Blow Up

Then there are the ones who find the film dated, London too empty & the main character a horrible nasty. Well folks, it's true there are no friendly wizards, cute goblins or funny ogres in this one, so it may taste like harsh medicine to some. But Blow-Up was a real slice of the 1960s, take it or leave it. Not just the "life-style" (clothes, decor & behavior) which is perfectly rendered (& is probably what dates the film the most) but the sheer fragmentation of time & space, of event & response. This was Antonioni's particular area of expertise: space & emptiness filled with random human collisions supposedly suffused with "meaning".

Well, we certainly have adopted different attitudes today, haven't we? Everything with its socio-political subtext. The big problem, I think, with a movie like Blow-Up is that it doesn't easily let you pick which Side to Be On. It's very European in that way (Old Europe, to use current parlance).

Hey folks, when you look at a De Chirico (you should, you know), do you find the streets too empty, the perspectives too stark & arbitrary?

The main audio only comes from the center speaker (the only DVD I own that does this) and is incredibly low in volume. Even when you crank your amp up to near maximum to hear it, you'll find that sole center signal sounds suspiciously like it's meant to be part of at least a 2.1 soundtrack. It completely lacks bass and the music has no presence.

I've seen Blow-Up on the big screen in recent years, I know it can sound as good as it looks. Someone at Warners has made a big blunder in mastering this DVD. In its present format it's not worth buying or owning.

Why, you may ask, do I rank it so highly? It's because it is one of the most visually stunning movies I have ever seen. Every single shot is composed with the utmost care. The framing is amazing. The colors are beautiful. The sound, too, is meticulously constructed. Although the sound technology back then was primitive compared to today's, the movie manages to make background noises very much a part of the whole.

The story revolves around a bored but brilliant London photographer, played by David Hemmings. He is a genius at his craft, but his life is an empty place. One day he wanders into a lovely park, where he spies two lovers. He follows them and photographs them. The girl [Vanessa Redgrave] sees him and demands he give her the film. He refuses. When he develops the photos, he sees a blurred image, which, when blown up, looks like it might be a body. He also blows up an images that looks like a hand holding a gun. He has accidentally photographed a murder. Or has he? The girl finds his studio. She seduces him. He pretends to give her the negatives, but later finds his studio has been vandalized. By the girl? By an accomplice? And for what reason? Who will believe him? Or is there anything to believe? It's left to the viewer to supply the answers.

The lively and unusual music tracks are by jazz great Herbie Hancock. The movie was directed by Michelangelo Antonioni, an Italian. To the best of my knowledge, his only other English language film is "Zabriskie Point" [1970]. His Italian films include "La Notte" [1960], "The Eclipse" [1962] and "Red Desert" [1964]. Brian De Palma's 1981 movie, "Blow Out" was inspired by "Blowup".

Highly recommended to those who believe movies can be an art form.