In the short story "Las babas del diablo" that Julio Cortázar wrote in 1959, we are able to experience a plot that doesn't want to develop. But as every paragraph passes it starts to gain momentum until we are submerged in Michel's visions. There is a relationship between the writer and the character, one of repressive fear, that more often than not triggers intrusion. In Michelangelo Antonioni's Blow-up, the 1966 film version of this story, there is also a relationship between the main character and the director, but I would say that it is more of a joint venture. This movie is no mere adaptation; maybe that would have been impossible. Instead it works with the core of the story, it's way of cutting the fluidity of narrative language, and Michel's story, not to mention the question of what is real and what isn't. All this finds its way to the screen in a new form.

It could be said that the big preamble to Michel's experience in the story, and the interruptions, are present out of fear of reliving a traumatic situation. But is it a story of Cortázar or something that happened to Michel ? The author stops the flow of words and directs the reader's attention to other areas. In doing so, he manages clearly to show how the skeleton of a story is pre-agreed to have a certain form. When we stumble into this game with words we are lost. The so-familiar-sounding structure is not there.

The director is faced then with the challenge to re-create this situation and game in a completely different format. The technique he uses is to show things that seem to be something they are not (i.e. the windows in the first scene). He manages to cut the flow of language when he shows a character watching something behind the camera, but he never lets you know what it was, he jumps to another scene. He constantly plays with reflections of mirrors. He reinforces the idea of the photographer's point of view when he manipulates sounds according to his hearing (i.e. near the antique shop, and when he is talking in the telephone booth). He also manages to mimic the distractions in Michel's story when the photographer is driving his way to the park. The camera "wanders" to the sides and gets lost in the buildings. It also watches the tennis court and follows a pigeon in the park, almost as if it knew what was going to happen. This could be taken as fear, or at least uneasiness to follow the photographer through what's going to happen next. These are some of the tools he uses for recreating in a different medium the same feeling.

The story gives Michel, from a certain point, the possibility of being the teller of what goes on. If it all lies in his interpretation of what's happening with the photo, it's a passage from a "good" and "simple" explanation to a an "evil" and "complicated" one. Thus he is not only able to defeat evil unconsciously and concretely in the park, but he's also able to do it consciously (through great emotional strain) and abstractly in his house. He saves the boy twice. Physically and spiritually.

The photographer in the movie is different in many ways. He doesn't spend his time chasing an initiation ritual. He follows a death ritual. He hides behind a bench, in the same body posture that the killer would assume not so far in his future. He then tries to capture the whole scene. Once he has developed and blows up the pictures, he feels attracted to them (not to mention the interest he is getting from the woman). His complete process lies only in seeing something a little weird and following the sequence. He doesn't even succeed there, because he believes he has prevented a murder. Afterwards when he resumes his examination, he discovers the body.

During the blow-up scene we can hear as we see the pictures, the wind and the trees. The suggestion is that that is the level of awareness that the photographer is capable of, contrasting with the suffering and inner struggle Michel faces. Michel is capable of affecting his environment. The photographer is able to photograph it and give it a linear interpretation at best. What could be said in favor of the photographer is that he somehow perceives that he is not alone, that some presence (the director) is hovering around. In the scene where he is taking pictures of the famous model, he is walking towards her and his camera goes down. After a couple of seconds he turns around looking for something. Maybe he knows.

I'm sure he knows. At the end of the movie, he's sent by the clowns to look for a ball that's not there. When he returns it, he can listen to the game. I think that what's going through his mind is the recollection (earlier that morning) of looking for a body that was no longer there. And yet he can hear the sound of the ball. What's going on with reality ? Opposed to Michel, he knows that someone's out there, if he wants to call it God it's OK, but we know that that presence is no other than the director. He doesn't seem to be very worried when he disappears. He must have figured out that he wasn't playing a substantial role in reality.

Apart from the obvious, the crime scene suffers a "blow-up" in the passage from the story to the film. The boy who was the victim in the story is now a middle-aged man. The old man who was supposed to be the corruptor, is now a young and apt killer who's stalking the prey. The crime also suffers a transformation, it goes from a morally condemnable one to the ultimate one: murder. The photographer as stated is different too. Surprisingly there's a character that hasn't changed at all: the woman. In the story she is asserting her power over the boy through seduction. In the movie she retains that power, and she literally "pushes" the man to his death. The question of why this character doesn't suffer the blow-up as everyone else does is very interesting. Is it because she is not part of that reality ? Or because she is the only real character ? It would seem that the later is the correct explanation. She doesn't look as perfect as the photographer, she is more fallible. She doesn't move as unreally as he does (when he barely passes under a beam without touching it), she doesn't know how to move in time to the music. She is not even able to fool him and escape with the film. She works as the link between the photographer and the situation. Her role in both stories is the role of evil, of deception. Maybe that is why she is the only real one.

All in all what we can see in the movie is much more than an adaptation would mean. Antonioni takes the language and the form, converts them to image and sound, and feels comfortable enough to redefine the relationship between character and creator. Michel and the photographer as stated are not equal. There's also change in the crime: a more obvious and concrete one, but that doesn't help the photographer either. And overall what prevails is the question of what is reality and what form do we want to give it today ? As Julio Cortázar's story is unique, so is Michelangelo Antonioni's film.