I think below that Joyce Little is correct. At 2:01 you can see Redgrave standing and staring at the corpse below. Which means that the photographer missed it since he thinks he actually saved the guy's life.
I just noticed something I have seen seen before: at 2:01 the still shows- quite clearly - Vanessa Redgrave standing by the corpse. I'm not really interested in the superficial/surface plot by which Antonioni puts this magnificent film together, but I still had a jolt of recognition when I saw t this for the first time in countless times of seeing the film. Wonderful about this sequence: the trees in the wind on the soundtrack evoking the actual. A masterpiece of film,
@@garrison6863 That's why I never believed it was all in his head. The corpse is visible there to us but he doesn't see it yet. So the whole, 'he made it all up in his head to give meaning to his work by preventing a murder then later doubted that meaning and that's when he sees the corpse' argument never worked for me. There's still tons of mystery and psychological suspense to be a part of something for a brief moment that you will never know or understand and you have to place it into context within your own life.
This is the bit that got me into analogue photography ... and still kept me there all these years. F**k digital. I always wanted a darkroom like Thomas here. Never did get one; I still improvise in my laundry! I first saw this as a 16yo back in the 80s. I had no idea what I was watching, but from this scene on, I was hooked... and stumped! You need repeat viewings to catch the details and make up your own mind about what Thomas perceives as reality.
1 minute 35 seconds :- Appears to be a Diana .177 air pistol with a (probably) 3x telescopic sight. Unless it was firing cyanide tipped darts, it would do nothing more than break the skin at that distance.
YES!! Fucking FINALLY! It's been driving me nuts why you don't hear any gunshot! And me trying to search for what type of gun that was..........NOTHING! No mention anywhere! Now I find your post! Brilliant! Why is this not talked about?? I owe you a pint! 👍👍
There's a glaring error in this film. I'm very surprised that no one has seen it. When the photographer takes a photo of the print using a large format 4x5 camera on a tripod, it is understood that he made an enlarged print from that 4x5 negative. That's an absolutely terrible way to get the best resolution. A real photographer would have kept enlarging the 35mm negative, not taken a photograph of a print. The negative is what has the most detail, a print from a negative is second hand, and always has less detail and resolution than the original negative.
I take your point about the negative having the greatest detail but other things come into play, such as edge effects, sharpness and contrast. When I saw that film, I tried enlarging the negative, versus filming a print with my Toyo 4x5 and, to my surprise, I ended up with a more _useable_ print. No absolute science to explain it but suggest you try doing it yourself. You'll be quite impressed.
Yes I think you're right, a real photographer wouldn't do it like that. But showing him highlighting and enlarging a small area of the actual photo looks better dramatically in terms of what he's doing in the movie. It makes it more obvious he's enlarging that bit of the photo we can see there.
I would suggest that this is not an error (and Antonioni certainly would know this). It is an indication that the act of photography itself, not the act of enlargement, is somehow elucidating (or creating) reality in a way that simply enlarging from the negative does not.
Ansel Adams watched this film and was inspired to commit a string of murders. When questioned by authorities, he got way with his crimes by using deliberately inept darkroom techniques. You might say he "dodged " the long arm of the law. Yes - I'm making this up for entertainment purposes - or am I? 🤔
Oddly enough, Hemmings didn't rate this film. That probably explains why his career soon declined. He had poor taste and it affected his choice of projects.
haven’t seen a lot of stuff with him, but i liked him in barbarella, and that was after this. though, funnily enough, they are rather ideologically opposed films.
I don’t think so, but interestingly enough Brian De Palma (before he made the spiritual successor Blow Out) made another movie that was a comedy referencing this scene called Greetings, with a JFK conspiracy theorist who shows people really blurry photos of what he thinks are gunmen.
I think below that Joyce Little is correct. At 2:01 you can see Redgrave standing and staring at the corpse below. Which means that the photographer missed it since he thinks he actually saved the guy's life.
I just noticed something I have seen seen before: at 2:01 the still shows- quite clearly - Vanessa Redgrave standing by the corpse.
I'm not really interested in the superficial/surface plot by which Antonioni puts this magnificent film together, but I still had a jolt of recognition when I saw t this for the first time in countless times of seeing the film. Wonderful about this sequence: the trees in the wind on the soundtrack evoking the actual. A masterpiece of film,
I think you might be right. Except Hemmings does not notice that yet. That is why he says to his pal that he saved the guy' s life.
@@garrison6863 That's why I never believed it was all in his head. The corpse is visible there to us but he doesn't see it yet. So the whole, 'he made it all up in his head to give meaning to his work by preventing a murder then later doubted that meaning and that's when he sees the corpse' argument never worked for me. There's still tons of mystery and psychological suspense to be a part of something for a brief moment that you will never know or understand and you have to place it into context within your own life.
When I first saw this film way back then, about 1971, I saw that vague shape of body right way.
This is the bit that got me into analogue photography ... and still kept me there all these years. F**k digital.
I always wanted a darkroom like Thomas here. Never did get one; I still improvise in my laundry!
I first saw this as a 16yo back in the 80s. I had no idea what I was watching, but from this scene on, I was hooked... and stumped!
You need repeat viewings to catch the details and make up your own mind about what Thomas perceives as reality.
Hands down, one of the greatest sequences in cinema history.
Thanks so much for putting this on you tube. I
1 minute 35 seconds :- Appears to be a Diana .177 air pistol with a (probably) 3x telescopic sight. Unless it was firing cyanide tipped darts, it would do nothing more than break the skin at that distance.
I was wondering what type of gun that was just before seeing your post. I didn't notice the telescopic sight at first.
To be fair, it’s his imagination.
YES!! Fucking FINALLY! It's been driving me nuts why you don't hear any gunshot! And me trying to search for what type of gun that was..........NOTHING! No mention anywhere! Now I find your post! Brilliant! Why is this not talked about?? I owe you a pint! 👍👍
Wasn’t a version of this pistol used in the contemporary James Bond posters, perhaps a deliberate use?
My mother's cousin wrote the film, so my second cousin. I've never met him though.
Cortazar!
There's a glaring error in this film. I'm very surprised that no one has seen it. When the photographer takes a photo of the print using a large format 4x5 camera on a tripod, it is understood that he made an enlarged print from that 4x5 negative. That's an absolutely terrible way to get the best resolution. A real photographer would have kept enlarging the 35mm negative, not taken a photograph of a print. The negative is what has the most detail, a print from a negative is second hand, and always has less detail and resolution than the original negative.
I take your point about the negative having the greatest detail but other things come into play, such as edge effects, sharpness and contrast. When I saw that film, I tried enlarging the negative, versus filming a print with my Toyo 4x5 and, to my surprise, I ended up with a more _useable_ print. No absolute science to explain it but suggest you try doing it yourself. You'll be quite impressed.
stfu nerd
Yes I think you're right, a real photographer wouldn't do it like that. But showing him highlighting and enlarging a small area of the actual photo looks better dramatically in terms of what he's doing in the movie. It makes it more obvious he's enlarging that bit of the photo we can see there.
I would suggest that this is not an error (and Antonioni certainly would know this). It is an indication that the act of photography itself, not the act of enlargement, is somehow elucidating (or creating) reality in a way that simply enlarging from the negative does not.
Ansel Adams watched this film and was inspired to commit a string of murders. When questioned by authorities, he got way with his crimes by using deliberately inept darkroom techniques. You might say he "dodged " the long arm of the law.
Yes - I'm making this up for entertainment purposes - or am I? 🤔
Oddly enough, Hemmings didn't rate this film.
That probably explains why his career soon declined.
He had poor taste and it affected his choice of projects.
haven’t seen a lot of stuff with him, but i liked him in barbarella, and that was after this. though, funnily enough, they are rather ideologically opposed films.
@@michaeledwards6683 I'm not saying he only made bad films after Blow-Up but there were very few good ones.
Is this about JFK?
I don’t think so, but interestingly enough Brian De Palma (before he made the spiritual successor Blow Out) made another movie that was a comedy referencing this scene called Greetings, with a JFK conspiracy theorist who shows people really blurry photos of what he thinks are gunmen.
@@zeltzamer4010 I dunno, the more I watch this film, the more I think there is a GIGANTIC meta-narrative here about JFK , Jackie and Antonioni.
??????????????????????????????????????????
Actually, even when they are in the park and we see her just before she runs away, you can see the head of the dead man.