It's astonishing how well Antonioni's Blow-Up (1966), currently being revived
at Film Forum, holds up after 50 years. There’s practically nothing dated about
it and it’s lead figure Thomas, the photographer, famously played by David
Hemmings even talks on a proto-cell phone. The movie derives from a Julio
Cortazar short story and the subject is
narrative and the meaning in which experience is encapsulated. Like Thomas, Antonioni is a photographer too and he famously told Rothko “Your paintings are
like my films--they're about nothing...with precision.” Antonioni was prescient and his movie has the
stamp of postmodernism. Has a murder occurred or is it a piece of artifice like
the mimes, playing tennis, who bookend the movie? There’s almost a tone of
exhilaration in Thomas’s voice when he tells his agent, Ron (Peter Bowles) “Somebody
was trying to kill somebody in the park.” Amidst the superficiality and
materialism of the 60’s London in which Thomas gallivants around town in a
Rolls Royce convertible, sexually assaulting models like Verushka, reality is the only commodity in short supply. The chief characteristic of Jane, the femme fatale played by Vanessa Redgrave is her evanescence. One of Thomas’s friends
is an abstractionist whose works he attempts to parse much the way he does the
photos of the purported crime scene and
there are wonderful symbols and leitmotifs peppering the film which act like Macguffins in
a classic mystery. The propeller discovered in an antique shop is one, along
wtth the rushing sound of wind through trees and the clicking of the camera
that constitute the soundtrack over which the photographic images are "blown up." Violence appears amidst silence and the noisiest scenes like the famous one in which two would-be models rip off each other's clothes exemplifies a form of nomadic spiritual chaos
masking as innocent play.
Monday, July 31, 2017
Friday, July 28, 2017
Why Life Isn't Fair
Have you ever thought about how unfair it is that people who are reprobates, that those who are unfaithful, who lie and cheat, end up being more happy
than you are? And how does one deal with hedonism as a philosophy? By
definition hedonists prioritize pleasure and seek it even when it leaves a path
of destruction its wake. Consequences are something that few hedonists care
about. Meanwhile the average Joe or Jill who’s going about their daily
business, guiltily repressing desires may not be exulting in the senses like their less inhibited colleague. “Conscience doth makes cowards of us all,” says
Hamlet. Well not all. Hamlet is wrong.
Conscience doesn’t bother those whose bloods register a low empathy level. It
would be nice to think there's justice in the universe, but you’re
probably more likely to find poetic justice in poetry than in life. The bad
person who's totally selfish may declaim his sorrow at hurting others
while going on to say that he or she has no regrets in having done exactly what
they wanted to do. While the so-called good person who has stopped his or
herself from the little acts of larceny that make up the life of the sensualist
may die alone and miserable at having thrown away lost opportunities for
oblivion. In any case that’s the one thing that the man or woman or conscience
and the pleasure seeker have in common. They both will end up in the same
place, oblivion, unless of course you believe there's a God, making final
judgments about who's going to heaven or hell.
Thursday, July 27, 2017
Austin Journal: Barton Springs Revisited
watercolor by Hallie Cohen |
Wednesday, July 26, 2017
Austin Journal: The Bat Cave
photograph by Hallie Cohen |
Tuesday, July 25, 2017
Dunkirk
If it hadn’t been a movie, Christopher Nolan’s Dunkirk could have been a painting in
the style of Picasso’s "Guernica" or Goya’s series of prints, "The Disasters of War." It’s also a triptych like Hieronymous Bosch’s The Garden of Earthly Delights, seeing
Dunkirk form the land, the sea and the air. Like a painting it works
sychronistically, giving more a simultaneous feel for the desperation of a
defeated army than introducing some kind of Hollywood style narrative where
dramatic snapshots lead to a romantic conclusion in which everything is tied
together is a neat catharsis. There’s no central character in Dunkirk, no Private Ryan if you will. There’s also something
Shakespearean about the whole set up. Seeing the soldiers on the beach at
Dunkirk, a recurring motif in the movie, is a little like Henry wandering in disguise amongst the knots of soldiers
on the field at Agincourt. Nolan moves effortlessly between high and lo, civilian (Mark Rylance) and
military (Kenneth Branagh). Actually the very first scene sets the tone. A young
British soldier is inundated by broadsides dropped by the Germans. He’s then fired upon.
His fellow soldiers die around him. The scene doesn’t skip a beat. It’s
the way tragedies happen, without explanation or hesitation. It’s similar to
what happens out at sea where in one of the films most unforgettable scenes the
water literally goes on fire. From the
beginning and despite all the action, the movie’s impressionistic style makes
you wonder when the plot is going to begin and that’s just the point. Churchill
famously asked to get back 30,000 men and got 300,000, a huge retreat that
turned into a victory.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)