MovieChat Forums > Blow-Up (1967) Discussion > The antique store.

The antique store.

posted 5 years ago by CharlotteXavier (2357)
4 replies | jump to latest

The symbolism of the young woman who wants to give up the antique business vs the older man who works for her but doesn’t want to let go of the antiques: that’s all pretty clear to me.

She’s the misguided youth wishing to abandon her culture but searching for enlightenment aimlessly in all the wrong places. The old man is the pre-cultural revolution member of the older generation who won’t let go of the past.

That’s how I see it and I’m sure there are many ways to interpret it.

What I’ve never been clear on though, is the purpose of the real estate speculation. Thomas goes to check out the building for a wealthy speculator who seems to be looking for bargains in neighbourhoods that are ripe for gentrification. Thomas becomes enraged when he sees the gay couple with the poodles in the neighbourhood. Why did that make him so angry? Was it because that meant the area was already becoming gentrified and therefore the building wouldn’t be as cheap? Or was it something else?

Also, in the context of the film, what was the significance of putting in a scene about buying real estate?

I could be way off with all of this and I’d love to hear your opinion if you’ve seen this film!

I’d especially love to hear from people who have an in depth knowledge of London in the 60’s.

[–] Catbookss (13664) 5 years ago

Hey Charlotte, how goes it?

I haven't seen this in a long time. Probably I'm overdue for a rewatch, but when I think of the kinds of emotions it evoked, as I remember them, it's not exactly incentive to have a repeat of that experience.

So, from what I remember of it, I took his outrage when he sees the gay couple the same as you assumed it was. Like he'd already missed the boat in his buy cheap, sell high plan.

It'd be nice if someone comes along who was either there in the 60s, or knows a lot about it, to provide more insight.

[–] CharlotteXavier (2357) 5 years ago

Hey Cat! It goes well and you?

You were repelled by this movie?? I’m usually so sensitive but I’m watching it over and over! I love it because I get something new every time. To me that’s great art.

So yes, I do wonder what the significance of the real estate aspect is. I doubt the buy low, sell high plan was a new thing then.

I did find out recently that the revellers who open and close the film were an actual thing then. They were college students raising money for charity. I love them because they are really the only characters in the movie with any enthusiasm but it’s all acting, like the mimed tennis match.

[–] Catbookss (13664) 5 years ago

Okay over here, thanks :)

Repelled is too strong a word for it. It's that the tone, as I recall it, was dissonant for me. The plot was intriguing, and I enjoyed seeing Swinging London in the 60s, plus the cinematography, but it was the overall emotional tone that puts me off wanting to watch it again.

It's not that buy low, sell high was anything new. That's been around as long as humans have, I expect. It's that he thought he'd discovered a hidden gem, an area no one else (or so he thought) had yet discovered, only to find out it already had been. So it angered him and he misdirected that anger onto the couple. That was my takeaway.

I barely remember the revellers, but that's interesting to know.

[–] CharlotteXavier (2357) 5 years ago

SPOILERS!

I can see why the tone of the movie would put you off. It’s pretty depressing that most everyone in it is so jaded. But they’re all stoned and that’s what weed does. It makes people isolate mentally and dulls the mind.

Some people speculate that the dead man in the bushes was all in Thomas’ imagination. Why stop there? Maybe he was one of the lads at the Yardbirds show all stoned and lost in a fantasy of being a fashion photographer and the whole thing is in his head.

Still, the real estate speculation seems like an arbitrary plot device and that really bothers me! I’m sure there is something I’m missing and so I hope some Londoners can help explain!

I also love the use of contrasts in this movie, one of them being Verushka vs Gillian Hills and Jane Berkin. IMO the latter two are just as beautiful or even more so than Verushka, who at 6’3” with her bulbous facial features, has the type of freakish beauty required to get people’s attention, as opposed to the girls who are banging down Thomas’ door for attention he is so stingy with.