Antonioni, Blow Up (1966) POV Fallacy

Scene close to the end of the movie. David Hemmings returns to the park, kneels down and finds that the corpse he projected in the blow-ups of his pictures is not there. He looks up, and we see a shot of tree branches. The camera moves down, and suddenly Hemmings steps into the frame.
Were we fooled, or is Antonioni pointing out that Hemmings' assumptions, as well as our own, did not agree with what is actually there?

Category:

Film & Animation

Tags:

• Blow-Up
• Antonioni
• David Hemmings
• 3rd Park Scene

[almadora]

gorgeous f***ing film.

[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.

[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------