Antonioni, Blow Up (1966) POV Fallacy

[caesarcerf]

Part 3 - ... Disappear which the Hemmings character seems to do: his 'vanishing' was the maestro's stating what I just stated: "Hemmings ceased to care, lost his humanity, thus the laws of physics need not apply."

Cased closed - I'm owed a lot of free lunches from you 'perplexed' readers.

[caesarcerf]

part 2 admirer of "Swining Britain" and hoped humanity had made a breakthrough but when visiting swiftly learned scensters were merely fake landed gentry. David Hemmings was the embodiment of that selfishness - so much so that he went to a party and succomed to the indifference of his biz. manager and the other "scene makers," forgetting all about the murder. Hence: "We we HUMANS cease caring" (as Hemmings ceased regarding the murder victim) then NOTHING is real. We may as well 'disappear.'

[caesarcerf]

dutchgoing you better check your spelling, you clown. Okay, Antonioni is now dead and was mute since his stroke since 1985 or I would have said "Maestro, I ALLAN have figured it out."

Part 1

To reveal the truth on youtube rather to Antonioni himself - quite a come down. Okay here we go ... DUH ... the dudes at the beginning are collecting for charitable causes; no one in England finds it peculiar or out of context. Antonioni is saying "in context things aren't mysterious." Antonioni was

[danielghill]

Antonioni does this all the time. He appears to provide a character's p.o.v. and then reveals it to be otherwise, thus turning the camera into a character in its own right. Check out the shot just before the penultimate, 9 minute shot in The Passenger. He does exactly the same thing, but even more beautifully, when Jack Nicholson steps up to the barred window of his hotel room. I'm more and more convinced that Antonioni's camera is always a character, albeit a passive one. It's pure poetry.

[dutchgoing]

I have tried to watch Blow Up several times but got very bored with it. I have once made it to the end and the glance into the tree and the tennis game are the most pretentious examples of cinematography ever.

[1239jer]

Yes, this is clearly a deliberate shot, especially given the director. And, to punctuate the point, the final scene sees him "hearing" a mimed tennis game and the final shot of the film... he disappears.

[hawaiidispenser]

Interesting. He looks up, we are ostensibly shown what he was looking at (i.e. a POV shot) but a pan down reveals that we weren't looking through his eyes, but our own. It's definitely deliberate.

[madhandlz07]

maybe he just fucked up the shot?

[pauloferreSP]

what camera he uses?

[ljubohendrix]

Best ditrctor ever------

[GocoProductions]

Perhaps Antonioni is explaining that "films" can be misleading, nothing on the screen is real. After all, this deeply rooted existential film is about the metaphysical. It is a reminder that this is indeed a false world. I don't feel that it was a mistake, merely a peculiarity, done to rouse debate if anyone, like yourself, recognized the unusual nature of its shot juxtaposition. Whether you understand my interpretation or not, everyone should agree in its sheer beauty and impeccable technique.

[dcasey77]

To answer your question...

Obviously not, it's a jump cut.

[MrGallagher]

@dcasey77 Exactly. Furthermore, part of this movie is questioning what is actually real and what he--and we--are actually seeing.

Antonioni, Auteur Extraordinaire, knows what he is doing every frame, every shot.

[Intiom]

@MrGallagher Agreed. I've always interpreted that as the character snapping out of his imaginative wandering. Especially when you see the look on Hemming's face.

[RHCdG]

@dcasey77 Well, technically I guess it's a jump cut but you're missing the point of the question. The shot of the tree branches suddenly appears not to be a POV shot when Hemmings stepts into the frame.

[dcasey77]

@RHCdG I'm not missing the point of the question, you're missing the point of what I said. I never said the branches were a POV shot. It clearly isn't as the camera pans down from the trees to Hemmings. What's more, he doesn't step into the frame, he's standing still.

I'll say it again, its a jump cut.

Hemmings looks up, jump cut, a shot of the branches. It's as simple as that.

[RHCdG]

@dcasey77 In your initial answer you said "Obviously not". Does that mean you expected the camera to land on Hemmings?

[dcasey77]

@RHCdG Oh my God! I can not believe you're STILL going on about this. Maybe it's some attempt on your part to come across as an intellectual cineast but its not working. It's a jump cut! There is nothing more to discuss or debate.

If you ever get round to watching Deconstructing Harry or A Bout de Souffle, you'll be dissecting those films for the rest of your life!

And why are you now questioning me about a response I gave 9 months ago?

[RHCdG]

@dcasey77 I am asking a simple question. Thanks anyway.

[dcasey77]

@RHCdG OK then, did I expect the camera to land on Hemmings?

No.

Why?

Because there's a jump cut which is where an EXPECTED shot or shots get missed out. I think I might have mentioned this before...

In Lawrence of Arabia, Sherif Ali presents Lawrence with his new robes. I would then have EXPECTED to see Lawrence accept them from him. Instead there is a jump cut which shows Lawrence riding a camel wearing the new robes.

Are you going to analyse that to death as well?

[RHCdG]

@dcasey77 If you did not expect it, then how could your answer to my original question be so obvious?

[dcasey77]

@RHCdG Did you read my last message where I defined what a jump cut is?

Read it again and please stop being so annoying.

[RHCdG]

@dcasey77 I already said, "Thanks anyway". You could have stopped our conversation there. I'll do that now for you. Goodbye.

[dcasey77]

@RHCdG Yeah, see ya.

[almadora]

gorgeous f***ing film.