Blow-Up

“Blow Up ” is a useful example of a film that leads us to interpret it somewhat differently to the conventional, narrative based, clearly structured, rational, logocentric Classical Hollywood Narrative Mode of cinema. “Blow Up ” tends to be both dynamic and ambiguous within its sjuchet. It has an uncertain narrative development leading to an uncertain, incomplete conclusion for an unresolved problem, and it contains spontaneous “happenings” of drugs, sex and nightclub life which do not have any direct connection to the fabula’s progress. Specific elements of its characterization, mis-en-scene and structure, leave the film asking: “What is reality?” “Can I prove reality, if I have lost my methods of proving it?” “Is it possible and/or worthwhile?” . “Blow Up” demonstrates the interpretation of reality and illusion by an audience with an incommensurable singularity from its beginning. Cross-cutting between a group of mimes, noisily driving in a Jeep and the protagonist, Thomas (David Hemmings), as he emerges from a doss house with a group of ragged men, his camera concealed in a paper bag. As the clowns run amuck in the streets of London, Thomas sneaks away to his Rolls Royce. This apparently random contradiction in Thomas’ character informs us that he is not a ‘bum’, but a rich photographer in disguise. This is made more dynamic by the presence of the mimes, which share Thomas’ world of illusion -both act to create illusions for artistic achievements. The lack of knowledge of characters is perhaps most disturbing in light of Vanessa Redgrave's character: ‘The Girl’, who is defined primarily by her involvement in the murder. We have no idea who she is, what her relationship is with ‘The Man’, or how/why she is involved with/in the murder(er). Overall, the result sees the narrative lose its way in trying to pursue the images of Thomas’ objects, and experiences. Essentially, the film is ‘in pursuit of images’, a commodification of Thomas’ experiences. The visual/aesthetic value of the image takes precedence over and has a superior “worth” to Antonioni, than the spoken/written texts contained with the film. Unlike classical narrative cinema, it works less on the notions of cause and effect: