Home Movie Reviews Blow-Up Movie (1966) Review: Antonioni Questions Nature of Reality in Cinematic Masterwork

Blow-Up Movie (1966) Review: Antonioni Questions Nature of Reality in Cinematic Masterwork

Blow-Up movie review: Directed and co-written by Michelangelo Antonioni and starring David Hemmings, this Swinging London-set, U.S. Production Code-busting 1966 classic turned out to be the filmmaker’s biggest international box office hit. (Pictured: David Hemmings, Vanessa Redgrave in Blow-Up.)
  • Blow-Up movie (1966) review: In his first English-language film – and most commercially successful effort – Michelangelo Antonioni questions the nature of reality while creating a seminal work of art.

Blow-Up movie review: Michelangelo Antonioni tackles the nature of reality in one of cinema’s masterpieces

Made in Great Britain in 1966, the flat-out great Blow-Up (sometimes spelled Blowup or Blow Up) was Michelangelo Antonioni’s first English-language effort.

Inspired by Argentinean writer Julio Cortázar’s 1959 short story “Las babas del diablo” (literally, “The Devil’s Drool”), Blow-Up was nominated for two Academy Awards: Best Director and Best Original Screenplay (Michelangelo Antonioni, Tonino Guerra, and English-language dialogue writer Edward Bond). In addition, the film won the Palme d’Or at the 1967 Cannes Film Festival and the National Society of Film Critics’ Best Film and Best Director awards.

Having first seen the two Hollywood films most influenced by Blow-Up, Francis Ford Coppola’s The Conversation (1974) and Brian De Palma’s Blow Out (1981), I didn’t know quite what to expect since the former is an excellent film – arguably, Coppola’s best – and the latter is a solid Hollywood thriller.

For its part, Blow-Up is not only a great work of art but a great work of philosophy as well, one as impressive as Antonioni’s Italian masterpiece La Notte (1961).

Also of interest, Blow-Up caused a bit of a stir upon its release for its depiction of female nudity, casual sex, and drug use. Of course, 40 years later this all seems a bit silly, considering how tame the scenes look to the modern viewer.

Has a murder been committed?

The Blow-Up movie plot centers on a well-known London fashion photographer (David Hemmings) who may or may not have inadvertently captured a murder on film, which may or may not involve a mysterious young woman (Vanessa Redgrave) who looks quite a bit like the then-notorious sex kitten Christine Keeler of the Profumo scandal. (I should add that despite a number of reviews referring to the two leads as Thomas and Jane, neither character is actually named in the film.)

The photographer lives next door to an abstract expressionist painter, Bill (John Castle), and his girlfriend, Patricia (Sarah Miles), to whom the photographer is attracted and who seems to return his feelings. At one point, Bill says he has no intent when he starts a painting; meaning only comes later. This is the key to Blow-Up, or at least a warning on how viewers should take what they see.

The next day, the photographer takes some photos in the nearby park. Here’s where he happens upon the Vanessa Redgrave character and her silver-haired beau (Ronan O’Casey). When she sees him snapping photos, she comes to get the camera and film. He refuses her.

Later on, as he develops the film he notices the woman looking off into the distance, seemingly horrified. He follows her eyeline and blows up the photos, which eventually reveal a man with a gun lurking in the bushes.

This moment suggests an homage to Alfred Hitchcock, whose films were loaded with such surprises – though Hitchcock’s efforts were certainly less existential. Also, Antonioni subverts this classic mystery thriller setup by never having it pay off in Blow-Up.

‘The existential power of images’

The photographer initially believes he has prevented a murder, but later he sees on one of the blow-ups what seems to be the silver-haired boyfriend’s dead body behind the bush. He deduces all this in silence, peering at the images; it’s a bravura bit showing the existential power of images and the mind’s propensity to construct tales from them. It’s as pure cinema as has ever been filmed: Just images; no words, and no musical cues to say, Aha!.

The photographer returns to the park at night and sees the body, but he has forgotten his camera. Curiously, the body is wide out in the open – a hint that all the photographer sees may not be so.

In the morning, he returns to the park, but the body is gone. And so is all his evidence, for his studio has been burglarized. Since Antonioni never allowed us to see from over the photographer’s shoulder while he took his photos, we do not know how “real” the shots were to begin with.

Later on, he takes off after the Redgrave character but doesn’t find her; she “vanishes” as people often do in films. In addition to making us question our lead character’s trustworthiness in interpreting reality, Antonioni is also winking at his audience, telling us Blow-Up is just a movie. (Ingmar Bergman did the same in his brilliant Persona [also 1966], making it clear audiences were watching a film, an artificial construction, not reality.)

So, has the photographer imagined the whole murder scenario from what was an innocent encounter in the park?

Blow-Up movie with Jane Birkin (right) & Gillian Hills (left). A key element in the commercial success of Michelangelo Antonioni’s Blow-Up movie was its casual portrayal of sex, including a curious threesome with photographer David Hemmings and aspiring models Jane Birkin and Gillian Hills.

Invisible tennis ball

Near the end, in another bravura touch we see the photographer look up to the sky. Then cut to the sun as seen between leaves on a tree. The camera pans down; the next shot is at a right angle from the photographer’s eyeline – meaning it was not his point of view, but an omniscient’s or fourth party’s. This hints to the viewer that not only is the photographer not a reliable witness, but neither are we.

Did any of it happen?

As the photographer walks away, he sees a bunch of anarchic mimes, who frame the story, now assembling for a game of faux tennis with an invisible ball and rackets. The photographer gets into it and so does Michelangelo Antonioni’s camera, which follows the “ball’s” flight when it’s smashed over a fence. The photographer retrieves it, tosses it back, and thus buys into their reality to the point that we now even hear a real tennis match going on. (Note that we never heard a gunshot in the park; another clue that reality can be skewed.)

The photographer is then alone in the grass field – the same one seen in the film’s opening credits – and one eerily like the golf course at the conclusion of La Notte. He vanishes right before the film ends, just as the Redgrave character (and possibly the corpse) had done earlier.

Actually, it’s not just a vanishing act, but almost a “pop” or a “blowup” of his form – another play on the title. It’s one more bravura moment to cap Blow-Up.

‘Total cipher’

Curiously, throughout Blow-Up David Hemmings’ character is a total cipher, going through the motions of life without any apparent convictions.

He mostly looks like a joyless man, whose failure at film’s end seems to have rebirthed an appreciation for life – his and others’. Perhaps he hasn’t solved the mystery of what happened in the park, but maybe he has gained an insight into his life and will pursue real art again; maybe even tell Bill’s girlfriend that he loves her.

In that regard, Blow-Up seems to end a bit prematurely, leaving the viewer to fill in not only the existential blanks, but the more realistic narrative ones as well. This is good, for unlike Hollywood filmmakers, Antonioni doesn’t sneer at his audience. He trusts their intelligence.

‘The nature of reality’

Many critics have claimed that Blow-Up is about the nature of reality, citing the final scene as their “proof.” But that’s both a rather obvious statement and a superficial one, for Blow-Up was a direct response to the then still “shocking revelation” of the Abraham Zapruder film of the assassination of U.S. president John F. Kennedy. Antonioni posits that reality can be distorted unless verified.

It’s worth noting that when the photographer tells Patricia of the “murder,” her reply is to ask, “I wonder why they shot him?” She asks the query in the conspiratorial plural, not why “he,” the singular man in the bushes, shot the boyfriend.

Other critics claim Blow-Up is simply about “loneliness,” but offer little to back up their claim. And just asking whether or not there was a murder misses the whole point of the film. That Antonioni, Guerra, and Bond deliberately plant information at odds with one another, and that the director never lets the audience have a glimpse at what “really happened” lifts Blow-Up far above Hollywood’s drab fare.

Like all great art, Blow-Up can be viewed in multiple ways – almost all of which are correct, to a degree. Those that aren’t, are still part of the fun.

Blow-Up movie with David Hemmings and Vanessa Redgrave: Has a self-centered fashion photographer actually witnessed a murder in the park? Like in Michelangelo Antonioni’s 1960 classic L’Avventura, in which an unexplained disappearance takes place, the mystery is secondary to the narrative.

Blow-Up movie holds up

The Warner Bros.’ DVD of Michelangelo Antonioni’s Blow-Up movie is amazingly crisp. The 1966 classic looks like it could have been filmed this year – and I say this having seen the last two Woody Allen efforts set in London.

Equally amazing is that Blow-Up came out just a year after Roman Polanski’s black-and-white classic Repulsion – a film whose meaning also depends on the eyeline of its lead female character in a photograph, and what she sees or does not see. But while Polanski’s film seems to have taken place 40 years ago, Antonioni’s could be set today, save for a few costumes and hairstyles.

It should be noted that the Blow-Up cinematographer was Carlo Di Palma, who later became a frequent Allen collaborator (Radio Days, Alice, Bullets Over Broadway, etc.). Di Palma helps Antonioni exquisitely frame each shot with his trademark odd angles.

Also, there is no one in film quite like Antonioni when it comes to the use of blank space; his closest equal would be the Dutch painter Jan Vermeer. That same special technique is recapitulated on the soundtrack, with the use of long silences as a form of “music.”

Multilayered cinema

Like Akira Kurosawa’s Rashomon, Blow-Up works on many levels; yet, Antonioni’s film allows us to participate in its interpretation to an even greater extent than Rashomon.

By going beyond a mere whodunit while engaging the very meaning of “meaning” itself, Blow-Up illustrates the differences between the writer and the visual artist. The former elicits significance from things that need to be seen, while the latter does so from those already seen.

In truth, there could be plausible – and non-criminal – reasons for all that happens in Blow-Up, with only the dull life of David Hemmings’ photographer to spur him on to imbue significance to the events.

That we can never know the truth within the film is the real truth as to why Blow-Up never loses its hold even after repeated viewings. On that score, no comment is needed.

Blow-Up (1966)

Director: Michelangelo Antonioni.

Screenplay: Michelangelo Antonioni (also “story”), Tonino Guerra, and Edward Bond (English-language dialogue).
Inspired by Julio Cortázar’s short story “Las babas del diablo.”

Cast: David Hemmings. Vanessa Redgrave. Sarah Miles. John Castle. Veruschka von Lehndorff. Jane Birkin. Gillian Hills. Peter Bowles. Julian Chagrin. Claude Chagrin.
Uncredited: The Yardbirds (Keith Relf, Jeff Beck, Jimmy Page, Chris Dreja). Ronan O’Casey. Jill Kennington. Peggy Moffitt. Tsai Chin. Michael Palin. Janet Street-Porter.

Cinematography: Carlo Di Palma. Film Editing: Frank Clarke. Music: Herbie Hancock. Art Direction: Assheton Gorton. Producer: Carlo Ponti.

Blow-Up Movie (1966) Review: Antonioni Questions Nature of Reality in Cinematic Masterwork” review text © Dan Schneider; image captions & brief summary © Alt Film Guide.

Blow-Up Movie (1966) Review: Antonioni Questions Nature of Reality in Cinematic Masterwork” is a condensed/revised version of Dan Schneider’s original text found here.

Recommended articles

If you liked “Blow-Up Movie (1966) Review: Antonioni Questions Nature of Reality in Cinematic Masterwork,” check out:

Blow-Up movie cast and credits info via the IMDB and other sources.

Jane Birkin, Gillian Hills, Vanessa Redgrave, and David Hemmings Blow-Up movie images: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer.

Blow-Up Movie (1966) Review: Antonioni Questions Nature of Reality in Cinematic Masterwork” last updated in May 2021.


You may also like

Leave a Comment

*IMPORTANT*: By using this form you agree with Alt Film Guide's storage and handling of your data (e.g., your IP address). Make sure your comment adds something relevant to the discussion: Feel free to disagree with us, but *thoughtfulness* and *at least a modicum of sanity* are imperative. Abusive, inflammatory, spammy/self-promotional, baseless (spreading mis- or disinformation), and just plain deranged comments will be zapped, and, if we deem appropriate, reported. Lastly, links found in submitted comments will generally be deleted.


Hazy Nichols -

Love this movie. I was just watching it this morning. I will look for some of the directoral moments the author mentions when I watch it again. But I want to say that the one thing that really stands out to me about Blow Up is the way the photographer seems at the beginning and the way that changes so much throughout the film. He is of course young but he also seems brash, arrogant-against society and convention. But we see that change throughout the film so that by the end he seems remarkably conservative. He wants traditional love, and he wants meaning. He wants to solve that murder. It’s not as if he doesn’t care what happened, which you might expect from the way it starts out. He is very self-absorbed at the start but then becomes softer and more caring about the people around him. I wonder if this isn’t as important a part of the film as the mimes everyone likes to talk about. Yeah, they ARE great. But I thought the character development was almost stunning. That was my big takeaway.

Sophie Laflamme -

Mr Schneider obviously lacks a lot of knowledge regarding this cult film. Arogantly talking of Mr Brunette the way he does just demonstrates his ignorance on one of many aspects of this film and on general cinema history. His comments are aligned to answer the ordinary short scholar viewer. He is unable to put in context with the context of London of the 60s and the then new figures that were rising out of that changing world. The mimes are a fantastic metaphor of the story and highlight on the final moments of the film the understatement that motivate Antonioni : “Meaning is interpersonal”
By the way, it is Jane Birkin seen up here with David Hemmings. The music of Derby Hammock was not added after by another input, it fits right with the topic and the sounds of the then thriving London. A lot of the attitudes depicted in the work are maints examples of this fashioned, glamourous, artificial promoted world. The main character is a top portrait of this. But in the course of a day, he encounters a situation that motivates him to search forward. This character is depicted -correctly mentioned by Brunette- by Antonioni as a superficial, ambitious young photographer, looking for building himself a “correct and necessary” career (when he shows his agent his new shots taken at the refuge in the previous night) Somehow he is conscious of this superficial world in which he evolves. The park encounter is a breach into this dynamic. The final plans admit him into this understanding of things.
It’s always disappointing to read people who have the tribune but don’t deserve it.

Birkin-- -

Wonderful essay. A joy to read after watching the film for the first time. To note Jane Birkin is the blonde in the film for definite - not the brunette. I am a huge Birkin fan.

Movie Fanatic -

I always loved Blow-Up by Antonioni (the DePalma is nothing in comparison), and I still do. This review by Dan Schneider has been very interesting, though I disagree on some points: the body of the deceased man in the park wasn’t “moved” for our sakes, it was different camera angles - from behind (Hemming’s photograph), and in front (Antonioni’s camera, where we as an audience see it), so the “replacement” of the body into the “open”, to show us the misconception of what actually goes on, or didn’t go on, didn’t, to my knowledge, take place.
Did Antonioni really try to show that the photographer’s life (Hemmings) was a boring, lonely one? I never found the photographers (Hemmings) life boring or lonely - he (Hemmings) loves his job, his bohemian life, his position in society: he’s almost an artist! What could be boring about that - he could even be homosexual without any stir up anywhere? I disagree on that: he does not seem lonesome to me.
But that park.. the wind in those trees, those green colours..
Great movie!

jane -

This is a wonderful analysis - thank you for your objectivity and openmindedness. Your essay offers some perspectives that had not before occurred to me; it makes me want to re-watch the film and apply these thoughts…


This website uses cookies to improve your experience. If you continue browsing, that means you've accepted our Terms of Use/use of cookies. You may also click on the Accept button on the right to make this notice disappear. Accept Read More