David Hemmings Dies - On topic, actually

Discussion in 'Darkroom Developing and Printing' started by James Robinson, Dec 4, 2003.

  1. In reading the news that actor David Hemmings had died,

    http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Entertainment/ap20031204_1127.html

    it reminded me of the story line of the movie "Blow Up", in which he
    starred. I was just starting darkroom photography when I first saw the
    movie, and recall wanting to scream out loud in the theater as the
    character repetitively enlarged a scene until you could figuratively
    read the date on a newspaper from the image on a negative exposed 1/4
    mile away. I was torn between being absorbed in the story, and being
    frustrated by the artistic license taken with the technical limitations
    of film.

    That theme has been recently played to the hilt, except with people
    enhancing video images, and getting the same result. I guess you just
    have to let your imagination loose on occasion.
     
    James Robinson, Dec 4, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. James Robinson

    jjs Guest

    I saw the premier of Blow Up in London. As I was standing in line, a pigeon
    dropped on my head. I should have taken it as an omen.

    FWIW, the 'blow up' was a philosophical analogy.
     
    jjs, Dec 4, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. I wonder if my seeing that film at an impressionistic age has been responsible
    for my continuing penury at the hands of the equipment suppliers! Still
    striving after his fantastic results so that I too can get the girls. At 65
    now, I think I've left it a bit late. (My swinging 60s wasn't a bit like it's
    shown on film.)
     
    Malcolm Stewart, Dec 4, 2003
    #3
  4. it reminded me of the story line of the movie "Blow Up", in which he
    Time for a thread of weird things people have asked a minilab to do. "Take
    out Uncle Wilbur so we can see the boat behind him..."
     
    Michael A. Covington, Dec 5, 2003
    #4
  5. Movies of that era liked to have deep meaning, didn't they?
     
    James Robinson, Dec 5, 2003
    #5
  6. I saw the movie when it came out, and I remember being totally absorbed by it
    and not bothered at all by this stretching of reality. I guess it helped that
    I was not into photography in any serious way at the time.

    The thing about the film that really sticks in my mind to this day is that
    nervous habit Hemmings' character is shown doing repeatedly: flipping a coin
    across the knuckles of one hand. I thought that was the coolest thing at the
    time, and even tried to learn how to do it. Funny how little details like that
    persist in memory.

    By the way, if that bothers you, I don't see how you can watch much TV at all.
    It's all over the place today, of course, but I remember how in many episodes
    of _Columbo_, the evidence that clinched the case came from some videotaped
    scene that was "zoomed into" repeatedly, until you could clearly read the
    brand name of a package of cigarettes lying on a hall table. Totally
    impossible, of course.
     
    David Nebenzahl, Dec 5, 2003
    #6
  7. Yeah, but I really liked the tennis game at the end... . (I hope I am
    remembering the right movie.)
     
    Jean-David Beyer, Dec 5, 2003
    #7
  8. James Robinson

    jjs Guest

    Yeah, it was the punchline for those who really didn't get the movie. A
    real Italian authro's way of telling a joke. Just thank God that Umberto
    Eco doesn't write a movie... wait! He did! We are doomed!
     
    jjs, Dec 5, 2003
    #8
  9. James Robinson

    Sherman Guest

    I actually enjoyed "Blow Up". I had to watch it as part of a film class
    back in my college days. Though I have to admit I wish I could get that
    kind of detail from my 4x5 let alone 35mm!

    An interesting trio of movies to view in succession (though probably not all
    at once!) is "Blow Up", "The Conversation" and "Blow Out". One uses film,
    the other two audio recordings but with similar ideas, something more was
    captured on the medium used than was apparent at first but is uncovered by
    continued refinement of the output.

    Of course, "The Conversation" is the best of the three!

    Sherman
    http://www.dunnamphoto.com
     
    Sherman, Dec 5, 2003
    #9
  10. James Robinson

    Tom Phillips Guest

    Depending on the film and format used (8x10 & Tech Pan, perhaps) such
    high resolution may be possible, but not at that distance :)
    People used to hate sitting next to me in theaters, since I couldn't
    help but either predict the anticipated climax of a typically shallow
    plot (not above "Conversation...") or point out the insulting technical
    leaps film makers imagine in order to dramatize a plot. Such as movie
    audiences listening to Superman "speak" on the moon, when there's no
    atmosphere to carry sound waves.
     
    Tom Phillips, Dec 5, 2003
    #10
  11. If that's what you do, then I would be one of those people who hate sitting
    next to you. Movies aren't a technical exercise, you know.

    Can you say "suspension of disbelief"?
     
    David Nebenzahl, Dec 6, 2003
    #11
  12. James Robinson

    Tom Phillips Guest


    Not when it's so completely stupid it violates every law of physics (not
    to mention common sense) that exists. People can't talk in the vacuum of
    space. Not even aliens or supermen :)

    Never saw "Blow Up," but image enhancement as portrayed in movies and TV
    is generally good for a light hearted chuckle. Course everything out of
    hollywood is pretty much fiction. It's the quality of fiction that
    matters, I suppose. Screenwriters need to show a little intelligence
    before they engage my imagination, so you'll notice I did not not diss
    "The Conversation"...
     
    Tom Phillips, Dec 6, 2003
    #12
  13. James Robinson

    Mark A Guest

    People used to hate sitting next to me in theaters, since I couldn't
    The blown-up photos in "Blow Up" were not quite as clear as some would
    suggest. In fact they were quite grainy, blurry, and very ambiguous and
    proved nothing (unlike the Colombo TV show episode). Maybe there was some
    exaggeration, I don't exactly recall.

    The movie had many visual aspects that enhanced the thematic presentation.
    As an example (just one example of many), is the constant use of the images
    of flight (the propeller, numerous images of birds flying away, The
    Yardbirds, etc) and the idea of escape from the "objective" world.

    The irony that photography (the most "realistic" of the representational
    forms) was used in the film as an escape from reality, was not lost on the
    director.
     
    Mark A, Dec 6, 2003
    #13

  14. Hi


    You should have write "not even aliens _like_ Superman"


    Superman IS a fuxxxxx alien


    jaime
     
    Jaime Fischer, Dec 6, 2003
    #14
  15. James Robinson

    jjs Guest

    Tom Phillips spake thus:
    I believe you, Tom. You detest anything you can't quantify with easy
    metrics. It must really suck to be you.
     
    jjs, Dec 6, 2003
    #15
  16. By 'supermen' I don't think he meant the DC Comics character. He meant
    superhumans. The word 'superman' (plural 'supermen') has been around for a
    long time; DC Comics didn't invent it.
     
    Michael A. Covington, Dec 6, 2003
    #16
  17. That line's getting old and has lost all of its oomph, John. It must suck to
    have to use the same insult over and over again.
     
    David Nebenzahl, Dec 6, 2003
    #17
  18. James Robinson

    jjs Guest

    I use a 'bot, which seems the most appropriate way to respond to Tom.
     
    jjs, Dec 6, 2003
    #18
  19. OK, I'll give you points for that one. Zing!
     
    David Nebenzahl, Dec 7, 2003
    #19
  20. James Robinson

    Tom Phillips Guest

    Probaly all he has to amuse himself with. He craves my attention. If I
    snipped the context out of all his posts I also could offer the same
    boring insult based on the same intentional mischaracterizations.
    Naturally regardless of how one edits jj's posts they're still only
    puerile misanthropic sputterings and, like many screenplays, also lacks intelligence.

    There's some really good, creative trolling on USENET. Unfortunately
    johnny ain't up to the task ;-)
     
    Tom Phillips, Dec 7, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.