Author Topic: Michelangelo Antonioni  (Read 16217 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

classical gas

  • The Ultimate Boon
  • ***
  • Posts: 586
  • Respect: +31
Michelangelo Antonioni
« Reply #30 on: March 03, 2004, 03:55:48 AM »
0
Okay, so I just saw 'Blow Up' for the first time tonight.  I don't know how others have interpreted this film, but I'd like to add my comments and see what others have to say about it, because I'm not too sure that I've gotten all I can get from this film or maybe I'm looking too much into it.

-don't read any further if you haven't seen the film-

Okay, so it starts out with the photographer and he's on top of his field and everyone wants to work with him and he seems to think that he sees what others don't see; he's a typical artist who thinks that he is more perceptive and intuitive than others.

I have to say quickly, that I found significance in his artist friend saying something about his paintings, about them meaning nothing until he's had time to ananlyze them; I may be way off in that quote, but it was something of that sort.  i can't quite connect this to the whole of the film though.

Then, he develops the pictures of the woman (Redgraves) with the man in the park and he notices (or thinks he does) the gun in the bushes.  He then blows the pictures up in order to get closer to the truth.  Like the further he pursues each aspect of the scene, the closer he'll come to the reality of what happened, however, the more he looks into it (the more he zooms in on the photos) the more blurred everything becomes.

And then the fling with the two girls; here he resumes his role as the dominate artist; but then when he awakes the murder, or his idea that a murder has happened pulls him away from these girls and he's back to where he started.  It is taking his whole attention now, because now his photos are questioning his reality, maybe?

So the movie goes to the park and he sees the body and returns to his apartment and the pictures are gone.  The only one left is the blurry picture that could be a body.  The woman that comes over comments that it looks like one of the painter's abstract paintings, or his blurred reality of what he thinks has happened; now he's not quite sure if he knows what he saw is real.  Could what he saw just be a lie to himself; is he deceiving himself?

So he has to find his friend to go with him to the body, for further proof that his subjective reality is the true reality; that what he saw is what is real; but his friend is too stoned to leave the party or just doesn't want to leave.

Also, the thing about the guitar neck that he discards, any significance in that?  Did he just find that he went through all that trouble to get it from the crowd just for a worthless object (like the propellar?).

And he goes back to the body, which isn't there anymore and he wanders away, and watches the mimes playing tennis.  He goes to pick up their imaginary tennis ball.  Is he accepting their reality, whatever it may be?  Or does he realize that reality is up to interpretation and that these mimes are having fun with the whole idea, as should he.  And then, he dissapears.  hmm....

One final note, I know this has been a long post, but; some of the editing in this film was odd.  Such as the part when he goes back for the body the second time (I think....) and he looks up at the leaves blowing in the wind and then it cuts to the leaves, but when the camera goes down, it's on the photographer; like we weren't looking at his perspective at all, which would be assumed.  Plus, some of the shots at the beginning where he's photographing the couple in the park; some of the shots don't add up, did anyone else notice this?

Please, give me a pity reply, as it's getting lonely in this thread after posting three times in a row...

SoNowThen

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 4536
  • Respect: +9
    • 24/30 Cinema
Michelangelo Antonioni
« Reply #31 on: March 03, 2004, 09:04:00 AM »
0
It's a top film, and I think you nailed most of the important stuff. I didn't notice anything "wrong" really with the shots you mentioned, just accepted it as Antonioni's style. Still, the only part of the film that doesn't work for me if the Yardbirds scene -- maybe because it's so out of sync. But if someone could make that scene gel for me, I'd be hella happy.


On another note, I started watching Zabriskie Point last night. Ah, silly revolutionary hippies... movie started out fairly well, but when it got to the desert and the two leads alone, it just became cheesy and boring and all I could think of is that I'd rather watch Gerry. So I shut it off. First Antonioni movie I've seen that was pretty bad. It feels not so nice...
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

(kelvin)

  • The Vision Quest
  • **
  • Posts: 280
  • Respect: +1
Michelangelo Antonioni
« Reply #32 on: March 03, 2004, 04:11:08 PM »
0
Quote from: SoNowThen
It's a top film, and I think you nailed most of the important stuff. I didn't notice anything "wrong" really with the shots you mentioned, just accepted it as Antonioni's style. Still, the only part of the film that doesn't work for me if the Yardbirds scene -- maybe because it's so out of sync. But if someone could make that scene gel for me, I'd be hella happy.


On another note, I started watching Zabriskie Point last night. Ah, silly revolutionary hippies... movie started out fairly well, but when it got to the desert and the two leads alone, it just became cheesy and boring and all I could think of is that I'd rather watch Gerry. So I shut it off. First Antonioni movie I've seen that was pretty bad. It feels not so nice...


 :shock:

Have you seen the END of the film???
That is sheer brillance.

SoNowThen

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 4536
  • Respect: +9
    • 24/30 Cinema
Michelangelo Antonioni
« Reply #33 on: March 03, 2004, 04:14:50 PM »
0
I've read about it.

I may fast forward there tonight, based soley on Careful With That Axe, Eugene...

(it's a crappy library vhs copy that is pan and scan)
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

(kelvin)

  • The Vision Quest
  • **
  • Posts: 280
  • Respect: +1
Michelangelo Antonioni
« Reply #34 on: March 03, 2004, 04:32:35 PM »
0
Quote from: SoNowThen


I may fast forward there
*ugh*

 
Quote from: SoNowThen
 pan and scan
*ugh*

A Matter Of Chance

  • The Ultimate Boon
  • ***
  • Posts: 568
  • RIP Antonioni, Bergman
  • Respect: 0
Michelangelo Antonioni
« Reply #35 on: March 03, 2004, 06:17:10 PM »
0
I like Antonioti, L'Avventura is a great one of his.


Ghostboy

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 4892
  • Respect: +377
    • http://www.road-dog-productions.com/
Michelangelo Antonioni
« Reply #36 on: August 09, 2004, 01:05:47 AM »
0
I just watched L'aventura this evening; and was impressed in a cold and distant way that, after reading this thread and Ebert's great movie review, seems to be an acceptable reaction after a first viewing. I wholly embraced the first half of the movie; it must have been a big inspiration to Peter Weir on Picnic At Hanging Rock. Then, throughout the second half, I found myself resisting the story more and more; I was getting detatched from it, and was struggling to stay involved.

It struck me while watching it as a story not unlike Last Tango In Paris, which I just watched last night -- basically, an examination of emptiness, except in this case that examination was transposed on a certain context (as SoNowThen put it on the last page, a fake story) which purposely put audiences in a certain mood and cast the development of the characters in a certain light that otherwise wouldn't have been attained.

Ghostboy

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 4892
  • Respect: +377
    • http://www.road-dog-productions.com/
Michelangelo Antonioni
« Reply #37 on: August 11, 2004, 12:51:54 AM »
0
I just saw Blowup tonight and completely flipped for it. In fact, I'm watching it again as I write this (glancing back and forth between screens). I feel like I completely got it -- like Antonioni was completely operating on my wavelength. I love that feeling.

03

  • SBD
  • ***
  • Posts: 1701
  • positive energy;
  • Respect: +455
Michelangelo Antonioni
« Reply #38 on: August 11, 2004, 01:41:50 AM »
0
i know this feeling you speak of.
i recently read the story by cortazar, and i enjoyed it very much.

cron

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 3292
  • deeply superficial
  • Respect: +9
Michelangelo Antonioni
« Reply #39 on: August 11, 2004, 07:58:12 PM »
0
I didn't know Julio Cortazar had written that story until a month ago or such.
Julio Cortazar is one of my favorite writers, so I seriously want to see this film now.
context, context, context.

El Duderino

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1554
  • Respect: +2
Michelangelo Antonioni
« Reply #40 on: September 11, 2004, 08:37:29 PM »
0
Erotic Homage to Antonioni Unveiled at Venice

VENICE, Italy (Reuters) - Filmmaking greats Michelangelo Antonioni, Steven Soderbergh and Wong Kar Wai unveiled at the Venice Film Festival on Friday their seductive trilogy "Eros," devoted to eroticism and desire.

   

In the film, which is also a homage to the ailing 91-year-old Antonioni by the two internationally acclaimed young directors, each takes a unique approach to the theme in separate vignettes.

"What motivated me to do this film was Michelangelo Antonioni, who had been the guiding light for me and filmmakers of my generation," said Kar Wai, creator of the sci-fi romance "2046" and arthouse favorite "In the Mood for Love."

In the first vignette, "The Hand," Hong Kong's Kar Wai weaves an erotic story about a tailor and a courtesan played by Gong Li with sumptuous images and rainy, dark sets.

Soderbergh's "Equilibrium," on the other hand, is a perverse comedy starring Robert Downey Jr. (news - web sites) as a 1950s New York ad agent who visits a psychiatrist to unravel his mysterious erotic dreams and unblock his creativity.

Initially, Spain's Pedro Almodovar had been lined up to take part in the project, but in the end, the award-winning U.S. director of "Traffic" and "Sex, Lies and Videotape" stepped in.

"I wanted my name on a poster with Michelangelo Antonioni," an irreverent Soderbergh said in the production notes.

Finally, Antonioni, one of Italy's most influential film directors and the cinematic father of modern angst and alienation, offers a meditation on the gap between men and women in "The Dangerous Thread of Things."

The story is set in the beautiful Tuscan countryside and is the most sexually explicit of the three stories.

Antonioni's 60-year career includes Oscar-nominated "Blowup" and the internationally acclaimed "L'Avventura" (The Adventure).

Despite a crippling stroke in 1983 which robbed him of his speech, the Italian director is still working.

"It was very exciting to work with all those people who made this film. Thanks for having given Michelangelo many days of life," said his wife Enrica.

Antonioni's deliberately slow-moving and oblique movies are not always crowd pleasers, but films such as "L'Avventura" turned him into an icon for directors like Kar Wai and Martin Scorsese, who has described him as a poet with a camera.
Did I just get cock-blocked by Bob Saget?

meatwad

  • The Magic Flight
  • ****
  • Posts: 645
  • Respect: +1
Michelangelo Antonioni
« Reply #41 on: September 11, 2004, 09:50:19 PM »
0
already posted in the Soderbergh thread

Bethie

  • the golden goddess
  • The Return Threshold
  • ****
  • Posts: 939
  • you ever hear the story of mr. faded glory?
  • Respect: +10
Michelangelo Antonioni
« Reply #42 on: September 13, 2004, 03:39:25 AM »
0
Quote from: classical gas
Okay, so I just saw 'Blow Up' for the first time tonight.

-don't read any further if you haven't seen the film-

Okay, so it starts out with the photographer and he's on top of his field and everyone wants to work with him and he seems to think that he sees what others don't see; he's a typical artist who thinks that he is more perceptive and intuitive than others.

I have to say quickly, that I found significance in his artist friend saying something about his paintings, about them meaning nothing until he's had time to ananlyze them; I may be way off in that quote, but it was something of that sort.  i can't quite connect this to the whole of the film though.

Then, he develops the pictures of the woman (Redgraves) with the man in the park and he notices (or thinks he does) the gun in the bushes.  He then blows the pictures up in order to get closer to the truth.  Like the further he pursues each aspect of the scene, the closer he'll come to the reality of what happened, however, the more he looks into it (the more he zooms in on the photos) the more blurred everything becomes.

And then the fling with the two girls; here he resumes his role as the dominate artist; but then when he awakes the murder, or his idea that a murder has happened pulls him away from these girls and he's back to where he started.  It is taking his whole attention now, because now his photos are questioning his reality, maybe?

So the movie goes to the park and he sees the body and returns to his apartment and the pictures are gone.  The only one left is the blurry picture that could be a body.  The woman that comes over comments that it looks like one of the painter's abstract paintings, or his blurred reality of what he thinks has happened; now he's not quite sure if he knows what he saw is real.  Could what he saw just be a lie to himself; is he deceiving himself?

So he has to find his friend to go with him to the body, for further proof that his subjective reality is the true reality; that what he saw is what is real; but his friend is too stoned to leave the party or just doesn't want to leave.

Also, the thing about the guitar neck that he discards, any significance in that?  Did he just find that he went through all that trouble to get it from the crowd just for a worthless object (like the propellar?).

And he goes back to the body, which isn't there anymore and he wanders away, and watches the mimes playing tennis.  He goes to pick up their imaginary tennis ball.  Is he accepting their reality, whatever it may be?  Or does he realize that reality is up to interpretation and that these mimes are having fun with the whole idea, as should he.  And then, he dissapears.  hmm....

One final note, I know this has been a long post, but; some of the editing in this film was odd.  Such as the part when he goes back for the body the second time (I think....) and he looks up at the leaves blowing in the wind and then it cuts to the leaves, but when the camera goes down, it's on the photographer; like we weren't looking at his perspective at all, which would be assumed.  Plus, some of the shots at the beginning where he's photographing the couple in the park; some of the shots don't add up, did anyone else notice this?

Please, give me a pity reply, as it's getting lonely in this thread after posting three times in a row...


In the trailer, the voice over says, "Sometimes reality is the strangest fantasy of all."


I saw Blow-Up a month ago.
who likes movies anyway

SiliasRuby

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 3071
  • Spits Hyperbole Like Nobody's Business
  • Respect: +2
Michelangelo Antonioni
« Reply #43 on: April 16, 2005, 12:04:12 PM »
0
I saw L'Avventura last week and I loved it, but I don't think for me, it can be the kind of film I can watch over and over again...but unusually I'd like to see it a second time. I have Blow-up on DVD and have watched it many times.
The Beatles know Jesus Christ has returned to Earth and is in Los Angeles.

When you are getting fucked by the big corporations remember to use a condom.

There was a FISH in the perkalater!!!

My Collection

samsong

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1199
  • Respect: +210
    • http://www.dvdaficionado.com/dvds.html?cat=1&sub=All&id=samsong
Michelangelo Antonioni
« Reply #44 on: April 16, 2005, 12:54:25 PM »
0
:yabbse-thumbup: L'Eclisse :yabbse-thumbup:

 

DMCA & Copyright | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy