My Photo

Categories

Roll Call

Become a Fan

« What is "violent rhetoric"? | Main | The Big Three of Jewish Libels »

Wednesday, 12 January 2011

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c2df453ef0148c78e6c3d970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The disturbing wrongness of Antonioni's Blowup:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Vance Maverick

If I remember right from Pauline Kael's review, Antonioni made it clear in interviews that he was trying to send a moralistic message of disapproval of Young People Today -- she slams him amusingly, but lets it distract her from the actual qualities of the film. (The relationship of the moralism of La Dolce Vita to the evident relish with which it presents the evidence is easier to understand.)

SEK

Antonioni made it clear in interviews that he was trying to send a moralistic message of disapproval of Young People Today...

By saying that if they didn't start behaving, their elders would prank them with dead bodies? It may be moralistic, but it's also a bit mixed.

Vance Maverick

Right. I don't think Antonioni was in full control of what he was doing -- he tried something that didn't exactly work. His movies are full of interest but shouldn't be presumed to be coherent. (L'Avventura, I'll admit, is engaging from start to finish, while also full of good stuff.) So when we ask, "why is the movie weird in this way?", the answer we get isn't guaranteed to be satisfying.

Vance Maverick

His moralistic aim might also have been to bring it home to older and wiser viewers how low the youth of the day had sunk.

SEK

I don't think Antonioni was in full control of what he was doing

Or, as my students said yesterday: "Alright then, so what's up with the propeller?" Later, one of them emailed me and asked whether his trip to purchase the propeller (and subsequent one to the park) might mean he was going to see the elephant, which makes a certain sort of sense, except that screaming mimes, the logic is a little loopy. (You can't quest after something you don't know is there, after all.)

Ahistoricality

Not being familiar with the film, the one thing that jumped out of the "doesn't fit" examples is the giggling during the sexual assault. While it's incongruous with our expectations of victims - who should struggle virtuously and protest vigorously, and vice versa - involuntary laughter is a known phenomenon in psychologically stressful, even assaultive situtations.

Devremülkler

Very nice post. I love it. Waiting your new posts. Thank you...

MOUCHE

Um, would it be inane of me to ask why is Thomas in the factory scene? I've seen Blow-Up but I admit I hadn't noticed him then (being his first appearance in the film and all that, he was just another face that didn't really stick). But why is a famous fashion photographer punching card looking weary the shot right before the one he's riding a sportscar?

SEK

Because he's a fashion jackass and they're trying to establish his assholishness ... I think that covers it, no?

00001001

uh oh, cyber-Ezekiel takes on the old nasty eye-talians, and their naughty naughty bits, with....rockers....and sex!

What's really impressive, like...Meyer Lansky style impressive is that you managed to swindle UC AND the little jerk-off leftist blog gangs, convince 'em you were like...Real Intellectual. You were destined for say Radio Shack mgmt trainee, but now...Professional comic-critic,AND comma corrector .

Now call the CIA or somethin' Snitchman

SEK

And you are ... ?

The comments to this entry are closed.