MovieChat Forums > Blow-Up (1967) Discussion > Why I think he dreamt it all...

Why I think he dreamt it all...


I watched this film a while ago, and I was only inspired to go back to watch it again after stumbling across the message boards here. They reminded me how deep and complex this film actually is.

I noticed that the body, when the main guy returns to the park at night, is laid out clean, flat, no blood, looking totally at peace. I know that violence in films from the same era as Blow Up tended not to be as graphic as those today, but you'd think at least that the body would in some way look like it had been shot.

Instead, it looks more like it has been arranged at a funeral. Now, this is where my argument becomes stretched a bit, and falls onto hypothetical reasoning.

I am assuming that Thomas has never seen a murder before, and has never experienced having to see a corpse murdered in a violent way, hence why he is so shocked when he discovers it in his photographs. The most experience he would have had, you might assume, with dead bodies is at funerals, where bodies are laid out calm and nice. Therefore, he is applying thoughts at the back of his mind (what he knows about dead bodies) onto the old man he saw in the park. He is basically assuming what the body might look like (possibly).

I also thought it was interesting how there was a slow panning shot in the scene where Thomas stumbled in on Jane having sex. It looked like it might to moving to reveal something on the floor, but instead just shows the carpet pattern. I would say this is because the carpet, with it's random and jerky pattern, looks like the grainy pictures that Thomas is obsessed with. Because of his boredom he is looking deep into the pictures, and the camera has taken his point of view as he stares into the similar looking carpet. This would tie in with the idea of him being bored of the sex,drugs and rock'n'roll life around him, as he ignores the couple having sex in front of him. They barely register as he looks for something that will actually excite him.

Please let me know what you think, I would love it if someone could expand on these theories

reply

While I'll admit the movie is definitely surreal, I don't think it was meant to be taken as "all a dream." Mainly because that would render the whole thing pointless. As surreal & dreamlike as it was, it was a stark commentary on reality, and how we perceive it.

I also thought it was interesting how there was a slow panning shot in the scene where Thomas stumbled in on Jane having sex. It looked like it might to moving to reveal something on the floor, but instead just shows the carpet pattern. I would say this is because the carpet, with it's random and jerky pattern, looks like the grainy pictures that Thomas is obsessed with. Because of his boredom he is looking deep into the pictures, and the camera has taken his point of view as he stares into the similar looking carpet. This would tie in with the idea of him being bored of the sex,drugs and rock'n'roll life around him, as he ignores the couple having sex in front of him. They barely register as he looks for something that will actually excite him.
Eh, I'm just not seeing that. While this movie is certainly deep, I think you're reading TOO much into it. Yes, the director was picky enough to repaint the outsides of all the buildings on an entire street blue, and even went so far as to spraypaint the grass in the park because it "wasn't green enough," but I don't think the audience was meant to be squinting at the blur of the carpeting. I would say there is a connection of sorts between the splattery, undefined, abstract paintings of his artist friend who lives downstairs, and the blurry, grainy photographs of the murder that are blown up until they are nothing more than giant pixelations, but I don't think the carpet figures into it.

Thomas is so spoiled and bored with his life that when he happens upon his neighbors having sex, he seems somewhat unaffected by it, but he hardly ignores them. At first he stares a moment, but when the girl looks up, he goes to hurry on. She holds her hand up as if to say "wait a moment," which indicates just how uninvolved she is in the sexual act. She obviously likes Thomas & wants to talk to him, but things get awkward so Thomas leaves. I think he likes her & feels something for her, but I also think he doesn't want to indulge her & listen to her relationship woes because:
1) He is loyal to his artist friend
2) He is a bit selfish & doesn't want to hear about someone else's problems

The movie is saying, "what is reality? Is it not just our perception?" It makes no statements, only imposes questions, but the question is constantly asked throughout. Thomas knows what he saw, but after a while, once the corpse is gone and the woman disappears magically into a crowd and his photos are stolen, he has nothing concrete left and begins to question his memory. Did it ever actually really happen? Is it any more or less real than the mimed tennis match at the end of the movie? The movie leaves it up to us, the audience, to decide for ourselves. I don't think there is a specific, "correct" answer; it's meant to be left up to the viewers' interpretations.

»«ëÕ|{¥(V)
I can't understand your crazy moon language.

reply

"what is reality? Is it not just our perception?"


Clearly not. Hence, the film is in fact pointless.

reply

"what is reality? Is it not just our perception?"


Clearly not. Hence, the film is in fact pointless.

reply

"They reminded me how deep and complex this film actually is."

There is nothing deep or complex about this film. Saw it twice now, and all I saw is a selfish misogynist guy who uses people and is too stupid to go to the police after finding a dead body. Complex? No. Just stupid and shallow.

reply

i love this movie and others like it because it reflects the mind of the person watching it so well.

reply

Apparently it does, as you so happily demonstrate. The 'intellectuals' who 'adore' this film clearly have no other response to those who don't like it but insults and arrogance. Oh, you guys truly took a page out of the main character's book!

I don't mind speaking my mind and saying something others don't like, but at least I am intelligent enough to understand that it is very much possible that people have different tastes. This film seems to bring out the worst in people, as you (again) demonstrate: everybody who loves it also loves insulting those who don't. It is quite sickening.

Such an open mind you have. I wonder if you got this film at all, as you don't seem to be very, ehm.. clever.

reply

need i say more? lol.

reply

No, better not. It's pretty clear as is.

reply

awesome :D

reply

Great, isn't it?

reply

Nice generic argument. I am gonna use it for anyone who doesn't like any movie I do. Thanks :D

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]