Red Sun

BLOW UP (1966) was Michelangelo Antonioni’s second color film, and his first in English. Interestingly it was his first film that had a male protagonist. He is considered the master of abstract cinema, and this film continues in that vein. The cinematography was presented in very abstract ways, with most shots framed oddly, blocked by beams, banisters, photographic equipment, windows, and furniture. The camera made no effort to clear these objects in order for us to see the actors. Primary reds were the dominant colors, and in London that seemed easy, passing the double-decker buses and phone booths and pubs, all painted blood red. He painted one apartment building bright blue just for the contrast.

Swinging London of the Mods in the mid-60’s seemed so wonderfully dated, captured in its spectacle. Those beehive hair-dos and mini-skirts, smoking that demon joint, the beginnings of the British invasion, that hard rock sound presented in the film by the Yardbirds, the first stages of long hair on men, and the casual way nudity and promiscuity is handled; all old hat to us now, but very brazen then.

I loved the way Antonioni gave us the skewed perspective of an unnamed photographer snapping candid shots of a young couple in the park, while the director shot him doing so; an overlapping sense of three perspectives. What the movie camera saw was not exactly what was snapped by the photographer. I loved the parallel of the photographer hopping over the low fence to hide in the bushes to shoot some shots, and then later discovering in exactly the same pose and framed shot, the sniper, the killer, behind the fence in the bushes. And of course the obvious parallels of the artist’s abstract paintings, just so many random dots of color, until he capped the painting with some point of view, some detail that drew it all together –and the blow ups themselves, those photos of photos, with pixels blown up so large that they too look like abstract paintings to be interpreted.

Some have argued that the park represented Nature versus the pandemonium of the city, and yet what is a park? It is just an artificial large garden planted in the middle, or on the edge of a city, and it “represents” nature. We go there and have picnics or our lattes and imagine that we are off in the forest or field. This illusionary concept is important to Antonioni. Add to this the sense of each of us remaining strangers midst the teeming masses. The photographer and the mystery lady (David Hemmings and Vanessa Redgrave) both remain nameless. People seem to know them, but never refer to them by their name; very existential. It has been suggested that the director gave us several plot lines that were never meant to make sense, like the antique store scenes; and yet that would be a place that a photographer might haunt. His suggestions that his agent would bid on the store, that he might be a real estate speculator is never explored. Unlike a real photographer who asks permission to shoot a subject, Hemmings always shot secretly; even in the opening scenes, where he pretended to be homeless to shoot those old men in the shelter. Then there is the issue as to what was reality. Hemmings thinks he saw a corpse in the park when he visited it again, and yet he was not carrying his ever present camera. Why not? It seems to suggest that any of us alone witnessing something has no validity. We must find another human being to collaborate our find, to verify our conclusions.

Then the director gave us the “Merry Makers”, the 8-10 Mimes that traveled around in an open jalopy, panhandling and performing, providing a prologue and epilogue. Their wordless game of tennis became the most “real” thing the photographer encountered, as he accepted their non-reality. As Antonioni made the character disappear in the grassy field, it made us wonder if any of the story had happened, or was it an allegory or dream. A complex and provoking film, it never fails to tantalize, a provoke attempts to make sense out of a senseless act.

Glenn Buttkus 2007