 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
There is bit of nudity and wrestling with skin showing. Did I detect a bit of crotch hair? Probably my imagination.Hemming's character certainly was a shit, but weren't they all in this one? Verushka, Sarah Miles? Maybe the girl pawnshop owner was ok. And maybe those naive teenage girls who tore the clothes off each other--with Hemming's help? Actually, Hemming was the one who began disrobing the one girl.
So what was the moral here? We can see a murder and not realize what happened unless we have a photographic record of it? We only see what we expect to see?
If we are told the head snaps forward by Dan Rather we remember that until we actually see a video of the head snapping back many years later, after everybody's been put to sleep? And then what do we do? Like Hemming, we say, nothing happened?
Follow Ups:
I've mentioned this before but I saw this in my hometown and when the tights started flying everyone in the audience stopped breathing! As soon as the scene was over the was a pregnant pause followed by a great shuffling around. Pretty heady stuff then.
In the sudience I originally saw it with the "stopped breathing" part was during the incredible suspenseful blow up sequence. I still find it riveting, particularly when the wind sounds are repeated as we and Hemmings are reliving the park scene through his phots.
...that it is wrong from the start, as it ignores the limits of the resolution both films and optics have, and it "blows it up" a bit too much...The same thing happens in "Blade Runner", when Ford blows up, and up, and beyond, that tiny reflection in that picture...
Both have taken it too far, thus marring so much, that the results are simply laughable.
Regards
BF
Black and White film in the 1960s still used a high grade and content of silver halide in the emulsion used in manufacture; B + W film from the 1930s/40's and 1950s had used even more silver; B + W film from around the mid 1970s on, used less and less silver and some brands effectively then, and now, use almost no silver at all, if any.
Because B + W film has long been marginalised in favor of Color film for volume and $$ sold, manufacturers have simply cheapened it out, such is the nature of progress
My point is this; while you will indeed not now get the degree of definition enlargement from 2004 Black and White 35mm film, in anything other than a medium format or larger camera,it is not at all inconceivable that an enlargement made with quality 35mm B + W film/camera/enlarger done in the late 60's (and Hemmings character is a professional photographer) could easilly have had both the definition, gradation of tone, opacity and depth to render the enlargement process as depicted in the film, 100% credibleMuch of the "grock and fetish" collectors have over 35mm cameras from this era is because the optics had been very finely developed by this stage and without the excessive color correction that later lenses had (to compensate for over saturated color films that came on the like Fuji film)
Alas, shortly after the "Blow Up" era decent B + W film became a can't be had...
I rest my case
Grins
The contents of your post makes not so much sense, as in it you are confusing some concepts, in a way not dissimilar to Antonioniīs:What you say about silver halide contents in a photographic emulsion is irrelevant: what matters is not the total quantity of silver, but how fine the particles are, how uniformly distributed in the emulsion, the thickness of emulsion itself, the cyanines used to obtain a uniform spectral sensitivity, and the latitude of the whole emulsion.
That picture was shot under poor lighting, and the body was in a dark zone, under a bush. The B&W film used by most professional photographers of those days was Kodakīs Tri-X, ASA 400, which had a pretty sharp grain, and good resolution for its speed..., but it was not a Panatomic-X, which was a high resolution film, albeit much lower in sensitivity, just ASA 50. And that picture, given the light available, had to be shot with the lens wide open, where it is not at its best (a very good lens, in ideal conditions, with its diaphragm closed at f/8, will give you 80 lines per mm, which will fall to 50 lines, or less, when wide open...), and at a low shutter speed, what is far from the ideal conditions for a high resolution shot.
And then, to crown the cake, when developing the film you must choose between high resolution, with good detail in the shadows (working at the foot of the Hurter& Driffield curve, at gamma 0.60, or so) and high speed, with increased contrast, but losing lots of detail. The standard film developer was Kodakīs D-76, which is good to increase both speed and apparent sharpness, but it is not a high definition developer.
At the time this film was done I was making my life as a scientific photographer, and I was always trying to squeeze the last drop from every emulsion in the market, both in B&W, infrared, UV, radiographic film, and colours slides and colour internegatives and, on that purpose, I was using a wide range of films, and many different developers, including some special, pyrocatechol based, formulae which allowed me to get rid of any grain in the emulsion, and to obtain high resolution images, with a very good range of shades..., but sacrificing some speed in the process: itīs always a tradeoff...
I have enlarged 35 mm negatives to more than 100 times their original size, so I know well what I am talking, at least on these matters. And what I said in my post is exactly what would happen: a high speed film, shot at f/2.8 or less, using a low shutter speed, with a hand held camera, will never allow you to get so much detail when enlarging. And much less if you are doing intershots, no matter how big the second camera you use to do that.
Sorry to contradict your beliefs, but thatīs how things work.
Regards
BF
film is a different medium from photography or theater, a distinction which many Russian and French arthouse directors (many of whom directly came from theater direction) never realized or adjusted to.
I think "Blow Up" is credited as having the first flash of pubic hair in a mainstream movie.I don't know if there are any morals or even any realities in this film, but one thing I do know: I LOVE its mid-Sixties view of "Swinging London" with its pot parties, miniskirts, and young men in posh cars (to this day, David Bailey says that is the detail that PROVES the Hemmings character is based on him).
Oh yeah...I especially like the nightclub sequence, when Hemmings goes into a club and sees a band of that era perform. The Yardbirds. With Jeff Beck AND Jimmy Page. Ahhhhhh!
Excatly. The feeling of this 60īs is in it.
As for " public hair " who cares, if not only the mentally disturbed...
n
and I am tempted to believe its Jack Nicholsons best role
I love Blow Up and Zabriskie Point, and his earlier film "The Eclipse"
Mark Frechette was reviewed as being "the next James Dean" after Zabriskie Point, tho' he didn't appear in much else before dying at age 27....Grins
aren't they?
Early Antonioni stuff is just as great, imo, as BU and The P (whatever happened to Maria after this role?).
Which Maria?
In my book she disappeared after the Professione: Reporter. I know she is still making movies, but I don't recall seeing her again.She was unforgettable in the last scenes.
of the past 30 years...and she starred in them both.
Greatness is not based on numbers, or where would Vermeer and Leonardo be ranked today?
That is what I thought too. She is the " un-official " daughter of the French actor Francois Perrier, and she still as you said make minor roles in minor films.
Would be really nice to see it on the DVD finally, restored, as the movie is simply gorgeous.
I would say that would rate as one of my longest searches ever for a piece of software, and yes, I could've sourced this on VHS more easilly but it was worth it, agreed, gorgeous is not too strong a word
Locations are well chosen and the colors are beautiful; its more accessible and has aged better than Zabriskie Point or Blow Up, in many ways its a more mature effort
I would like to know what happened to Jack Nicholson after this film; he is the complete antithesis of the Ugly American in Passenger; dry, urbane, low key, suave, and likeable...
None of the over-the-top characterisations or snarling cynicism thats become his "style" and all the better for itGrins
I think the problem with Jack's lovable but over-the-top acting is the directors who wanted just that, so he delivered. He is capable of much more, and for instance, as we discussed recently, in Hoffa he does none of that and simply acts like a great actor should.A good actor in the hands of a good director... what more could we ask for?
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]