Yes, I know, I said I wouldn't watch this first installment of Antonioni's trilogy, but what the heck. If you've already seen two of the three, why not? I mean, this is his reputed masterpiece, right? The film that the audience at Cannes booed but that the judges at… More
Yes, I know, I said I wouldn't watch this first installment of Antonioni's trilogy, but what the heck. If you've already seen two of the three, why not? I mean, this is his reputed masterpiece, right? The film that the audience at Cannes booed but that the judges at Cannes awarded first prize. The film that changed the vocabulary, nay the very "grammar" of cinema for all future filmmakers. Ranked with the likes of <i>Citizen Kane</i> as one of the greatest of all time . . . <p>Well, it is good. I enjoyed it much more than <i>L'Eclisse</i>, though not quite as much as <i>La Notte</i>. The characters in <i>La Notte</i> are more engaging -- ironic in a trilogy about, among other things, alienation. The plot of <i>L'Avventura</i> is the most interesting piece of the puzzle for me. It is clever the way Antonioni draws the viewer into a mystery that falls by the wayside. The classic mystery disappears, like Massari, and the true mystery becomes not Masari's soon forgotten vanishing, but the troubling mystery of how far human beings have come from being human. The interconnectedness of people, that communal sharing and caring that allowed civilization to evolve and thrive, is fast slipping away under the pressures of modern life. Still, I think this idea was better rendered in <i>La Notte</i>. <p>I rarely listen to those Criterion Collection commentaries. They really can get in the way of enjoying a film. But for my third viewing, I played it. Brother. This is like the worst kind of literature teacher you could ever not want to have teach you. Instead of opening up the possibilities for interpretation, you get: <p>These images are not metaphors. They are not suggestive of the old vs. the new. They are concrete images of the old and the new. They are what we call metonymic, not metaphoric.<p> That's a rough quote. Mama mia, you would not want to spend a whole semester in a literature class where you are lectured in absolutes like that, believe me. Professor says this is this. You'd better agree. Do not argue. On exams and in papers, please parrot back what I say, if you know what's good for you. Sheesh. <p>If I were teaching the class, I might say something like: It has been argued that Antonioni plays with the ideas both of metaphor and of metonym in this film. I can see that the ancient cathedral and the modern condominium in this scene can represent the past and present -- metonyms for "the past" and "the present." But I could also argue that, in the context of this scene, ancient and modern architecture, side by side, are a metaphor for the clash between past history and present circumstance which Antonioni's characters constantly find themselves sandwiched between. <p> Begin digression . . . <p> "Excuse me, sir, can you please tell me who I can talk to?" <p> "Ahem, young man, you know you should never end a sentence with a preposition."<p>"Okay, can you please tell me who I can talk to, a--hole!" <p>. . . End digression<p> Here we see how the two characters, father and unmarried daughter, view her upcoming vacation with her boyfriend -- a clash between the moral codes of the older and the younger generation -- the two are framed by the cathedral and the condominium -- wedged between the old and the new. Much like a pretentious elder who lives by the rules of a grammar which is actually evolving.<p>After all, discussion of art should foster a multiplicity of expressed viewpoints. The possibilities should open up, if it's art worth talking about, not be shut down. But what do I know.