People are always accustomed to assigning some continuous meaning to incomplete images, "it looks like Bill's painting", the meaning of the image is given by the person who sees it after the image appears, and the movie is also in a certain level. With such an existence, the film is also composed of a series of image splicing.
However, in order to prove this subjective meaning, only one person's opinion or the so-called objective but one-sided recording of the image is not enough. It needs the approval of the group to construct the existence of this fact.
In the end, the meaning of objective images is still given by people. A single image loses its meaning when it is separated from the connection between the front and the back. Like the remaining photo, it can no longer explain the existence of the conceived murder case, like a concert. The broken guitar at the scene has no meaning to loot.
The identity of the group is fundamental to the construction of meaning. Everyone believes that it exists, and conversely, one-sided words that no one proves cannot construct meaning. A person saw the body with his own eyes and no one saw it. Did this really happen? There is no answer. A group of people playing a tennis game that didn't exist, but because everyone believed it, the game existed. The male protagonist finally chose to believe and join the game, which was the final compromise.
The male protagonist is really an interesting character. After reading it, I realized that apart from his occupation, he knew nothing about his background, not even his name, whether he had a wife, or whether he had children. He is not a positive character, he is hypocritical and arrogant. On the one hand, the director is criticizing him for his machismo and power dominance. A little bit of humanity. He may just be a concrete manifestation of some kind of thought.
View more about Blow-Up reviews
