Somebody reassure me that this makes total sense, even for an old fart. Let's say that you watched a world-renowned classic film. Let's say it's a foreign film from the era where most such foreign films were considered the Second Coming. (For all I care, "foreign" means "American" or "English-language" right now.) Let's say that you watched it and you just didn't "get it". It made you feel something along the lines of the
Emperor's New Clothes. You tell people you didn't get it and you don't actually like it. What do you do? Do you move on to other films from a similar era and even by the same director, or do you just watch films you "
believe" you have a stronger afinity for? For me, I try to watch as many films ASAP, but I agree that if I have a negative memory about a film, I tend to need a reason to rewatch it. Well today, I had Sarah as a reason to rewatch Antonioni's
L'Avventura for the third time.
L'Avventura (Michelangelo Antonioni, 1960)
Rewatching
L'Avventura takes me back in many ways. When I first watched this film, I loathed it. Maybe I was under the influence of a plot-driven Devil, but nevertheless, I had a difficult time even enjoying the photography and sound effects, one of my fave actresses (Monica Vitti), the maturity of the mystery, or the way the film actually fit into Italian cinema in 1960 (the year which also produced
La Dolce Vita, Rocco and His Brothers, Two Women, etc.) Nowadays, I can see that the film isn't really experimental, and even though many still find it boring, it's certainly not that either. However, I still find it unsatisfactory. So, although 30 years ago I would have advised you to stay away from this film, now I recommend it as part of a well-rounded film education, especially one involving B&W photography and unique sound effects.
Something else which I've noticed recently concerning Antonioni is that he is David Lynch long before there was a film personality identified as David Lynch. All of Antonioni's films are mysteries open to interpretation. None of them are easy to understand, even with multiple viewings. They all contain visual, aural and acting motifs which enable some people to believe that they actually do make more sense to them than mere mortals, especially when put into a thematic context amongst ALL of Antonioni's films. To give you an example, in
L'Avventura, one of the lead characters disappears at exactly the same time that the characters and the audience hear an outboard motorboat go by the island all the characters are vacationing at. However, after one or two characters mention the sound of the engine, everybody goes off looking for the missing woman and no one ever again mentions the "boat" motor again. Later on, what sounds like a helicopter to me, but sounds like another boat to a character, is heard, but once again no craft is ever seen and the comment about an engine never makes another appearance. However, the woman's lover and best friend become lovers, and it becomes clear immediately that it's a major mistake and maybe somebody is being possessed by a missing somebody. Then again, maybe a horned-dog man is just trying to score at every opportunity possible.
Ultimately, I find this film better than the third part of the "Loneliness" Trilogy. I have
La Notte in my queue, but it's supposed to be a "Very Long Wait". I earlier wrote a review of
L'Eclisse which I gave
, and that was also an improvement over the first time I saw that film. Antonioni is definitely a filmmaker who doesn't make simple films and most of his films improve (if only slightly) with repeated viewings. However, I won't swear that that's the case with
Zabriskie Point!!
Reply to Topic
