downward spiral into madness, in 'Blowup', the color schemes were intriguingly quiet and subtle that, to the uninitiated, they might end up as "mere" garnishes and decorations, as just "being there."
The swinging London backdrop, filmed on dreary post-war London locations and empty streets in most cases, makes for a fascinating milieu, even more so now that it's no longer in existence.
Thomas, the photographer, is surrounded by women, he goes from one to the next without thinking twice, treating them like dogs the entire time-- to him, they're only objects for his lust as when he meets Veruschka and practically rapes her through a photo shoot -- or mannequins who can't pose worth anything and only fuel his anger. But he can do this and get away with it because he is a famous photographer and can make the women what they all desperately want to be, Beautiful. For The first half of the movie I honestly did not like his character whatsoever. Whereas in the past the director has chosen mainly to explore the ups and downs of married life, or the problems of being hopelessly devoted to one person, he now points the camera at the single, care free, over sexed, youth of the sixties. Handsome, coolly charming David Hemmings is perfect for the role--an existentialist photographer, free-floating through life without purpose, living through a series of fun but ultimately unfulfilling experiences. When he discovers a possible murder, he is given a solid goal, and the mechanical quality fades from his life as he tries to unravel the mystery--but those around him are too involved in their own insubstantial activities to listen or care. Finally, both he and we are left tired, alienated, and unsure of what life--like the blown up photo--is supposed to be. The final shot, explicitly depicting an illusion of living, is an incredibly heavy statement.
Models such as Veruschka (who appears in the film), Twiggy and fashion photographers at the time have complained about its unrealistic depiction of the industry and claimed that its central character, Thomas (played by the late David Hemmings) was clearly based on David Bailey.
Italian co-writer/director Michelangelo Antonioni decides to push the envelope with symbolism, adult thrills and visually dizzying imagery. It keeps its audience at an arm's length and still simultaneously sucks you in with its demented wickedness.
In the middle of these glamorous metaphysics, we are treated to one of the cinema's finest sequences. It is one of only a very few sequences in the whole cinema that define the filmmaker's art. As Thomas 'blows up' the reality that he has captured in the park, he defines mise en scène. He creates the sequence that he would have shot, had he been the director of the film. This is magical cinema that is simply the crowning glory of a film that dares to demand that its audience THINKS.
The beauty of this film is the unpredictability of its genre. It looks like thriller for the best part, becomes a movie about "ennui" (a constant theme of Antonioni) or a photographer's creative block and ultimately does a complete U-turn and becomes a movie about "nothing", but just the "perception of reality". It is easily his most engaging capturing the swinging 60s with some of the most amazing camera-work and editing you will hope to see. The legend is, the movie was intended to be a thriller, but in the editing Antonioni changed the whole context of the plot.
Antonioni makes great use of insinuation. He tantalizes us with the possibility of what could have been. In us he insights the same passion that is in Thomas. In the end, I don't think he disappears so much as he returns. He does not return as the same person, though. He is changed by the passion for his art and the challenge of reality. He is no longer playing the game of catch the murderer, or faking the motions of being a photographer, or posing as a deep artist by taking sad pictures. He is now truly inspired.
The dialogue here is witty and sharp such as when the girl in the antique store tells Thomas, "Money is always a problem." The dialogue is also somewhat sparse and is usually load-bearing. Dialogue with his model friend at the pot party: DAVID - ` I thought you were in Paris.' THE GIRL - `I am'. Appearances and Disappearance (2 of the many). The Lynn Redgrave character pops up as he arrives at his apartment. His question `How did you find me' is not explained. Later in the story, it is notably odd when David wakes up the following morning after the pot party that there is no one to be seen in the party house. Even the decorations like the clothes hung on the statue the night before have vanished. His painter friend describes his painting. `They don't mean anything to me while I work on them. It’s only later that I ascribed something to them. Like this leg.' Whereupon he points out a place in a painting that might be a human leg. When he paints, he is tapping subconscious language, something apart from subjective and objective reality. It’s as if Antonioni is offering us an even further vantage point to the events to come, dream reality.
