562 Blow Out

[flyonthewall2983]

It might be worth a second look considering this coming release, but I remember seeing this a little over a decade ago, and not being impressed with it. It will be interesting to see if Tarantino contributes something to this, because correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this is his all-time favorite movie.

[captveg]

It might be worth a second look considering this coming release, but I remember seeing this a little over a decade ago, and not being impressed with it. It will be interesting to see if Tarantino contributes something to this, because correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this is his all-time favorite movie.

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is Tarantino's favorite movie, but Blow Out can't be far behind.

[Tribe]

It's on the IFC channel tonight...it's better than my memory of it had served. But still, it is Friday, and although I'm not drunk, it's better than being outside on the first ball chilling cold night of the season.

[domino harvey]

Bunch of discussion of the film starting here from the 80s List Project thread

[AquaNarc]

Blow-Up, The Conversation, and Blow-Out all have the same basic premise (there may or may not have been a murder, of which the main character may or may not have evidence), but only Blow-Out is truly about its premise. The first two films are thrillers only tangentially and use their central mystery as a way to explore other things entirely (alienation, paranoia, anhedonia, insecurity, failures of meaning and interpretation). It's telling that neither film is really interested in solving the mystery. Blow-Out, however, works backwards from its predecessors towards the mystery itself: how a plot is composed, how it is hidden, and most importantly, how it is reconstructed. Basically, the first two aren't about what they're about, while the third is aggressively about what it's about. They're really at cross-purposes.

Blow-Out is rather a good movie. It does not have the same ambition as the other two (all of which are successful in their ambitions), but that's not the reason it's my least favourite of the three. My problem is Blow-Out is less resonant: something about de Palma's surface sheen gives the feeling that the emotional moments are beats in a well-coiled machine, that they, and my reactions to them, are the product of a persistent and calculated purpose, and this feeling begins to intrude on the experience. As a consequence, the movie acquires an impersonal tinge that works against it. Not a major criticism, but it must be said that the character moments are less successful than the purely visual/aural sequences.

But dey have similar subject matter!! Just liek hitckock.

Honestly the shallowness of thought at this place amazes me sometimes.

[Murdoch]

Brilliant counterpoint.

[domino harvey]

Isn't the shallowness of thought why you like Blow Out to begin with?

[AquaNarc]

Haven't seen it actually, but if I had, that would definitely be a sick burn.

[Mr Sausage]

Blow-Up, The Conversation, and Blow-Out all have the same basic premise (there may or may not have been a murder, of which the main character may or may not have evidence), but only Blow-Out is truly about its premise. The first two films are thrillers only tangentially and use their central mystery as a way to explore other things entirely (alienation, paranoia, anhedonia, insecurity, failures of meaning and interpretation). It's telling that neither film is really interested in solving the mystery. Blow-Out, however, works backwards from its predecessors towards the mystery itself: how a plot is composed, how it is hidden, and most importantly, how it is reconstructed. Basically, the first two aren't about what they're about, while the third is aggressively about what it's about. They're really at cross-purposes.

Blow-Out is rather a good movie. It does not have the same ambition as the other two (all of which are successful in their ambitions), but that's not the reason it's my least favourite of the three. My problem is Blow-Out is less resonant: something about de Palma's surface sheen gives the feeling that the emotional moments are beats in a well-coiled machine, that they, and my reactions to them, are the product of a persistent and calculated purpose, and this feeling begins to intrude on the experience. As a consequence, the movie acquires an impersonal tinge that works against it. Not a major criticism, but it must be said that the character moments are less successful than the purely visual/aural sequences.

But dey have similar subject matter!! Just liek hitckock.

Honestly the shallowness of thought at this place amazes me sometimes.

What exactly is your problem with my post?

[domino harvey]

If you want, I can hook you up with a killer play on his username and shallowness

[Mr Sausage]

By all means.

[AquaNarc]

I don't have a problem with it, I was complimenting it.

[Mr Sausage]

Now I'm confused. Because it really does come off like you're accusing me of shallow thinking.

[domino harvey]

It's like one of those pictures where you look at it one way and it's a lady and another it's an old man. I see it now, he's saying the other comments comparing them blindly are shallow, while yours is merely making their folly clear

[tavernier]

He confused everyone by quoting Sausage's post, then making comments about other posts.

[Mr Sausage]

Well, I guess this is a good lesson on why you should take care to make yourself absolutely clear in what you write.

[Napoleon]

I think his point is that your post is thoughtful and reasoned whereas as some are not.

Agree on both counts. I don't really need it pointing out that De Palma 'rips off Hitchcock'!!

[AisleSeat]

Pardon my e-abrasiveness: I haven't seen this film, but my understanding from people I trust is that it is complete shit and simply a Blow-Up/The Conversation derivative. I look forward to viewing it.

It's entertaining on a Friday night if you're drunk and have nothing much else to do...which isn't a terrible thing, mind you. But I'd hesitate to ever talk about it as being in the same league Blow-Up and The Conversation.

Indeed. Blow-Out may resonate with some viewers, but it didn't click with me whatsoever. Maybe it deserves another try, but nevertheless, if memory serves me, it doesn't even come close to the stylish Blow-Up or the quiet sinisterness of The Conversation. Meh. On another note, that De Palma botched The Bonfire of the Vanities, one of my favorite books, to the degree that he did, still rubs me the wrong way.

[jerome]

[agnamaracs]

Want shallowness of thought? How's this: the reason I really like this movie is because I'm a sound recorder, my father's a sound engineer, and I'm generally obsessed with sound.

[fasozupow]

I believe this is the first Collection entry from the incredible Vilmos Zsigmond. It won't be the last though...

Until you say otherwise, I'm going to assume this means that The Long Goodbye and/or Heaven's Gate are entering the Collection.

Please make it be Heaven's Gate. Please.

I'm definitely excited about a Blow Out Blu-ray. My old flipper disc is definitely due for retirement. Btw, I happened to watch Blow Out and Peeping Tom back to back the other day (says something about my tastes) and I couldn't help but notice a number of similarities:

Both open with walking, subjective camera shots from the P.O.V. of a murderer. Both follow Peeping Toms (the Travolta character is even referred to as a "Peeping Tom" in the dialog while he records from the bridge). And both have similar projects. Peeping Tom has its protagonist working to complete a movie by filming a perfectly terrified face to accompany a scream his father recorded. Blow Out has its protagonist working to complete a movie by recording a perfectly terrified scream to accompany a face of a girl about to be murdered in a B-horror movie.

[Cold Bishop]

Btw, I happened to watch Blow Out and Peeping Tom back to back the other day (says something about my tastes) and I couldn't help but notice a number of similarities...

Well, it shouldn't be surprising; De Palma is part of that late 60s group that helped coronate the film as a masterpiece, and he's always mentioned this and The Red Shoes as two favorites. And the subject matter is certainly right up his alley.

[fasozupow]

Btw, I happened to watch Blow Out and Peeping Tom back to back the other day (says something about my tastes) and I couldn't help but notice a number of similarities...

Well, it shouldn't be surprising; De Palma is part of that late 60s group that helped coronate the film as a masterpiece, and he's always mentioned this and The Red Shoes as two favorites. And the subject matter is certainly right up his alley.

I wasn't surprised. Just a little surprised that I've never seen/heard mention of it before. I didn't know about the Powell connection. Thanks for that tidbit.

[Tom Hagen]

Anyone have insights on the relationship between DePalma and Baumbach? The latter apparently gave the former a special thanks credit on Mr. Jealousy.

Which reminds me, Criterion please rescue Mr. Jealousy from its (apparently recently OOP) Fox Lorber DVD purgatory.

Also: I wonder if Armond White feels snubbed + angry that Criterion picked his mortal enemy Noah Baumbach to conduct an interview with one of his personal darlings. And +1 to Jeff for predicting the inclusion of the original Kael review for this one.

[colinr0380]

At an hour is this going to become one of the longest De Palma interviews available? And I'm particularly curious to find out whether it will be focused just on Blow Out or on his whole career.

The only other De Palma interview that I can recall at the moment is the BBC Scene By Scene programme that Mark Cousins did with the director in the late 90s, which he prefaced by saying the De Palma never liked to do interviews and was only talking with Cousins as part of the publicity surrounding the then new in cinemas Snake Eyes!