Worst Film EVER!!!

ADD is reaching epidemic proportions. At least if art film hating trolls on IMDb are any indication.

but if you fast-forwarded through the movie, it's hardly fair to publicize an opinion about the quality of the movie.

I also am amazed by the number on this thread who did not get the meaning of the film at all.

First of all it is not intended to be a focus on London sixties pop culture. That is merely the setting in which the film takes place. Concededly elements of the time were used in the film, and there were references to nuclear war, random drug use, sixties fashion and the like. But the film is really about the nature of reality, or more specifically how man finds meaning through perception, and how changing perception can and does affect our understanding of meaning and our place in the world.

Before returning to the foregoing, the second point is that the opening sequence lasting roughly the first 45 minutes actually contains a great deal. I think those here who complain about it are really complaining that this section does not seem to advance a plot according to any easily perceived form of narrative structure. By comparison Antonioni, widely acknowledged as one of the great directors of the 20th Century, uses a more subtle approach. What some perceive as boring is really how we are introduced to the extent of the protagonist's own boredom, as a form of alienation, and why he has the relation he does to his otherwise attractive world. Perhaps this is not obvious on initial viewing. After all it seems counterintuitive that he should be bored while surrounded by beautiful women, working in a field - photography - he at other times shows great passion for, being his own boss, having all the material trappings of success. How then, and why, is he so unhappy with it all? Certainly I think as others have noted if you put aside the objections to the narrative's structure, you will understand why he is.

Third, I think that Thomas is at least on the surface an unlikeable character himself is off putting to many. Imo films that have no likeable protagonist are problematic for many people. But this surface aspect of him is I think included in connection with the preceding point, which is if one understands why Thomas is bored and angry, you understand why he seems unlikeable.

The foregoing is not to be clear meant to sound approving of his faults, though. Understanding him does not require that we like him.

I think we understand Thomas, as Antonioni intends, to be in a life where the commercial demands upon him are seen by him as pulling him away from the "real" value of that which, truly, is dear to him, which is his art, his photography. He is mean to the two girls who want to break into the fashion world, not merely because he knows they are only interested in him to get something from him, but because he questions the value of what they think they are seeking. The same applies to his encounter with Verushka, which actually mixes some playful and even erotic interplay with their nastier bits, and of course the shoot with the five models.

Thomas is actually introduced to us coming out of the men's shelter. At first we can't make sense of why he would spend the night there and then drive away in a Rolls convertible, but the explanation comes later with his assistant when he sees the prints, and even more so in his meeting with his publisher, Ron, where Thomas shows real enthusiasm for the connection those have with what we now understand is his larger work on his book of photographs.

His we soon see poignant, even depressing, description of the park photos as a happy ending to his violent book introduces the theme of how death and violence are around the corner, under the surface, of even that which appears quite peaceful, even romantic.

In other words Thomas is resentful about the way commerce seems to pull him away from the use of his art to seek that which is real. But this contrast we soon understand ends up being seen as having a rather naive view of reality and its true nature. The world of fashion may in fact be fake to at least some extent, even if not entirely. But Thomas is to be understood as having a rather binary view of hte nature of his relationship with the world. In fact it is not one divided between his commercial endeavors, meaning fake and not real, and his use of his camera to capture reality when he uses it as he believes is true to his art.

The comparison between film and photography should be obvious. Compare Blowup to the film by Ingmar Bergman put out three years later, the Passion of Anna. The character Elis in that film is a rather devoted if amateur photographer. Unlike the Thomas at least until sometime, possibly, after Blowup ends, Elis makes the rather startling and explicit statement that he does not believe his photos capture the essence of his subjects, even of the human face. At best Elis thinks they capture the appearance of things, maybe even more precisely merely the way the camera is able to show what it "saw" of that surface appearance.

Thomas wants to believe that while, like Elis in Anna, he has no illusion as to whether his commercial work captures any real essence, that his "real" work in fact does. And up to a point he uses his craft to slowly, through blowing up the prints taken in the park, does uncover "reality" - the death of the man who was with Jane. He even goes to the park to confirm, as he does, that the man is in fact dead. Yes, he "really" is lying there.

But as the film proceeds to its end, we see that it is not quite so easy to understand what is real. Real in the sense of making others understand what happened? How can Thomas now go to the police? He can't even convince Ron and others of the importance of what he saw, in part we are meant to understand, I think, that Ron is skeptical of Thomas and what he saw in the first place.

Bringing this discussion full circle, Blowup even if given a patient viewing will not appeal to people who do not find questions of the sort, like how do we understand the connection between perception and meaning?, worthy of their attention.

I personally think Blowup may have its flaws, but it is brilliant in the way it explores its themes.

One last point about Thomas - I think it should be obvious his unhappiness is not limited to a view that his art is being misused or more accurately prostituted in the commercial work he does. He obviously is also extremely unhappy, even if bored as well by the fact of, his neighbor Patricia's involvement with her artist husband. He loves her, and the way she makes it seem like she loves him, to at least some extent, is also a highly problematic element in his life. It is not all about the commercial versus "real" expression of his art, to be sure.

Look at all the deep insights and analyses of this film on this thread alone. This shows that Blow up isn't the worst film ever, or even a "snoozer" or "overrated". With Antonioni's films, you either get them or you don't. You're either sucked into his world, style, and art, or are left on the sidelines and wondering what the hell is going on. Antonioni never makes concessions to the people who aren't into his films, he doesn't care if you think "nothing happens", and that's why Blow Up is so divisive. The main "story" of Blow up is about a man looking deeper and deeper into photographs and trying to decipher what they are actually showing/portraying. This = Antonioni telling the audience how to view Blow Up. Look at the layers, the social malaise of a well-off photographer, look deeper into why he does things.

Why does he spontaneously buy a wooden propellor at an antique shop? Why does he sleep with two models and then treat them like crap? Why does he throw the tennis ball back to the tennis court mimes? The film is about reality and dissatisfaction. He has it all, but has enough time on his hands to not be content, to want more even though he has no idea what "more" is. Does he really photograph a murder? Or is it just a device to pry himself out of his material-dominated, surface-oriented (he shoots glamour shots and models mostly), semi-comatose life?

To the OP, it's all about how you watch an Antonioni film, not what's in it. For example, you didn't like the concert scene because it didn't make any sense (I think "WTF?" are your exact words). Here's a interpretation of that scene. The band, which is playing good rock music that can be danced to, is being watched by a group people/zombies who are not into the music at all. Only two people are dancing and the rest of the crowd is standing absolutely still. It's only when the guitarist destroys his guitar that the crowd comes to life. Now instead of your "WTF? Nothing's explained about why the crowd acts this way! I'm mad now" reaction, how about this? It is only when these humans see something destroyed that brings them out of their coma-like shells. What does this say about humanity? Is destruction the one thing every human understands? Is there a perverse attraction between humans and destruction? Do we celebrate destruction more than peaceful actions (a.k.a. playing music)? Are people only truly looked at it by the majority if they do something destructive/drastic?

These are the types of questions Antonioni raises in his films and especially Blow Up. He wants you to think about things, he wants you to see the world in a different light, analyze things around you instead of not understanding them and blowing them off as if they aren't important. Think.

"What will happen to us in time?"
"Time starts now." -Bullitt