Was meant for ME to write myself, right? It was mean't to be left the eternal cliffhanger.....an endless series of questions.....a great Hitchcock film that never gets to the last reel.......(Any thoughts?) (VAUDVILLE BOY) P.S- Just caught this on Turner the other night for the first time....VERY DIFFERENT FLICK!.....
shareThe film is all about perception. What Thomas saw and captured may or may have not been a murder is up to the viewer. The ending is sort of tying the bow on the theme or reflecting on what you saw as Thomas is left watching mimes playing tennis. To the mimes' perception, they are actually playing tennis and are living in their own world. Thomas starts to get fascinated and by doing so in the end, plays along by throwing the ball back to them. He realizes that if what he saw was a murder, then it may have been just as he perceived it. Think of how people post those pictures of JESUS appearing in their waffles or doorways. I didn't realize the resemblance of Jesus until someone pointed it out to me. Everyone in life views things a certain way. I know...I wasn't expecting this to be such a deep film; I was expecting more HITCHCOCK and release of tension in the end. I watched this when I had heard so much about it as it impressed the likes of Bergman, Coppola, De Palma, and Scorsese.
shareBUT....His hunch turned out to be REAL when he goes back that night AND FINDS THE MAN'S BODY laying near the bushes......(A) Who killed him?........or did he just die? (B) In one blow up photo we SEE A HAND AND A PISTOL POINTING OUT OF THE BUSHES. (C) Why did the girl want those pictures back so URGENTLY? Questions....Questions..........(VAUDVILLE BOY) P.S.- I thought the ending was a cop out...lol
shareIt's been awhile since I've seen this but:
<(A) Who killed him?
There really is no right answer. This film isn't a "literal" film where everything is supposed to tie in nicely. We question whether murder even took place or Thomas may have imagined it. There is no pay-off towards the end.
<(B) In one blow up photo we SEE A HAND AND A PISTOL POINTING OUT OF THE BUSHES.
That's the beauty of the movie is we play witness along with the main character. We like Thomas are unreliable witnesses. It may have seemed we saw a hand and pistol but do we really know for sure? Think the Zapruder film of JFK's assassination, to this day we still don't know if the driver was in on it or if there was a second gunman. The movie plays out like that as when Thomas tries to follow Redgrave's character but she vanishes like Thomas in the end.
<(C) Why did the girl want those pictures back so URGENTLY?
Well the most reasonable answer is the fact that she was cheating on her man w/ another and Thomas took those photos of them together so she wanted them back. Another is that she could be involved in the murder(if there was one) and needed evidence from the film.
<I thought the ending was a cop out...
You may think it's a cop out but that's probably the reason why it's been a classic for the past 40 years as there is no full-on answer. Would you rather have it be a "who-dun-it?" type thing like every movie in this genre has? It's not everyone's movie I understand that but it's worth the second view.
It might help if you see any of Antonioni's pictures as they are very "slow" and odd in it's storytelling. Try THE PASSENGER w/ Jack Nicholson.
[deleted]
“The film is all about perception. What Thomas saw and captured may or may have not been a murder is up to the viewer. The ending is sort of tying the bow on the theme or reflecting on what you saw as Thomas is left watching mimes playing tennis.”
AsaNisiMasa 63
**********
In Tom’s world, the photographer’s mind is largely composed of images, and at times his grasp upon reality becomes tenuous. The blown-up images that he sees and photographs in the park are taken to extremes when he enlarges them until all he has on his prints is “noise.” (insubstantial stuff). He returns to the park later to find and even touch the cheek of the corpse, but when he asks Ron, the publisher to accompany him to confirm the scene, he is too “stoned” to take the matter further. By the time Tom returns to the park the following morning with camera, the body has disappeared. And so he wanders down to the lower park where the tennis courts are, only to find the student mimes preparing to play a game of mimed tennis. It is at this point that Tom begins to realize that his world of phantasy and of reality are very tenuous. Nevertheless, he is amused when the invisible ball strikes the wire netting and the spectating mimes jump back. The imaginary ball passes out of the court and Tom is asked by one of the mimes to return it which he does in the spirit of the pretend game. It is at this point that Tom begins to realize that his world of phantasy and of reality are not as inseparable as he would like.
The story is a metaphor for life as Tom and the viewer (that’s YOU) see it. We reconcile such things to the world of dreams, but sometimes the horrors of the dosshouse life impinge on our consciousness. Such matters are what overpower his perception of life. This, I believe, is what happened.
It’s summed up neatly in the Shakespearian line: “Sleep that knits up the ravell'd sleave of care, ...” or if you prefer, “We are such stuff as dreams are made on, and our little life, is rounded with a sleep.”
Guid Nicht from Scotland !
What I like the most about this kind of movies is that, as in the best books, at the end of it you have more questions than answers. And that's a good thing.
It's up to you to decide what's true or what is not. What is the meaning of the film or the "meanings". Just like in many films by Bergman, Buñuel, Tarkovsky, Lynch, Jodorowsky, Kieslowski, you name it.
The best movies IMO are not those who gives you everything predigested, so you haven't to make any effort, like 99.99% of the summer blockbusters. The best movies are the ones who challenges you, the ones that recquires your cooperation, the ones that gives you more than one option and many layers of different meanings to explore by yourself.
Please, don't forget that what he sees is somehow distorted by all the marijuana he smokes during the whole movie...
So, the handgun may not be a handgun...
-The brain is the most overrated organ- Woody Allen.
In Woody Allen's case, that may well be true ;-(
share[deleted]
Uhhh... to me, the movie's point is clear. There was a murder. The photographer KNOWS it. But society as a whole looks for reasons not to believe it. Society as a whole is a bunch of mimes playing tennis with an invisible ball. The photographer is then left with a choice--he can play the "game" or he can try to get others to see what he sees, thereby jeopardizing his way of life and his sanity... In the end, he chooses to play along.
What makes the film stand out, however, is that the filmmaker puts the viewers in the shoes of the photographer--and makes them have to decide to play along (by assuming there was no murder) or acknowledge the uncomfortable truth that murders are a way of life in the decadent Western world. Taken in the context of the sixties, it seems clear this film was a commentary on the Kennedy assassination and the Vietnam war.
You can't be a loser if you never quit, unless being a loser means not knowing when to quit.
Uhhh... to me, the movie's point is clear. There was a murder. The photographer KNOWS it. But society as a whole looks for reasons not to believe it. Society as a whole is a bunch of mimes playing tennis with an invisible ball. The photographer is then left with a choice--he can play the "game" or he can try to get others to see what he sees, thereby jeopardizing his way of life and his sanity... In the end, he chooses to play along.
Masterpiece.Period.
shareAccording to Antonioni himself, some things need not to be explained or even put in words - because then the attraction will be gone (And since this film is still much discussed after 40+ years he was obviously right!). In other words, just enjoy the experience.
This message has not yet been deleted by an administrator
I just saw this in a class with a British professor who thought the ending was wonderful. Personally, I felt like a whole part of the story was missing, but of course, I'm American. When you consider how many cop shows we have on TV, I think it's natural for us to expect some kind of solution, a solving of the murder, etc. But you don't always get closure to these things in life. Sometimes I think back on events that I've experienced and wondered if they actually happened at all the way I remember them. Sometimes, even when it's obvious a murder has taken place, it's impossible to determine who did it or why. That's life. And, unlike the other Antonioni films I have seen, at least this one has an engaging story, so I applaud him for that.
No matter what comes through that door, you will stand your Grond! I mean ground!
Right, this film is much like life. With a twist:)
(Oh, but many of his films have engaging stories... Take The Passenger for one! Also, if you understand what the main characters go through in, say, La Notte, it's hardly unengaging. But I understand what you mean)
This message has not yet been deleted by an administrator
This film was more of a painting than a film. A really good painting
shareYep, films not tying up all the loose ends is a big deal to Americans these days. An ending that ties up all the loose ends ("mega-closure":-) is one of the prime characteristics of the "classic Hollywood film".
You'll seldom find Hollywood-style "closure" in art/avant-garde/experimental films though. Film-closure is more often absent in European films too. (My impression is British films --which from time to time have gotten significant funding from the U.S.-- occupy a middle-ground between "Hollywood" films and "European" films.) Film-closure is often quite limited in "mystical"/"religious"/"difficult" films (I'm thinking here for example of films by Andrei Tarkovsky). And it's even the case that film-closure is less common in "older" Hollywood films than in current ones.
It's too bad, because this one aspect seems to doom (both by nuking box office receipts and by dimming American critics' reception) some movies that are truly excellent ...I'm thinking in particular here of the Russian film "Elena" by Andrey Zvyagintsev (of "The Return").
i just saw this film, and kept assuming it would be like Blow Out, as if that was a total remake of this film. so i kept waiting for something real dreadful to come, and i wonder had i not known of Blow Out, if it would still have that tension that i did feel. (knowing that the girl knew and the photographer didn't, or what did she really know.) I also took the film to be an art film expressing the (i don't know if this had an impact on the film and if it was coined at the time) "Medium is the Message". as that refers to the medium itself having specific effects that affect the viewer of that medium in a particular way. (in the end i saw him play along, to what before he was kind of in crisis of)
share[deleted]