[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

Yeah, but when I watch Blow Up I come away thinking it's a bit of an empty film, which I never do with L'Avventura, or L'Eclisse or any of his Italian films up till then. Blow Up for me seems to suffer from the same problem as Zabriskie Point in that I'm not convinced Antonioni ever really got the culture(s) he was commenting on, so wasn't able to say anything particularly interesting about it/them.

Another big problem with both films I think is that I'm not sure the cast understood him at all. He benefitted enormously from having Monica Vitti in those earlier Italian films. She seemed to instinctively get what he was doing and it could be argued that his films always suffered when she wasn't around. Certainly Hemmings (a competent actor at best) seems totally out of his depth and even Vanessa Redgrave has admitted she felt inhibited by Antonioni's reputation and unsure what he expected from her.

his actors were not vitti? sure. the culture gap? maybe. empty film? doesn't feel like that to me at all. if anything i've grown more fond of it once i got past the titillation of the first viewing. the movie is not about the apparent (and now-dated) "cool." it's (for me anyway) about the emptiness behind it.

here 2 different reviews: one from 1966, another from 1998 (this last one by ebert).

the one from '66 calls the performances "excellent," and ends like this:

How a picture as meaningful as this one could be blackballed is hard to understand. Perhaps it is because it is too candid, too uncomfortably disturbing, about the dehumanizing potential of photography.

ebert makes some awesome points too, such as this one which maybe addresses toilet's teenage impressions:

Young audiences aren't interested any more in a movie about a "trendy" London photographer who may or may not have witnessed a murder, who lives a life of cynicism and ennui, and who ends up in a park at dawn, watching college kids play tennis with an imaginary ball. The twentysomethings who bought tickets for "Blow-Up" are now focused on ironic, self-referential slasher movies. Americans flew to "swinging London" in the 1960s; today's Londoners pile onto the charter jets to Orlando.

anyway, i am a little tired to compose a full argument and it's been a while since i last watched so i don't have everything at my fingertips it but i leave you with these links which are much more articulate than i could be right now (or maybe ever):

http://www.nytimes.com/movie/review?...B467838D679EDE

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/gr...e-blow-up-1966

ebert gave it a 4/4. i would too if i used those numbers.