It’s been a long week at home and I needed either a comedy that I could lose myself in and not have to do much thinking. Or really treat myself with a dissection of film history, gain an even better understanding an appreciation never go a-miss. I settled for 78/52 (2017) a very obscure title that needs the prior in-depth or nerdy knowledge of Alfred Hitchcock‘s Psycho (1960) which the second documentary in recent time to explore the director. Previously the taped conversations between Hitchcock and Truffuat in Hitchcock/Truffuat (2015) which were the basis for the bible as it known by famous film directors who have worn and tatty covers that they have in their possession.
The earlier piece was steering us towards the making and the influence of Vertigo and ultimately Psycho a film that has changed the medium of film making. It’s a natural progression to then make a documentary that builds on that discussion, focusing not just on the film, it’s that scene, the scene that has become part of popular culture to the point that you don’t even need to have previously seen the shower scene. A moment in film that has become ingrained into the language of film that it’s essential reading for all students and fans of the medium.
78/52 is very much a labour of love, the aesthetic of the film’s built around the film, there’s no contributor sat in-front of a green-screened image or a hotel room. Instead a faithful recreation of the Psycho motel sets has been built to sit the contributors both famous, obscure and really unknown if you don’t have a love of horror films. Writer/director Alexandre O. Philippe has really done his research in pulling this documentary together. Drawing us into the world of the America that has become cut-off from civilisation to find the motel that Marion Crane (Janet Leigh) found that led to her bloody demise, all filmed in black and white, even our contributors are brought into this world. The only jarring break to colour is for colour film clips which you get used to, once you except that its a back and white world we are in it’s excepted.
The first 3rd of the film is pure build up, as we learn – again the context behind the film, the behinds the scenes that is even left out of the fun film depiction of the making of the film Hitchcock (2012) that focuses more of the directors psyche rather than the minute detail of what is essentially 78 shots of film and 52 cuts in the editing room that ends all that build up. Exploring that drives that lead Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins) to dress as his dead mother and kill what could easily be his latest victim. Looking at the state of films in the late 1950’s all that were begin to bubble over from innocence to a burst of sex of violence in the following decade, breaking free of the Hays code that had restrained them to conform to the strict moral virtues of the country and “Mothers knows best” that Hitchcock exploits to shock his audience who had seen nothing like it in America in mainstream cinemas around the world. We can see this all in Hitchock’s earlier films, the role of the mother, waking up America from it’s nieveity to the war in his native Europe. The drives in his works, the symbolism that was building up his thrillers before delivering his first horror, a film that he would never top. Leaving me wondering how the rest of the classic really can work or live up to all the build up to that scene. Leaving Marion’s sister and lover to workout what happened, the result of the shower scene and that comes after pales in comparison. Yet without that lesser part of the film we wouldn’t have understood the motivations and get the conclusion that we leave with.
What could have been a replay of the shower scene, including the undressing, stepping into the shower to the eventual and famous climatic murder and the disposing of the body. Every frame and cut’s dissected with equal measure. Getting insights from everyone from editors, directors and even Jamie Lee Curtis. Instead of the classic fun of stills we have an in-depth discussion of the scene. At times light whilst at others very insightful, putting Hitch on the couch for some psychoanalysis through various film clips. We can see his had been building up to this film for over thirty years, finally breaking free of the holds of his childhood, expressed through his films.
Lastly we see the cinematic influences of the shower scene of slasher horror and main-stream film, how much of an impact that the scene has had on the medium. Even with the utterly pointless Gus Van Sant remake that I have so far avoided. Just proving that remakes can be completely pointless. Mere exercises in replication in shot for shot films hold no interest for me, there’s no point, however its inclusion in the film makes that very point, without even saying much about it. All part of the relationship between the original and the development of film since it’s release.
Ultimately it’s a very well researched documentary that is at times light whilst at other moments deadly serious. Full of clips that are needed to build up a compelling argument that unpicks the shower scene that forever changed the face of film, without ignoring its own and the directors influences. I know I made the right choice night, enough to make me write this review so it must have been.
If I’m honest today was really stressful, nothing went as straight-forward as I thought it would be. With new kit came new issues which now have to be resolved moving forward for a public installation. I won’t go into detail about them but they took up a lot of my time in the studio.
Moving on I did finally get to see the first pair of pieces projecting opposite each other, I had to compromise in places and there’s still things to iron out. The main being the timing of the footage being projected. As I began to see them working together, the volume cranked up for effect there was a lot of overlap. I want to see how they work if I even out the gaps. I’m thinking about a new tests where the videos are timed to bounce off each other, allowing the audience to look at both pieces instead of being conflicted. For example the original Unforgiven (1992) leads with a bit of footage, a break of a few seconds, before a piece from the remakes played, this would allow them both to work together, no overlap before a long/short break at the end before they play together as they go into a continuous loop. I could carry out the edit next time I’m in the studio, also allowing me to source the kit I need to carry out a more streamlined test. The video documentation naturally wants to look at both at the same time as they are wanting your attention, so why not work with that.
I also looked at the lighting, which I am concerned about. I will have between 2-4 tripods in the installation, I need them to be secure and safe for an audience. Lighting is needed, if only to illuminate minimally. I don’t really want to cast as shadow of the tripods, just the plinths, I can’t help light coming from the media players, unless I work on a concealing method.
It’s all about seeing what’s working now as I move towards a more complete state, making the idea a reality is harder than it looks. I have however been able to see them working and that’s something I want to see again, without the stress of all the problems that arose today. They should iron out by next time.
My practice has me in an interesting position, a white guy under the age of 30 who lives in the UK and loves Westerns. I’ve come to a point where I need to take a step back from making work in response to the genre and actually look at where I sit. The genre is essentially an American import to our country which had an impact with people of a certain age, who watched them in the cinema at the time of release. I want to know how I relate to them, how the films have informed them, the characters and the role models that have helped inform their gender. It’s a project, I say project as I don’t know the finished form apart from being a video piece at this stage that I will probably come back to over a long period of time.
One of the first steps is to collect information from those who actually saw the films at the cinemas up and down the UK and see where the research leads me. I’ve written a short survey which I’d like to share with those who grew up and watched Westerns in the 1950’s and 60’s. If that’s yourself or someone you know, please share the survey with them?
I can’t wait to see the results.
It’s been a very successful day in the studio. I set aside a full day to look into any possibilities for the plinth I was going to make today. Not sure of what I was going to encounter. My worries were thankfully short-lived. As you can see from the image above, it’s not exactly a straight surface to build on. The tracking is reduced to ensure I’m on a flat enough surface. As per normal the pieces slotted in and began to come together, shaving small amounts off to take into account the other pieces. It wasn’t long though before I decided to see, just what I was working with after lunch. Turning the work the right way up, I was pleasantly surprised to find the plinth was taking all the weight and continued to for the whole day.
I carried on after lunch, applying the gum tape to further strengthen the plinth. My only guess that even with all the weight at the top, I think that the inclusion of the beams, the balcony wrapping around the interior must be working in my favor.
Now that I have three plinths constructed I had two see how the two responding to Unforgiven (1992 & 2013) work together. There’s definitely a height difference, which was determined by the boxes I used. I won’t be going any smaller for the last one. I really want to see them working in the dark to know whats going on. I can then start to look at timings of the work, how audio effects the opposite piece and just how far they need to be apart for them to project. Hopefully I can see that next time I’m in the studio, thanks to a delivery I received tonight, allowing me to play once more.
I’m now at the half-way mark of having all my plinths in place. I began t he day by working with the cardboard I had pre-cut to work on today. Bringing everything together with only a few pieces needed trimming as the pieces went in. I then moved onto strengthening the two pieces with gum tape which has ensure they last.
With the second one now in place I have been left with a challenge to tackle, the Japanese model miniature which is by far the heaviest. The plinth tracking its set up for a narrow piece, which I’m not sure will take the weight, I may have to make some adaptations to allow it to hold. First lets see how it looks and holds, if I need to I will work on support in the rear and work off observations.
Even though it feels like I’m spending less time in the studio – a change in my routine to fit the gym in I’m still finding my time there really rewarding. As I plan out a rough idea of what I want to achieve I’m able to go home satisfied knowing I’ve accomplished all I wanted to do that day. Making me feeling content in my making. I never thought I’d be taking the idea of making plinths possible. I took an idea and ran with it.
Laying the track down for cardboard to slot into and hold up the model miniatures. Beginning today I found two boxes that I had been storing in my space, they have never been folded into box form, they never served their function, making them fresh piece of cardboard – something I rarely do. In my work nothing serves its intended function, instead recycling them into something far mote exciting. I took the boxes – unfolded and pulled it apart to lay flat, able to measure out the pieces before cutting them to size.
With the first two pieces ready and a set of pre-cut strips I began to bring the piece to life, sitting in the slots so it would be made exactly to fit. I noticed as soon as they were complete that an internal strip was on show, I was thinking about undoing the work, before realising this was a happy accident. I had already showed the strips around the corner, it was a natural extension of the language, why hide that part of the illusion. I carried on to bring the piece to be a complete plinth ready to test out. It didn’t take long to see the result, holding up the model miniature, all I had to do was properly secure it to stand long term in a space.
I cut 8 triangles of similar size, 4 at both ends which instantly made a real difference to the structure. I now have a method which allowed me to make a start on another plinth, using a similar size box. I have also let the height be determined by the box, not altering it, partly to keep things loose and also to not affect the fit. If I were to trim any off the top I may make it uneven, leaving them smooth I’m allowing for a better fit. I’m really happy with the progress of just one plinth, I could even using this method with future works.
Another quick but essential day in the studio, adding what I have called Plinth tracking. On the sides where a plinth – made of cardboard of course, I have laid two tracks of cardboard with a gap to safely allow a two-ply thick plinth to be added to the bases. This can be easily slotted into place at any time and when in place, it should not move as it’s trapped between two lines of tracking, locking it without gluing it in place. It would allow me to more easily transport the work.
As I look back at the work which is now covered for it’s own protection, I can see just over a year of dedication has gone into making these four pieces. I’ve learned how to make furniture, expanded my gestures from external to internal pieces. The level of detail has definitely increased, making the process a lot longer. My making skills have also increased, whilst still keeping detail lose I have grown in confidence in what I make. I’m really proud of what I’ve made and really want to see them with projections simultaneously now. I know that’s only a matter of time and patience.
In the meantime I have seen some complete (folded) boxes in my studio space. I’m very tempted to expanded them and experiment to see what the possibilities are. I will obviously have to reinforced them with strips and triangle pieces for structural reasons before I even consider placing one of the pieces on top. I think I just like finding work for myself sometimes.
I’ve been patiently waiting for The Abyss (1989) to make itself available to me. I’ve known very little about it beyond the ground-break special effects that are mentioned in dozens of articles, it’s hard not to know of it’s milestone. Part of the long development that sees the special effects heavy films today. Bringing us to the point of the uncanny valley in more recent films. Audiences are beginning to question more and more what they are seeing. I was questioning just what was real and carefully constructed yet quite simplistic effects shots in tonight’s film. They may have dated slightly but still have the power to leave you in complete awe. It’s not all about the special effects, or even the build up to the water mimicking scene that made little sense out of context of the whole film. They do play a pivotal role in bringing the world alive but we see very little of the special effects wizardry until the final act. The pay off is more than worth it, even when the film is close to 30 years old.
Anyways enough of all that and onto the film itself. We are still in the midst of the cold war. The Berlin Wall is still very much in tact, but as history tells us, cracks are beginning to show. A nuclear submarine in an undisclosed ocean is tracking an unknown large mass that is closing in on them. The audience knows it’s not a Russian sub closing in on range, the fact we can’t see what is coming we know it’s far bigger than has ever been imagined. Our expectations are being set up for the unimaginable. The explained mass does enough damage that it brings the sub to its demise, giving us a reason to explore, wonder and be drawn into something we have never even imagined.
The team that are dragged it to mount a search and rescue mission remind me of the working crew on board the space merchant vessel in Alien (1979). Working class men and women who just want to do their job and get paid without any hidden surprises. Could this be James Cameron ‘s take on the sci-fi horror he made a sequel to which blows the other out of the water. The mining crew maybe still on earth, however surrounded by water, space in liquid form, just as cold and deadly. The first act borrows heavily from Ridley Scott’s Alien as the crew leave to investigate (after dragging the under-water drilling base with them. Led by a small team of navy seals who bring them the “iron b****” Lindsey Brigman (Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio) who we learn is the estranged wife (in the process of divorcing) base leader Virgil (Ed Harris) who would rather she not be anywhere near him. She brings with tension, not sexual but friction that a warring couple who despise each other. You can see why they need to separate. Add to that she’s not the girl to fall in love, instead she bring power in the form of knowledge, she designed this monstrosity where men and women live and work away from the rest of the world. It’s refreshing to see a strong woman in a lead role, even if she starts off as being feared, she gels with the team.
The underwater world that’s created (as Cameron explains) is a brave move, filmed in water tanks, a very complex and brave move for any filmmaker. You really believe that are hundreds of metres below the water making the whole world more believable. He’s an accomplished world builder (even if he’s now got major tunnel vision) he creates and deliver’s big, there are no half measures with this guy. The structure that the crew live and work on, you never fully see it on-screen, always from an angle to suggest it’s far larger than the design department could have ever achieved. You have to remember this is nearly a decade before Titanic (1997) where a full-scale replica was built, just to play with in his film and sink again. Combined with special effects, far more advanced than The Abyss we can see the lengths he really goes to, if only his budget would allow.
I have to return to the special effects that are slowly dangled in front of us when we first glimpse the alien life form, even just as light, there’s something else going on. We’re being teased all the time. Even the guy who first witnesses them is brought back in a seizure induced coma just to keep us wanting more. It’s only when Lindsey herself discovers the jellyfish like creature who acts like a probe for the larger vessel that’s related those found in Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977). Perfectly suited aliens in the watery depths, the design engineer reaches out in innocent friendship and wonder, wanting to connect peacefully to the unknown presence before her. Whilst Navy seal leader Lt Coffey (Michael Biehn) has no intentions of meeting with the outer-space jellyfish, wanting to using a trident missile to destroy the wreck. Not caring for the implications. Even after we are all given a lesson in these nuclear deterrents that to this day circle the British Isles – apparently 5 times as powerful as the bomb dropped in Hiroshima. The image of potential danger is too dangerous to even imagine.
Beginning not a cold but civil war between the teams that joined up in hopes of retrieving and investigating, start not to trust one another. As the Seals – Coffey doesn’t want to accept the evidence of something being out there. He’s to carry out his one man mission of destruction. A seal that’s gone AWOL that has to be stopped at all costs, leading to a tense underwater chase in subversive’s, easily replacing cars or even space shuttles. He’s the rogue element in what was supposed to be a domestic search and rescue. We get close to this potential only to be rewarded with great spectacle that heavily references 2001: A Space Odyssey (1969) what director can’t help but indulge in a homage, all be it underwater, relying more on a computer that for Kubrick never even existed. Only to think that this was the height of the spectacle we are blown literally out of the water, wondering again, just how does Cameron do it, by the end he’s just showing off saying, this is what we can do now, or this is what I can do, I’ll let you decide that.
The Abyss really blew me out of the water (pardon the pun), whatever expectations I had for the special effects – which do make this film work. Without them it couldn’t happen. As much as the director is clearly showing off, he speculates and dreams all the time. From the aliens that looks like gentle jellyfish to the amniotic fluid that allows you to dive deeper than was humanly possible. All set against a Cold War world that’s beginning to thaw. The infighting doesn’t pull them apart, instead it brings them closer together. All I want to know now it how the hell he achieved all this.
A little over a week ago I caught The File on Thelma Jordan (1950), Barbara Stanwyck playing the standard femme fatale role, which wasn’t nearly as effective as Double Indemnity (1944). I was a little disappointed, having her play opposite Wendell Corey who is not a natural lead actor. Leaving her to go into overdrive to make this slow burner of a film noir even begin to simmer. It never really comes to the boil. Tonight’s film however was a very different story, a massive improvement on the leading man with Burt Lancaster and a complete role reversal for Stanwyck in Sorry, Wrong Number (1948), leaving me glued to the screen.
It’s great to see a screen veteran in Stanwyck able to play the damsel in distress still, even after 20 years on the screen, opposite up and coming Lancaster who is full of confidence clearly enjoying the chance to play opposite her. Even though characters are restricted by phone conversations and flashbacks that construct the film. Beginning with a stray connection, allowing bed-ridden socialite Leona Stevenson (Stanwyck) who only wants to talk to her husband who left the office hours ago. We have little idea how strong a role the telephone will play in Sorry, Wrong Number. A mumbled conversation about a murder plot is over heard on a cross-wire – this isn’t even a shared line like the one found in Pillow Talk (1959), there’s no time for innuendo here. Wanting to do the right thing she’s back onto the operator to try and track down what is essentially an accidental connection.
She wants to reports the crime to the police, but has very little to go on, the time of a train, a New York street, not enough even for a detective to come out to her. Instead the station that took the call is more preoccupied with a baby. Law enforcement has been domesticated whilst shes crippled by an as yet unrevealed condition. We are left wondering how is she going solve this potential crime herself. It’s not like she’s living in a time when murders can be precisely predicted and prevented as in Minority Report (2002). Her only weapon is her phone. Watching this in a time where phones are now so much more than the basic communication device that connects one voice to another anywhere in the country, or even a distant part of the world. She has to rely on notes, memory and the accounts of those she calls. Building up a picture of what has happened, hopefully leading to a happy conclusion. Now we can use social media to broaden our reach, an audience less personal but able to make a bigger impact, then the killer might be stopped before times up.
I wanted to see both Lancaster and Stanwyck on-screen together, we only see this in flashback, understanding how they met and married. Using her position and money to attract Henry J. Stevenson (Lancaster) to marry her. Stanwyck plays a different of Femme fatale, not relying so much on her body and sex appeal, the lure of dangerous encounters. Her position and status are all that small town boy Henry needs, and someone being ignored to ensure they marry. A daddy’s girl who gets what she wants through her condition. A weak heart that could flare up at any minute to control the one she loves. We’ve moved away from simple marital manipulation to calm a situation down like Beulah Bondi in Vivacious Lady (1938) using an “a weak heart” for a simpler life. The wife in both situations is in control, stopping the husband in his tracks.
The flashbacks are the main way of building up the plot. We need to understand the garbled conversation. Who could be behind it. It takes an amateur bed-ridden detective with a phone racking up a massive phone bill to get to the bottom of this crime. One phone call her husbands secretary leads her in the direction of an old love rival Sally Ann Hunt (Ann Richards) who as we see plays detective, spying on her own husband, no-one can be trusted in this film. Wives can’t trust husband who don’t tell the truth or hold things back. It takes another conversation with her doctor Dr Phillip Alexander (Corey) who reveals her condition to be purely psychological, given the film a Freudian overtone, the mother from beyond the grave having a hold over her son-in-law.
All the conversations start to come together as we meet one of her fathers employees Waldo Evans (Harold Vermilyea) who adds the final piece of the puzzle that we have been trying to solve. It becomes even more complicated as a man trapped by marriage, wealth and all the trappings of his position, using them to plan his escape, calculated and cold until cracks begin to show. Leaving his wife alone in there home where she slowly looses her mind over the course of the film. A woman who once had all the control has lost everything, her independence, the care of the nurses, her husband and ultimately her life. A climax that leaves you wondering if she will be saved at the last minute, after all those calls, building up a case of confessions and evidence. If only she took the time to write it all down, its all if-only’s now. Left one one hell of a cliff-hanger.
Sorry, Wrong Number has been a film worth waiting for, the structure allows a plot to be told via technology rather than traveling around, the lead character visiting everyone as they carryout a physical investigation. Based instead entirely on her emotions, feelings running wild as she holds a phone receiver to her face. Ultimately it’s Stanwyck owns the film, bringing it into melodrama at times without loosing the darkness of the plot, a murder will be committed somewhere tonight, the only question is – whose the victim? She asks all these questions from the confines of her bedroom, slowly going mad with the help of some interesting crane and mirror shots, we really don’t know if she’s coming or going, it’s a real roller-coaster ride from start to finish.
I’ve been curious about Blow Out (1981) for a while now upon learning that is was Brian De Palma response and remake of Michelangelo Antonioni‘s seminal film Blow Up (1966) which I reviewed a few years ago, finding it quite profound and left me contemplating how we deconstruct images that we capture on a daily basis, what lies under the surface of them. If we delve further are we prepared for what we find once we explore. Do we want to see and accept the hidden truth. Questions I hope to revisit and maybe find some answers in my join revisit review.
Moving forward 15 years to De Palma’s remake, a really clever reworking even on the surface level, a film in its own right away from the more obvious connections in terms of title and the protagonists discovery, audio or photo-chemical, it plunges them into a world they never wish they intended to enter. Jack (John Travolta) a sound-recordist for low-budget Hitchcockesque slasher knock-offs is working on his latest collaboration with Sam (Peter Boyden) whose advised that the scream of his shower victim is pathetic to say the least, leaving his film without the impact that he wants or really needs to sell the shower murder which opened up the film. Leading to Jack going out on a late-night sound recording session for the long list he’s been given.
The recording scene has strong links to The Conversation (1974) which saw reclusive anorak Harry Caul (Gene Hackman) on an intensely observed and documented recording of a couples seemingly innocent conversation. Carefully positioned kit from high above and around the square, picks up all the said conversation. Jack again is on a job, more isolated on a bridge with his exposed recording equipment, no need to hide as he points to what he wants to capture on tape. He’s a pro and takes a joy in the process, even getting a thrill out of catching a lovers conversation, carrying on even when they know he’s there. An audio peeping tom you could say, capturing what he wants for his own pleasure. It’s here we see the even that the rest of the film hinges on, a car-crash that carried presidential candidate Governor McRyan (John Hoffmeister) plunges to his death. On the surface it’s a straight-forward incident, until Jack jumps in to save them, finding a woman Sally (Nancy Allen) fighting to stay above the rising water level.
It all starts to get murky when we get the hospital, not yet knowing the identity and position of those involved in the car that careened off the road into the river. There’s a sense of urgency as a cover-ups suggested, for the Governor to be known to be in a car with a woman, a prostitute that could have jeopardized his political chances. The plot literally thickens with Sally being involved, her part is hushed up, and hopefully Jacks too. The role of the women is questionably changed from Jane (Vanessa Redgrave) wanting the film from snooping photographer Thomas (David Hemmings) who very easily fobs her off with a blank roll. Sally is more submissive, more agreeable to be told to get out of town for a while, let the situation blow over. Jack unlike David is more proactive, wanting to understand what’s going on.
Technology plays a bigger role in the remake, sound being the main evidence to explore, Not only has he got to be sure of what he’s hearing, he has to prove that to the Police who want to close the case as an accident. I was fascinated how he synchronised photographs that were taken (by peeping tom Manny Karp (Dennis Franz)) which brings the evidence to life. There’s more immediacy to not just prove his theory right but also act on it, inform the police, or even the press who will make even more noise. The sense of urgency is palpable here, where as Blow Up is more secretive, more investigative, wanting to know for sure himself before doing anything, or nothing, instead changing his perception.
Jack’s perception of the worlds more open, aware of the corruption in the world thanks to his past job working with undercover police to fight corruption. This discovery has to be acted on, hoping if he does it right he can redeem himself and save himself from more guilt. I’ve not even mentioned Burke (John Lithgow) a rogue element whose acts on his own for the corrupt opposition, creating his own trail of bloody murder to cover his tracks. An extra element that was only suggested in the original that creates real tension, an unknown element to Jack for the majority of the film.
Blow Out is a near perfect thriller that goes a bit too far at times, the 360 degree camera moves really should have been more restrained at times, becoming too literal, yes we get it, everything is out his his control. I found the addition of Burke’s murders of women who looked like Sally being killed, manipulating the audience to the point of pushing us over the edge, always seeing the victims from the back before he goes ahead. Now I look forward to revisiting the original, how will my memories hold up and else will I discover. It was a sparse and shocking film even then, next time I’ll be looking at the relationship between the two.
It’s been over two months since I sat down for Blow Out, before returning for the original Blow Up (1966) inspiring De Palma to remake it, which on reflection is a fitting tribute and really has built on this almost silent thriller. I remember being fired up by the film, going off the recommendation at Art school to seek this one out. I was very pleased with the end result. I had forgotten the begging as our photographer Thomas exits a factory at the end of what appears to be the working day. However his is just getting started. We’re given the wrong impression about him, he’s not just another worker, the Rolls Royce is a clear indicator that he’s a successful man who is able to support himself. Yet is self-conscious enough to hide his car, from the workers or just the his in. Back at his studio he becomes what could be Weinstien-esque artist, working with his latest model, wanting to get the best out of her, showing little respect for the woman herself. As the poster misleads me this time, she’s the model he’s enjoying through his camera, reaching an almost sexual climax.
He treats his models much like he does his staff, with little respect, they are just glad to be there, and little attention is given to them in the film. Just supporting him in the studio and his whims, allowing him to live the life of luxury and creative freedom. Coming and going as he pleases, during his next shoot he asks his 5 models to close their eyes, whilst he leaves the studio to chat with his painter friend Bill (John Castle) whose enjoying his own creativity and the attention of his lover/muse Patricia (Sarah Miles). They are all enjoying the bubble that is the swinging sixties. Creatively it looks amazing to been a part of that moment that’s depicted here as something that then takes a horrible turn to the darkness of reality.
On his comings and goings, after buying a wooden propeller he ventures to the local park, just see whats there, getting carried away he becomes a member of the paparazzi, or a peeping tom documenting what looks like an affair between an older man (Ronan O’Casey) who we always see from a distance. The first of a number of scenes films dialogue free, only the wind interrupts this intimate intrusion into the private lives of these lovers. The minimalism of the scene allows us to really get lost in what is happening in this section of the park, we are now as bad as Thomas who happily captures this private moment. We are complicit in this voyeuristic act and we’ll have to pay for that later on. Until Thomas’s spotted, causing Jane (Redgrave) to chase after him, rightfully wanting the film that has caught them in the act of something quite private.
On his return to the studio, we are as surprised he is to found Jane’s found him, out of nowhere, everything is a surprise in this film. Antonio has layered with characters throughout his film that keep appearing out of nowhere, unexpected visitors that come in and out of the photographers day slowing him down, or should I say wearing him down the images in the park begin to unveil a dark secret that he wished he never discovered. The mime artist who he meets on the road, happily given them money, creatives support or sponsorship, it’s very vague. Two young girls who will do anything to model for him reappear, whose innocence’s taken advantage off. Jane’s time however is most compelling, Redgrave’s treated with more respect, yes she undresses, in hopes of securing the roll of film. Yet we never see her breasts, I thought I had from memory, however she’s photographed more respectfully than the other actresses who’re treated like models. She indulges as best she can, clearly out of her depth with the photographer whose not about to give up on his latest roll.
Now the fun really begins, I say fun, the darkness of his latest photographs make themselves known to him. Again we go near silence as he develops and investigates the work, getting deeper, more curious to what is going on in the images. What at first could be a couple uncomfortable at a peeping tom becomes more sinister. He can’t give up, instead he continues to investigate, blowing up sections of the stills to understand the hidden landscape that he was capturing. It’s haunting to see the reveal in near silence, as he learns we learn to. A discovery that can no longer be hidden away, they can’t become part of a body of work, as they document a crime, the photographer an unwitting witness to something he wasn’t expecting.
Where Thomas is alone in his world, Jack is more vocal in Blow Out, the film allows more time to investigate and reach out to others. The original is built upon, allow is to move away from the initial shock of the discovery to look at the wider consequences, how they can affect others. We don’t really know what happens to Jane after she leaves, does she know her lovers dead or is she just relieved to know that her little secret won’t get out. Instead see just the beginning and the effect is has on someone who really shouldn’t have been there.
The end of the film has left me feeling pretty much the same, the mime artists playing tennis, lost in their own world, their craft. Thomas looks on wondering how he now fits into this world that he believed was part of. It’s just increased, revealing a far darker side, one that he has hoped to escape. Even the middle class trappings of his own have hidden him from life. The world of sex, drugs and rock and roll (courtesy of The Yardirds) he has to reassess his position, his perspective. Does all his work hide something lurking under the surface, He captures what he sees through the lens, ignoring the world around him. Unlike Jack who was more aware of the world around him, but chose to escsape it for the world of low-budget films, creating his own reality. Having seen both films, I can clearly see how De Palma has built on a minimalist film about the truth of our reality, how an artist who can be lost in the world of their work can be brought back to reality through the work they make.