ONE FOR THE MOVIE BUFFS : "BLOW-UP"

I have to be honest with you; this film was “homework” for me. You see, since I am now officially (and have been for a while in fact, by the time you read this article) a student of film studies, we get assigned “homework”. Oh it’s not obligatory of course, it is more in the form of a suggestion but this being a master’s degree, following your lecturers “suggestions” aren’t such a bad idea. I must say I found it hard to see the point of the film until the very, very end. And before you say anything, one of my flat mates – who also had to watch the film as “homework” for a completely different course and reason – agrees with me. But it does have a point, a good point, albeit hidden right at the end, up to you if you want to wade through 106 minutes to get to it. At least unlike some directors I could name you don’t wade through 3 hours of film and arrive at nothing. Antonioni being one of the old masters, he definitely has a point in mind and is not afraid to show it.
Thomas (David Hemmings)is a professional photographer. He is a bit of a celebrity in his field and lives quite a charmed, nonchalant life until a couple of chance snaps he takes one day unknowingly records a murder that was taking place. Thomas will not notice this fact until he develops the pictures and blows the relevant pieces up; and now, not only does he have to make sense of the pictures – and make sure his eyes and the lens are not deceiving him - but he also has to grapple with a mysterious woman (Vanessa Redgrave) who was also caught in the snapshot and has her own agenda as to what should happen to the photographs…
Now, this is, in all honesty, the story. I have not added a single fact. And reading something similar (albeit a good deal shorter) on the back of the DVD I thought I was in luck; we evidently had a crime – thriller on our hands. Err, no. The thing is, if it were a crime-thriller, the “point” of the film would be to expose the crime asap (preferably within the first 15 – 20 minutes of the film ) and the whole narrative would be structured around solving the afore-said crime. Here, the crime is exposed (as in, discovered, a good 40 minutes into the film and the rest of the narrative is very much focused on Thomas and his dilemma as to what exactly he has captured in the shots and what should be done about it. A lot of things happen seemingly for no reason at all other than to demonstrate Thomas’s character and his confidence in himself as an “artiste”. This confidence is shaken by his discovery of course and his subsequent reactions will reveal a lot about his own true nature and that of his trade. The “point” of the film is an “in-discussion” (as opposed to an in-joke, I mean this as a discussion a set group of people will be aware of but the rest of the world will be pretty much oblivious to) that will make sense to no one except either people who are actually working with film / photography be it in theory or in practice or possibly the hard-core cinephiles. In fact, the film is trying to make a very valid and serious philosophical point and you may find it very interesting to watch so don’t dismiss it off hand. But don’t go in there expecting an adrenaline rush either. As long as you have your “philosophical hat” on, you’ll be fine.