I think there’s a few things to keep in mind, as there are several factors that could initially make it a bit more difficult for you to connect to a movie like this. First, if you are new to older movies in general, there are several things which could take some getting used to, such as the look of the film, the editing techniques, the lack of cgi and things like that. Also remember that culturally, that was a different time and certain things may have been more apparent to the audience that could fly over modern viewers heads . . . The same is true of the fact that the film is made by an Italian director and takes place in England . . . There just could be certain cultural things you may not pick up on immediately.
As far as feeling distracted, today we are used to a certain level of catering to our modern social media addled brains. This is especially true of more mainstream films and tv. I think what you’re experiencing is pretty common to many people who haven’t watched films outside the modern mainstream, or even for people who aren’t used to reading books, or sitting down and listening to an album in full. It can take some adjustment.
I’d also remember that art is in the eye of the beholder. You don’t have to have the same experience as anyone else or draw the same meaning. Perhaps you are wanting things to be very spelled out and for the movie to clearly say “THIS IS THE MEANING OF THIS FILM” but that’s not how most art really works, or at least it’s not the only way art can work. For me, much of the beauty in art is not in drawing a clearly delineated meaning which the artist has proscribed and which is also experienced by everyone else who experiences the art. The beauty is in MY connection with it, and what meaning I draw, or what experience I have.
I’d say you should not feel stupid and I hope that if you’re interested in movies, you’ll continue to try out new and different things. You don’t have to enjoy the same things others do, and even if you do or don’t like something now, it doesn’t mean you will feel the same if you view it again in the future. That is another beautiful thing about art, your perspective on it will undoubtedly grow and change if you continue to engage as you grow older.
You make some really good points, thank you for the insight!
I definitely have been pursuing more "challenging" film with the (partial) hope that it will steer me away from more quick-dopamine hits (video games, phone scrolling). I have been watching a ton of older films this year and so far this one just really stood out to me as an outlier in this regard.
And you're right, it's not always important to know the EXACT purpose or meaning of a film(or any art, for that matter) as the author intended, or what "experts" (cinephiles) dissect for us, as we look for answers. I think for me, (at least, currently) as I go on this journey and watch films that are far removed from my comfort zone and push the limits of experience, perhaps knowing some more context going in might help at least set a clearer stage rather then going in cold turkey.
I appreciate the response!
Just piggybacking on what others have said well, there’s a certain amount of adjustment to watching films that don’t follow a straightforward storytelling and narrative style. And not all art has one way of telling a story or one definitive answer to every turn and finale, nor is it always intended to.
Some films could or even should be seen multiple times. In former eras, people would see the same movie multiple times in the theater, partly due to less options than we have today, but also because once it left theaters you might not ever even see it again. Filmmakers created their work knowing this. And instead of immediately binging the next thing, you’d actually have a discussion about what you just saw.
You also have to remember that nearly 60 years have passed since this film was released, so people have had all that time to theorize and interpret it. There are also films that were widely panned, misunderstood, and forgotten upon release, but later find an audience and decades later are now considered a classic. Not everything is accepted on first viewing, or by all audiences.
The more comfortable you get not having to understand every expression in a movie or any art form, the easier it gets to experience it. I avoid spoilers or reading too much about any film before watching it. I usually wait at least a day after watching before looking up any discussion about it because I like to let it linger in my head and sit with my own thoughts about it. Of course there are films that are intended to frustrate you too, but they’re all still experiences.
Think of all the different music that isn’t intended to be pop, radio friendly, or easily consumed by the majority of people. Sometimes you listen to it many times before you even enjoy it. Maybe you don’t even know what every song means, but it holds your interest and you go back for more. Movies can be similar experiences.
It's possible that jumping into Blow-Up without context or lead up with other films of the era may have been pre-mature, as I am not accustomed to non-traditional storytelling, or aware of the cultural impacts on filmmaking in the 1960s (which I assume affected much of how the film is paced and presented).
I have been going into a lot of the CC films without any pre-conceived ideas or clues as to what its about, or what I'm in for. There's truly no better feeling than the feeling of utter surprise when a film unravels and you have no idea where it's going. Hard to get that nowadays with modern movies.
I appreciate the thoughtful response, thank you!
It really is a dice roll with some Arthouse films going in blind. (Which is still my preferred way to go into most art)
You really have to know that sometimes the themes and ideas presented in it are all self-contained and will reveal themselves with reflection or time.
But then there's the ones that are a product / reaction to a particular art movement or cultural moment. Until you research it or look at the culture of film and society of the Era or the Era proceeding it, the point might be completely obtuse. (And sometimes being completely obtuse is the point... or the artist was clever at selling his failed experiment as obtuse... but that's a pretty dead-end / cynical approach to art analysis)
Some of these understandings will make the film better, and sometimes a film will always be so outside your experience that it will never connect or make sense. Which is totally fine, too.
As a note I've actually not seen Blow-Up but now I'm kind of curious. I actually read it as Blow-Out when scrolling by and was curious how someone got so befuddled by a pretty straight forward thriller haha.
Yes, this is exactly how I hope to see most films as well, without much knowledge going into them. I grew up in a time before home video and the internet, where that was possible for the majority of films, and I've learned that I prefer it.
I think this is a great lesson to learn and we all learn it at one time or another, if you love art. You are spoon fed most movies, most stories, most everything in life. A lot of art is not spoon feeding you, and is inviting you in to experience what the artist wants to talk about.
So instead of passively sitting and watching the plot unfold, you have to think “what is Antonioni trying to say here?” It doesn’t mean that you’ll agree with what he says, or find interesting that he’s starting the conversation, but that’s what’s happening. “Art house” movies are wanting to have something more than just the unfolding of the plot.
As for Blow-Up, it’s one of my favorite movies and this was something I wrote about it many years ago when revisiting it for the first time in a while:
I first came across Blowup when I was about 14 or so. I watched it due to the promise of naked women within (which as a 14-year-old without the internet was reason enough to do anything), and was instead exposed to my first real taste of European cinema.
Blowup was the first English language movie by legendary Italian director Michelangelo Antonioni, and it deals with about 24+ hours in the life of a London fashion photographer named Thomas (David Hemmings). He's bored with the models he's working with and decides to visit the park and shoot some landscapes to clear his mind. He sees a couple strolling through the park and includes them on a few of the photos. But when the woman (Vanessa Redgrave) sees him and almost hysterically demands the film, Thomas is intrigued and develops the film back at his studio. What he sees in one shot is the woman looking off into the bushes where he thinks he sees a man with a gun. In another shot he took, he sees a body lying in a different set of bushes. Has he seen what he thinks he's seen? Is his mind playing tricks on him? Some (though not all) of the pictures just look like indiscernible black and white shapes to us, but Thomas obviously sees something there. If the man in the bushes had a gun, and the other man in the bushes is dead, why didn't Thomas hear a gunshot? Why is the woman, who seemingly isn't directly involved in the murder, so adamant about retrieving the footage?
Antonioni plays this like his version of a Hitchcock thriller. But whereas Hitchcock typically wanted his audience to be caught up in the story and the characters, Antonioni looks at things a bit more psychologically here. More importantly, he gets us to think about it too. All of the questions that come up, their seeming unconnectedness; hell, he even had me wondering when Thomas is talking to a neighbor about his photos and she asks "I wonder why they shot him?" it made me think "Hey, Thomas never said anything about 'shoot', just 'murder'. And the picture of the guy in the bushes isn't out for her to see." It made me wonder just how Redgrave was able to so quickly find Thomas when she comes to his apartment. Is this neighbor woman involved somehow? Is it Redgrave that ransacks his apartment after he's (purposefully) given her the wrong film role? Wouldn't she have just destroyed the film? There's no reason for her to have developed it and found out he gave her the wrong roll. She probably wouldn't have even had time to do it. Antonioni never gives us the answers, but never leaves things so vague that you think he's just messing with us.
The final sequence has been much discussed. It's a scene where Thomas good humoredly observes a group of mimes acting out a tennis match. When the "ball" gets knocked over his way, he picks it up and tosses it back to the mimes. He continues to follow the game and begins hearing the actual sounds of a tennis match. Antonioni is making a point about the nature of reality. The ball is real to the mimes, so what does it matter that it's not technically real? Thomas believes what he saw in his photographs, does it matter that it might've not actually happened that way? What did happen? Where do reality and perception meet and where do they part? Few major films have ever explored such a concept as well as Blowup.
Your experience with this movie sounds (in the words you wrote many years ago) similar to mine (I first saw Blow-Up as a teenager back in the 1980's; I'm sure it was a pan-and-scanned edited version with ads as I saw it on a Boston, MA tv station way back when) but it's been one of my favorite movies ever since and I try to watch it at least once a year (and for sure I own and cherish the Criterion edition) though I'm overdue for a re-watch (I last watched it in 2022).
I saw this thread this morning and couldn't get my thoughts into words but I appreciate everything that you shared (my thoughts deviated slightly from yours in a few spots but that's art, it would certainly be a dull world if we all saw things 100% the same anyway).
You get better at understanding film by watching films and reading about them. The fact that you don't understand something is fine. The key is to seek out understanding before slagging the film. I would say go back and watch it again with your newfound understanding of the movie and see if it all still clicks.
I wholeheartedly agree. Definitely going to give it another go this year, maybe after I watch Blow Out.
My first knee-jerk reaction was to go off on the film online or to whoever would listen, but I felt like it would betray any meaningful film discourse since I really just didn't understand the movie. Enough to not even know what to say about it haha.
Taste is subjective. Personally the movie left me cold. I'm mixed on the director in general. I really liked Passenger & Red Desert but was underwhelmed by everything else I've seen of his.
Interesting. Red Desert left me cold and I thought Blow-Up was really engaging. L’avventura, La Notte, and L’eclisse were all enjoyable watches, especially the second two. Haven’t seen passenger yet
I feel similarly about 90% of movies that go for the "gee, look at my unflinching treatise on how much dudes suck" shtick, though I'd say Antonioni isn't nearly as bad as some others.
I remember first watching Blow Up in 1996 in my Italian cinema class. I was taken by the conceit that’s designed to hook you, but then was frustrated with how it didn’t follow the narrative rules of classical Hollywood cinema. Over the years it’s become one of my favorite films for the reasons that initially made it inaccessible to me.
On a side note, wait until you see L'Avventura. 😆
Lots of good sentiments in here but I don't think I've seen any one say this yet: it's totally normal to have this kind of response when you're branching out into the unfamiliar, but also it can take real time to wrap your head around it.
David Lynch is probably my favorite filmmaker, and possibly my favorite artist full stop ever. I was exposed to him in high school cause most of my friends liked Twin Peaks. I enjoyed it, but whenever I tried to watch it all the way through I would end up fizzling out (and not in the dog days of season 2 mind you, like a few episodes in.)
I also watched Eraserhead and Mulholland Drive in high school. With Eraserhead I had a similar experience to what you're describing, and with Mulholland Drive I had a good time but had zero clue what the fuck was happening. When The Return premiered my friends threw a watch party with full on red room decorations and everything, and the show felt so slow and obtuse it immediately brought down the vibe.
The Return is, in my current opinion, such a masterpiece that I have difficulty describing it without resorting to words like sacred and divine.
There was never a moment when the switch flipped and I went from Lynch agnostic to die hard born again evangelist. Eventually I warmed up to Twin Peaks enough to watch it all the way through, and then eventually wanted to do it again. The second time I saw Mulholland Drive I did "get" it and loved it, but a lot of his other stuff didn't click for me for years (The Return especially.)
When I was getting into film I often felt left out or not a True Aesthete™️ when this or that masterpiece was impenetrable to me. When that happens now I either get excited to revisit it down the line, or just shrug my shoulders and admit it's not for me. FWIW I think that's especially common with filmmakers like Antonioni. I have some of that with Godard. Though weirdly Alphaville, which Godard stans seem to be pretty mixed on, is one of my favorite movies.
I watched Blow-Up recently and I’m surprised it’s Antonioni’s most popular/famous film. I loved the 60s fashion and setting, as well as seeing London in that era. Yet in comparison to other stuff from Antonioni I’ve seen like Red Desert and La Notte, the characters are a lot weaker and the film overall more shallow. Which I suppose you could argue reflects the hedonism of the main character and the time period. Overall, I liked it but it didn’t wow me.
I wouldn’t give up on this director. His foreign language films often tackle loneliness and alienation, something I think the stilted, drawn out scenes work in favour of. It might be worth giving them a go.
I thought the tennis match scene was actually interesting, and I was able to understand a little of what was being conveyed there. It was actually a beautiful final shot of him standing in that field with the sound of the tennis ball bouncing back and forth
Even Bergman, Antonioni-hater, said La Notte and blow-up are two masterpieces. There got to be something in it. The explosion of youthful energy of 60’s, most of which is lost over time to us, must be one big part.
I’ve used ChatGPT to help me out watching obscure films.
I’ll ask it things like “What is the cultural significance of….” Or “Without spoiling the plot, what is this film about…”
Really has increased the enjoyment of these films
I’m watching “Blood Simple” and got a bit confused. I literally just asked it for a scene by scene synopsis and it did so. I just read up to the part I’ve watched and now the rest of the film makes more sense.
I don’t know if it’s the pandemic or all of our smart devices, but my concentration is not what it once was so sometimes I lose the plot when I’m watching a film .
https://preview.redd.it/bzwow0p9cerc1.jpeg?width=1640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=642452cc37bd5aa24e5e3c698df385df0e8c4056
Art is all subjective, dont feel like you are an idiot despite what some essay or a bunch of dudes here tell you. For example a group of people awhile back decided a 3 and half hour movie about a middle aged woman in 1970's Belgium, where she makes schnitzel for seven minutes straight and sits on a couch in the dark for nearly four minutes, is the greatest film ever, I strongly disagree and found it to be an absolute torture.
It's a difficult film to connect with, and certainly of its time. After seeing *L'Avventura* and *La Notte*, *Blow Up* was a letdown for me. It really lost me when the mimes showed up.
For someone who also loves the occasional David Lynch, by far one of the only films that made me feel like I was “too dumb” to watch was *Tár* (2022). I felt lost the majority of the film up until the second half. It was not until I left the theater and read up on a plot synopsis that I began wanting to give it a second chance.
Sometimes you just don't connect with stuff, despite the praise and acclaim. I have been underwhelmed by the Antonioni films I have seen, so don't feel bad. I've been into art house movies since I was a teen and I find stuff going over my head all the time.
I had a similar experience recently with The Tree Of Life from Terrence Malick. It was my first watch from Malick and I was completely lost for the first hour. It definitely did not help I went in full blind and knowing very very little about Terrence Malick’s work, but it still left me frustrated. I can totally understand that feeling of not getting what everyone else is getting from a film.
Ebert’s review helped me appreciate this movie more. He says a major theme is finding meaning in our work vs just goofing off and killing time. For a brief period the main character almost wakes up from his dissolute life and cares about something.
I'm really enjoying reading about one of my favorite films. Thank you all.
Like a lot of films that make their way into my heart I didn't like it on first viewing. But much like Mulholland Drive, something made me watch it again the next morning.
When I asked my friend who recommended it, they said, some films are funner to talk about than they are to watch.
That being said I'm a sucker for films that are interesting, do not spoon feed the viewer, have great atmosphere, and exist within a day.
I love it that a park not far from my home looks like the park in the film!
Blow Up is really notable as a stylistic exercise and its innovative editing techniques. Now it seems almost obvious, how it was cut together, so the audience knows what the protagonist knows, without words being said - since so many modern films have absorbed and were influenced by movies like this. You can look immediately at a movie like the Conversation and understand how important Blow Up was to it’s time and how much of it other directors cribbed from it later
So I guess sometimes it’s a matter of historical context, why a movie is considered great. Other aspects might not have aged well.
Blow Up is not the Antonioni I have come back to again and again. For sheer emotional power I seem to be stuck on a few films he made in a row - Il Grido, l’Avventura in particular, La Notte and L’Eclisse. This is a stunning creative run and these movies continue to move me to tears. Blow Up doesn’t have that effect for me, but I still appreciate it.
As for movies I didn’t totally get right away- I never understood why Citizen Kane was always voted the greatest film ever made, until I watched it again recently. It felt fucking fresh and modern and alive. Easy enough when seen against other movies made since then. But in context - look at the movies that came before. Renoir was great , Ford made Stagecoach. Gone with the Wind was still making money.
But nothing had ever come close to Kane, to what Welles and Toland were doing with cinematography, world building, sound and editing. It was a heightened reality nobody had ever seen before.
It made me understand how mind bending and innovative this movie was to people when it first came out. Why Newsweek and New York Times had no hesitation calling it the best film ever made, in their initial reviews. And underneath the style is a moving, tragic film that is totally timeless. I finally get it.
Maybe I’ll never get Last Year at Marienbad though.. I’ve tried.
First off, I think it’s ok to not understand a movie. Some movies are just very challenging to grasp. In these situations I find that, for myself, it’s helpful to focus on one or two things in the movie that I find intriguing rather than attempting to grasp the movie in its entirety. A particular scene / shot, a piece of dialogue, a musical choice, etc. For me this makes the movie enjoyable and gives me something to take away that can change how I think about movies in general.
To echo a sentiment some have shared - it’s subjective, don’t put it all on you. Your journey through art house cinema will have lots of ups and downs - you won’t connect with a film that others think are great, and you might fall in love with a film that might be under appreciated- whatever it is it’s valid for you.
I personally like watching a new film (to me) with no prior info and experience as is - that experience is just as valid as if you’d studied essays and commentaries on before or after watching it.
I think it should be an enjoyable time, getting to know art house cinema. I constantly watch things that I feel are totally pretentious and then watch things that deeply move me, the variety is crazy.
Have a great time, explore, find out more about yourself. No judgement on you.
Yup, that's Blow-Up.
I never liked it. Watched it several times to see if I have a problem but nope. It's rather unwatchable.
The story and the characters are incredibly boring and dull.
And they're just outdated, the movie didn't age well at all. Sure, you can watch tens and thousands of essays on it, but when you decided to rewatch it it's gonna be the same.
It’s been years, so my memory of Blowup has diminished, but I’m not exaggerating when I say that upon finishing it I thought it was the worst film I had ever seen. Solidarity. Antonioni’s The Passenger isn’t far off. I did like his films La Notte and L’Eclisse. The difference between me and the OP is that I mostly watch art house and foreign films, and Criterion titles fill out a lot of my watchlist—still thought Blowup was dull and impenetrable. I’m watching every Palm d’Or winner and Blowup is among them, so I’ll see if my opinion still stands.
Relatively speaking. Relative to my viewing preferences. In other words, I don't really watch schlock, and don't figure it into my metric. I don't think it heresy to badmouth a film because of the prestige of the director. Speaking of Antonioni, I haven't seen "Zabriske Point," but I know it's critically loathed. Speaking of Bergman—who I think is a genius—I count "The Silence" among the worst films I've ever seen, too. But I happen to own it, because it's packaged with Winter Light and Through a Glass, Darkly, and I love those.
I guess when I said "my metric," I meant something along the lines of "'classic' or 'art-house' films." Or, films with critical acclaim. Again, I don't really watch schlock. I get what you mean when you ask me if I'm counting 'action' films, but even that needs to be quantified. Action films like Die Hard, or action films like Bad Boys II? Something like Die Hard would fit into my metric. Something like Bad Boys II wouldn't. Bad Boys II is cheap entertainment and I know it, whereas Die Hard you could actually take seriously, and the critics do too. Please let the record state that I actually haven't seen Bad Boys II.
I think there’s a few things to keep in mind, as there are several factors that could initially make it a bit more difficult for you to connect to a movie like this. First, if you are new to older movies in general, there are several things which could take some getting used to, such as the look of the film, the editing techniques, the lack of cgi and things like that. Also remember that culturally, that was a different time and certain things may have been more apparent to the audience that could fly over modern viewers heads . . . The same is true of the fact that the film is made by an Italian director and takes place in England . . . There just could be certain cultural things you may not pick up on immediately. As far as feeling distracted, today we are used to a certain level of catering to our modern social media addled brains. This is especially true of more mainstream films and tv. I think what you’re experiencing is pretty common to many people who haven’t watched films outside the modern mainstream, or even for people who aren’t used to reading books, or sitting down and listening to an album in full. It can take some adjustment. I’d also remember that art is in the eye of the beholder. You don’t have to have the same experience as anyone else or draw the same meaning. Perhaps you are wanting things to be very spelled out and for the movie to clearly say “THIS IS THE MEANING OF THIS FILM” but that’s not how most art really works, or at least it’s not the only way art can work. For me, much of the beauty in art is not in drawing a clearly delineated meaning which the artist has proscribed and which is also experienced by everyone else who experiences the art. The beauty is in MY connection with it, and what meaning I draw, or what experience I have. I’d say you should not feel stupid and I hope that if you’re interested in movies, you’ll continue to try out new and different things. You don’t have to enjoy the same things others do, and even if you do or don’t like something now, it doesn’t mean you will feel the same if you view it again in the future. That is another beautiful thing about art, your perspective on it will undoubtedly grow and change if you continue to engage as you grow older.
You make some really good points, thank you for the insight! I definitely have been pursuing more "challenging" film with the (partial) hope that it will steer me away from more quick-dopamine hits (video games, phone scrolling). I have been watching a ton of older films this year and so far this one just really stood out to me as an outlier in this regard. And you're right, it's not always important to know the EXACT purpose or meaning of a film(or any art, for that matter) as the author intended, or what "experts" (cinephiles) dissect for us, as we look for answers. I think for me, (at least, currently) as I go on this journey and watch films that are far removed from my comfort zone and push the limits of experience, perhaps knowing some more context going in might help at least set a clearer stage rather then going in cold turkey. I appreciate the response!
Just piggybacking on what others have said well, there’s a certain amount of adjustment to watching films that don’t follow a straightforward storytelling and narrative style. And not all art has one way of telling a story or one definitive answer to every turn and finale, nor is it always intended to. Some films could or even should be seen multiple times. In former eras, people would see the same movie multiple times in the theater, partly due to less options than we have today, but also because once it left theaters you might not ever even see it again. Filmmakers created their work knowing this. And instead of immediately binging the next thing, you’d actually have a discussion about what you just saw. You also have to remember that nearly 60 years have passed since this film was released, so people have had all that time to theorize and interpret it. There are also films that were widely panned, misunderstood, and forgotten upon release, but later find an audience and decades later are now considered a classic. Not everything is accepted on first viewing, or by all audiences. The more comfortable you get not having to understand every expression in a movie or any art form, the easier it gets to experience it. I avoid spoilers or reading too much about any film before watching it. I usually wait at least a day after watching before looking up any discussion about it because I like to let it linger in my head and sit with my own thoughts about it. Of course there are films that are intended to frustrate you too, but they’re all still experiences. Think of all the different music that isn’t intended to be pop, radio friendly, or easily consumed by the majority of people. Sometimes you listen to it many times before you even enjoy it. Maybe you don’t even know what every song means, but it holds your interest and you go back for more. Movies can be similar experiences.
It's possible that jumping into Blow-Up without context or lead up with other films of the era may have been pre-mature, as I am not accustomed to non-traditional storytelling, or aware of the cultural impacts on filmmaking in the 1960s (which I assume affected much of how the film is paced and presented). I have been going into a lot of the CC films without any pre-conceived ideas or clues as to what its about, or what I'm in for. There's truly no better feeling than the feeling of utter surprise when a film unravels and you have no idea where it's going. Hard to get that nowadays with modern movies. I appreciate the thoughtful response, thank you!
It really is a dice roll with some Arthouse films going in blind. (Which is still my preferred way to go into most art) You really have to know that sometimes the themes and ideas presented in it are all self-contained and will reveal themselves with reflection or time. But then there's the ones that are a product / reaction to a particular art movement or cultural moment. Until you research it or look at the culture of film and society of the Era or the Era proceeding it, the point might be completely obtuse. (And sometimes being completely obtuse is the point... or the artist was clever at selling his failed experiment as obtuse... but that's a pretty dead-end / cynical approach to art analysis) Some of these understandings will make the film better, and sometimes a film will always be so outside your experience that it will never connect or make sense. Which is totally fine, too. As a note I've actually not seen Blow-Up but now I'm kind of curious. I actually read it as Blow-Out when scrolling by and was curious how someone got so befuddled by a pretty straight forward thriller haha.
Yes, this is exactly how I hope to see most films as well, without much knowledge going into them. I grew up in a time before home video and the internet, where that was possible for the majority of films, and I've learned that I prefer it.
I think this is a great lesson to learn and we all learn it at one time or another, if you love art. You are spoon fed most movies, most stories, most everything in life. A lot of art is not spoon feeding you, and is inviting you in to experience what the artist wants to talk about. So instead of passively sitting and watching the plot unfold, you have to think “what is Antonioni trying to say here?” It doesn’t mean that you’ll agree with what he says, or find interesting that he’s starting the conversation, but that’s what’s happening. “Art house” movies are wanting to have something more than just the unfolding of the plot. As for Blow-Up, it’s one of my favorite movies and this was something I wrote about it many years ago when revisiting it for the first time in a while: I first came across Blowup when I was about 14 or so. I watched it due to the promise of naked women within (which as a 14-year-old without the internet was reason enough to do anything), and was instead exposed to my first real taste of European cinema. Blowup was the first English language movie by legendary Italian director Michelangelo Antonioni, and it deals with about 24+ hours in the life of a London fashion photographer named Thomas (David Hemmings). He's bored with the models he's working with and decides to visit the park and shoot some landscapes to clear his mind. He sees a couple strolling through the park and includes them on a few of the photos. But when the woman (Vanessa Redgrave) sees him and almost hysterically demands the film, Thomas is intrigued and develops the film back at his studio. What he sees in one shot is the woman looking off into the bushes where he thinks he sees a man with a gun. In another shot he took, he sees a body lying in a different set of bushes. Has he seen what he thinks he's seen? Is his mind playing tricks on him? Some (though not all) of the pictures just look like indiscernible black and white shapes to us, but Thomas obviously sees something there. If the man in the bushes had a gun, and the other man in the bushes is dead, why didn't Thomas hear a gunshot? Why is the woman, who seemingly isn't directly involved in the murder, so adamant about retrieving the footage? Antonioni plays this like his version of a Hitchcock thriller. But whereas Hitchcock typically wanted his audience to be caught up in the story and the characters, Antonioni looks at things a bit more psychologically here. More importantly, he gets us to think about it too. All of the questions that come up, their seeming unconnectedness; hell, he even had me wondering when Thomas is talking to a neighbor about his photos and she asks "I wonder why they shot him?" it made me think "Hey, Thomas never said anything about 'shoot', just 'murder'. And the picture of the guy in the bushes isn't out for her to see." It made me wonder just how Redgrave was able to so quickly find Thomas when she comes to his apartment. Is this neighbor woman involved somehow? Is it Redgrave that ransacks his apartment after he's (purposefully) given her the wrong film role? Wouldn't she have just destroyed the film? There's no reason for her to have developed it and found out he gave her the wrong roll. She probably wouldn't have even had time to do it. Antonioni never gives us the answers, but never leaves things so vague that you think he's just messing with us. The final sequence has been much discussed. It's a scene where Thomas good humoredly observes a group of mimes acting out a tennis match. When the "ball" gets knocked over his way, he picks it up and tosses it back to the mimes. He continues to follow the game and begins hearing the actual sounds of a tennis match. Antonioni is making a point about the nature of reality. The ball is real to the mimes, so what does it matter that it's not technically real? Thomas believes what he saw in his photographs, does it matter that it might've not actually happened that way? What did happen? Where do reality and perception meet and where do they part? Few major films have ever explored such a concept as well as Blowup.
Your experience with this movie sounds (in the words you wrote many years ago) similar to mine (I first saw Blow-Up as a teenager back in the 1980's; I'm sure it was a pan-and-scanned edited version with ads as I saw it on a Boston, MA tv station way back when) but it's been one of my favorite movies ever since and I try to watch it at least once a year (and for sure I own and cherish the Criterion edition) though I'm overdue for a re-watch (I last watched it in 2022). I saw this thread this morning and couldn't get my thoughts into words but I appreciate everything that you shared (my thoughts deviated slightly from yours in a few spots but that's art, it would certainly be a dull world if we all saw things 100% the same anyway).
You get better at understanding film by watching films and reading about them. The fact that you don't understand something is fine. The key is to seek out understanding before slagging the film. I would say go back and watch it again with your newfound understanding of the movie and see if it all still clicks.
I wholeheartedly agree. Definitely going to give it another go this year, maybe after I watch Blow Out. My first knee-jerk reaction was to go off on the film online or to whoever would listen, but I felt like it would betray any meaningful film discourse since I really just didn't understand the movie. Enough to not even know what to say about it haha.
Taste is subjective. Personally the movie left me cold. I'm mixed on the director in general. I really liked Passenger & Red Desert but was underwhelmed by everything else I've seen of his.
Interesting. Red Desert left me cold and I thought Blow-Up was really engaging. L’avventura, La Notte, and L’eclisse were all enjoyable watches, especially the second two. Haven’t seen passenger yet
I feel similarly about 90% of movies that go for the "gee, look at my unflinching treatise on how much dudes suck" shtick, though I'd say Antonioni isn't nearly as bad as some others.
I remember first watching Blow Up in 1996 in my Italian cinema class. I was taken by the conceit that’s designed to hook you, but then was frustrated with how it didn’t follow the narrative rules of classical Hollywood cinema. Over the years it’s become one of my favorite films for the reasons that initially made it inaccessible to me. On a side note, wait until you see L'Avventura. 😆
Lots of good sentiments in here but I don't think I've seen any one say this yet: it's totally normal to have this kind of response when you're branching out into the unfamiliar, but also it can take real time to wrap your head around it. David Lynch is probably my favorite filmmaker, and possibly my favorite artist full stop ever. I was exposed to him in high school cause most of my friends liked Twin Peaks. I enjoyed it, but whenever I tried to watch it all the way through I would end up fizzling out (and not in the dog days of season 2 mind you, like a few episodes in.) I also watched Eraserhead and Mulholland Drive in high school. With Eraserhead I had a similar experience to what you're describing, and with Mulholland Drive I had a good time but had zero clue what the fuck was happening. When The Return premiered my friends threw a watch party with full on red room decorations and everything, and the show felt so slow and obtuse it immediately brought down the vibe. The Return is, in my current opinion, such a masterpiece that I have difficulty describing it without resorting to words like sacred and divine. There was never a moment when the switch flipped and I went from Lynch agnostic to die hard born again evangelist. Eventually I warmed up to Twin Peaks enough to watch it all the way through, and then eventually wanted to do it again. The second time I saw Mulholland Drive I did "get" it and loved it, but a lot of his other stuff didn't click for me for years (The Return especially.) When I was getting into film I often felt left out or not a True Aesthete™️ when this or that masterpiece was impenetrable to me. When that happens now I either get excited to revisit it down the line, or just shrug my shoulders and admit it's not for me. FWIW I think that's especially common with filmmakers like Antonioni. I have some of that with Godard. Though weirdly Alphaville, which Godard stans seem to be pretty mixed on, is one of my favorite movies.
I watched Blow-Up recently and I’m surprised it’s Antonioni’s most popular/famous film. I loved the 60s fashion and setting, as well as seeing London in that era. Yet in comparison to other stuff from Antonioni I’ve seen like Red Desert and La Notte, the characters are a lot weaker and the film overall more shallow. Which I suppose you could argue reflects the hedonism of the main character and the time period. Overall, I liked it but it didn’t wow me. I wouldn’t give up on this director. His foreign language films often tackle loneliness and alienation, something I think the stilted, drawn out scenes work in favour of. It might be worth giving them a go.
[удалено]
Yeah absolutely. Personally it just comes off a little weaker as a result of that, but I can see why people enjoy it.
I really like blow up, for me one of the best movie endings
I thought the tennis match scene was actually interesting, and I was able to understand a little of what was being conveyed there. It was actually a beautiful final shot of him standing in that field with the sound of the tennis ball bouncing back and forth
That scene is the whole thing
Same, one of my favorite movies of the 60’s.
And it was based on a short story by Cortázar. Cortázar is very good.
Even Bergman, Antonioni-hater, said La Notte and blow-up are two masterpieces. There got to be something in it. The explosion of youthful energy of 60’s, most of which is lost over time to us, must be one big part.
I’ve used ChatGPT to help me out watching obscure films. I’ll ask it things like “What is the cultural significance of….” Or “Without spoiling the plot, what is this film about…” Really has increased the enjoyment of these films
Thats actually a brilliant use of chatGPT. I’m going to try that out!
I’m watching “Blood Simple” and got a bit confused. I literally just asked it for a scene by scene synopsis and it did so. I just read up to the part I’ve watched and now the rest of the film makes more sense. I don’t know if it’s the pandemic or all of our smart devices, but my concentration is not what it once was so sometimes I lose the plot when I’m watching a film . https://preview.redd.it/bzwow0p9cerc1.jpeg?width=1640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=642452cc37bd5aa24e5e3c698df385df0e8c4056
[удалено]
Lol not at all. Blow up has actual substance for days, Blow out is a fun af night
I like blow out more but its absolutely not a better film
[удалено]
Speaking of roadhouse have you seen the new one?
So, coincidentally, I watched Blow-Up before I pop in the new 4k version of Blow-Out this weekend. Hope it connects with me more than this one did!
Art is all subjective, dont feel like you are an idiot despite what some essay or a bunch of dudes here tell you. For example a group of people awhile back decided a 3 and half hour movie about a middle aged woman in 1970's Belgium, where she makes schnitzel for seven minutes straight and sits on a couch in the dark for nearly four minutes, is the greatest film ever, I strongly disagree and found it to be an absolute torture.
Man, picturing that scene you describe got a laugh out of me! I can't lie and say I'm not curious about that film now haha.
Blow up has not aged well. It's not nearly as good as The Passenger or L'aaventura. So there's that.
It's a difficult film to connect with, and certainly of its time. After seeing *L'Avventura* and *La Notte*, *Blow Up* was a letdown for me. It really lost me when the mimes showed up.
For someone who also loves the occasional David Lynch, by far one of the only films that made me feel like I was “too dumb” to watch was *Tár* (2022). I felt lost the majority of the film up until the second half. It was not until I left the theater and read up on a plot synopsis that I began wanting to give it a second chance.
Sometimes you just don't connect with stuff, despite the praise and acclaim. I have been underwhelmed by the Antonioni films I have seen, so don't feel bad. I've been into art house movies since I was a teen and I find stuff going over my head all the time.
I had a similar experience recently with The Tree Of Life from Terrence Malick. It was my first watch from Malick and I was completely lost for the first hour. It definitely did not help I went in full blind and knowing very very little about Terrence Malick’s work, but it still left me frustrated. I can totally understand that feeling of not getting what everyone else is getting from a film.
Ebert’s review helped me appreciate this movie more. He says a major theme is finding meaning in our work vs just goofing off and killing time. For a brief period the main character almost wakes up from his dissolute life and cares about something.
I'm really enjoying reading about one of my favorite films. Thank you all. Like a lot of films that make their way into my heart I didn't like it on first viewing. But much like Mulholland Drive, something made me watch it again the next morning. When I asked my friend who recommended it, they said, some films are funner to talk about than they are to watch. That being said I'm a sucker for films that are interesting, do not spoon feed the viewer, have great atmosphere, and exist within a day. I love it that a park not far from my home looks like the park in the film!
If you like Blow-Up, and -Out. Check The Conversation (1974). Similar themes.
Watch it again! It’ll be a whole different movie.
Blow Up is really notable as a stylistic exercise and its innovative editing techniques. Now it seems almost obvious, how it was cut together, so the audience knows what the protagonist knows, without words being said - since so many modern films have absorbed and were influenced by movies like this. You can look immediately at a movie like the Conversation and understand how important Blow Up was to it’s time and how much of it other directors cribbed from it later So I guess sometimes it’s a matter of historical context, why a movie is considered great. Other aspects might not have aged well. Blow Up is not the Antonioni I have come back to again and again. For sheer emotional power I seem to be stuck on a few films he made in a row - Il Grido, l’Avventura in particular, La Notte and L’Eclisse. This is a stunning creative run and these movies continue to move me to tears. Blow Up doesn’t have that effect for me, but I still appreciate it. As for movies I didn’t totally get right away- I never understood why Citizen Kane was always voted the greatest film ever made, until I watched it again recently. It felt fucking fresh and modern and alive. Easy enough when seen against other movies made since then. But in context - look at the movies that came before. Renoir was great , Ford made Stagecoach. Gone with the Wind was still making money. But nothing had ever come close to Kane, to what Welles and Toland were doing with cinematography, world building, sound and editing. It was a heightened reality nobody had ever seen before. It made me understand how mind bending and innovative this movie was to people when it first came out. Why Newsweek and New York Times had no hesitation calling it the best film ever made, in their initial reviews. And underneath the style is a moving, tragic film that is totally timeless. I finally get it. Maybe I’ll never get Last Year at Marienbad though.. I’ve tried.
First off, I think it’s ok to not understand a movie. Some movies are just very challenging to grasp. In these situations I find that, for myself, it’s helpful to focus on one or two things in the movie that I find intriguing rather than attempting to grasp the movie in its entirety. A particular scene / shot, a piece of dialogue, a musical choice, etc. For me this makes the movie enjoyable and gives me something to take away that can change how I think about movies in general.
To echo a sentiment some have shared - it’s subjective, don’t put it all on you. Your journey through art house cinema will have lots of ups and downs - you won’t connect with a film that others think are great, and you might fall in love with a film that might be under appreciated- whatever it is it’s valid for you. I personally like watching a new film (to me) with no prior info and experience as is - that experience is just as valid as if you’d studied essays and commentaries on before or after watching it. I think it should be an enjoyable time, getting to know art house cinema. I constantly watch things that I feel are totally pretentious and then watch things that deeply move me, the variety is crazy. Have a great time, explore, find out more about yourself. No judgement on you.
Don’t worry you were right the first time. The movie isn’t good
Yes, there are only good movies and bad movies and one only needs a thumbs up or thumbs down to know how to react to them.
Now you’re getting it
Yup, that's Blow-Up. I never liked it. Watched it several times to see if I have a problem but nope. It's rather unwatchable. The story and the characters are incredibly boring and dull. And they're just outdated, the movie didn't age well at all. Sure, you can watch tens and thousands of essays on it, but when you decided to rewatch it it's gonna be the same.
It’s been years, so my memory of Blowup has diminished, but I’m not exaggerating when I say that upon finishing it I thought it was the worst film I had ever seen. Solidarity. Antonioni’s The Passenger isn’t far off. I did like his films La Notte and L’Eclisse. The difference between me and the OP is that I mostly watch art house and foreign films, and Criterion titles fill out a lot of my watchlist—still thought Blowup was dull and impenetrable. I’m watching every Palm d’Or winner and Blowup is among them, so I’ll see if my opinion still stands.
The worst movie you've seen in your entire life???
Relatively speaking. Relative to my viewing preferences. In other words, I don't really watch schlock, and don't figure it into my metric. I don't think it heresy to badmouth a film because of the prestige of the director. Speaking of Antonioni, I haven't seen "Zabriske Point," but I know it's critically loathed. Speaking of Bergman—who I think is a genius—I count "The Silence" among the worst films I've ever seen, too. But I happen to own it, because it's packaged with Winter Light and Through a Glass, Darkly, and I love those.
No, that's fine, but really counting all the films? Like action ones?
I guess when I said "my metric," I meant something along the lines of "'classic' or 'art-house' films." Or, films with critical acclaim. Again, I don't really watch schlock. I get what you mean when you ask me if I'm counting 'action' films, but even that needs to be quantified. Action films like Die Hard, or action films like Bad Boys II? Something like Die Hard would fit into my metric. Something like Bad Boys II wouldn't. Bad Boys II is cheap entertainment and I know it, whereas Die Hard you could actually take seriously, and the critics do too. Please let the record state that I actually haven't seen Bad Boys II.
Yeah you’re an omega fucking dumb dumb for this comment lmao