Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bob Turnbull
But if the assumption is that Antonioni was going for "there is no concrete reality - perception defines it", why would we assume that he ever cared about the murder as a plot point? Given his theme, how do we know a murder even took place? The photographer is the only one who thinks he saw something. When he blows up the images, the fuzzy picture suddenly becomes very clear that there was a gun (even though everything else looks quite pixalated), so could that just be what he chooses to see? This fits with the concept of the movie like some other scenes:
- inside the club, it was worth fighting off the crowd to hold on to that broken guitar neck. Outside, it was useless to him and got tossed away.
- while the photographer was rolling around with the two young naked women, their faces seemed to alternate between happy and frightened.
- the perception by the stoned model at the party that she was somewhere else.
I fully understand the disappointment in not seeing that storyline resolved. The first time I saw the film I thought "Wha?" at the end. But given that, it made me reconsider what I saw and think about the film over the next few days. I ended up buying it. That's not to say these kind of art films are better than something a bit more straightforwardly narrative - just different and enjoyable in a wholly different way.
I think Antonioni always meant to include an unresolved "murder", so there was no intention of bringing that story to a close (and therefore no need to try to think up an ending to it).
|
See, Bob "gets" it.
I think the problem might be that some of you watch Anotonioni's films as literary films, when in fact you should be watching them as cinematic architecture, in a sense. That might be why you are analyzing plot when your attention should be elsewhere. Antonioni doesn't use plot to convey his messages, and he certainly has meanings in mind while shooting.
Now, you can say you don't like his films, because they don't follow classical Hollywood cinematic devices. Ok, that's why I respect your opinion. But you can't say you "get" Antonioni's cinema and then complain about the lack of wrapped-up resolutions. If you truly "got" it, you wouldn't ask "why doesn't Antonioni tell me who the murderer is or what happened to Anna?" That question is beside the point.
To complain that Anotonioni's films are piles of dog crap because they don't follow such classical Hollywood cinema narrative devices as setting up a murder in act one and then paying that off in act 3, and then to attest, after making that complaint, that you "got" what Antonioni was trying to say, is ridiculous.
Just admit that his cinema goes over your head and move on. I'll admit that Apocalypse Now goes completely over my head. I think it's pure camp. I'll also admit that, since a lot of praise is heaped on that film, evidently I just don't "get" it.
On a related note:
Do you complain that "The Catcher in the Rye" is a terrible book, because it has a lousy plot? "Oh, it's just a event-less week in the life of an angst-ridden youth with nothing to do. I hated that book! Nothing happens." Of course not. The book is a classic in spite of its lack of plot, and there is a reason for that. If you understand why that is a classic piece of literature, you wouldn't complain that the lack of plot takes away from the novel's overall virtues.
(I admit comparing J.D. Salinger and Antonioni is mixing metaphores, so to speak, but I think you get my point, regardless).