Blow-Up (1966)

My only previous sample of director Michelangelo Antonioni was L'Avventura, which was by no means an adventure movie. That may explain why I had told Netflix I was not interested in his first English-language feature. But sometimes I open my mind further and add previously nixed entries to my queue. And after all, this one inspired The Conversation, which I liked.

Thomas (David Hemmings), a London fashion photographer, takes some shots of an affectionate couple at the park. The woman (Vanessa Redgrave) doesn't want anyone else to see those pictures, but Thomas feels no obligation to surrender them. Later, after, y'know, blowing them up, he discovers the probable reason for her objection: There's a gunman hiding in the trees....

When I read the Netflix description, which is similar to the above, I thought I was in for a Hitchcock-style treat along the lines of Rear Window. In reality, it felt more like 5 to 10 minutes of a Hitchcock piece stretched into 111 minutes. There's not much more to the plot than I've said. We never learn any details about the crime, and Thomas neither pursues the mystery to a solution nor calls the police like a responsible citizen.

Frankly, it could be the least thrilling so-called thriller I've ever seen. At no point do we get any sense of danger for Thomas or anyone we're led to care about. And it took me way too long to see what had caught his eye about the photos in question.

As for why Thomas doesn't care enough to seek justice, well, he's a huge jerk. In almost every scene, he's inconsiderate, impatient, and/or sexist. Maybe it's just as well that he's never in danger, or I might root against him.

B-U stands out partly for cheating its way past contemporary censorship. It's officially unrated, but I add the "R-rated" tag for a reason. Alas, the most explicit sex scene is not so explicit in consent; I doubt a movie today could include it and not face backlash for "blurred lines."

Of course, B-U was definitely made to capture another era. Indeed, most scenes, having nothing to do with the skimpy plot, serve to highlight the happening late '60s culture. That said, it's not a constant paean like Easy Rider (which I don't like any better). Antonioni seems to regard the quirky, libertine, often stoned young people as interesting weirdos at best.

B-U appears to resonate most with viewers looking for philosophical discussion -- not preaching, because Antonioni avoided making many clear points. I'm not surprised that Sean Connery turned down the lead role because he couldn't understand. Even after reading supplementary material, I'm not getting much out of it.

Maybe I should pay attention to my earlier self. If I reject a suggestion, it's probably not for me.