Blow-Up 1966: The Conversation 1974

[@PeterCoventry-zb2zw]

Be sure to appreciate the tennis match at the end of Blow Up, especially when the camera follows the “ball” into the air and back down. He’s not really a street photographer but more a fashion photographer.

[@iloveweezer69]

yep, I think his occupation is something of a studio photographer but he has the spirit of a street photojournalist! if I get to see bruce gilden again i’m going to ask him what he thought about the ending, even though it t seems to be quite the meme online for some reason.

[@PeterCoventry-zb2zw]

@ true. Theme of the story was that he wanted to do serious photojournalism, of which his agent was skeptical, instead of commercial work. He aspired to art, but was mired in commerce. And stumbled into more serious work than he bargained for. While it’s wonderful you appreciate this film in 2024 (now 2025) I would like to tell you what it meant to some of us in 1975: even though we’d already seen it, we would drive 20 miles to see it again when it played at revival houses.

[@iloveweezer69]

@@PeterCoventry-zb2zw I would have too, it’s a marvelous film. What did you think of the ending?

[@PeterCoventry-zb2zw]

@@iloveweezer69 the ending is profound. Was that objective reality he had created or re-created in the darkroom? Or were the patterns in the blow ups an illusion? That he unconsciously tricked himself into believing? Or consciously decided to, the way he picked up the imaginary ball and threw it back over the fence to the tennis players? He didn’t disappear, only the magic of cinema made it look like he disappeared, so we question the intent of the filmmaker. Does his disappearance mean something, or is it just a cheap trick on the audience? You can answer, or decide there are no answers, only questions.