Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club - Page 104

george kaplan · 01-03-2007, 09:20 PM

The discussion of Blow-Up reminds me of the alternate ending of Dodgeball. I realize it was meant as a joke, but he could have indeed ended it that way and claimed all kinds of bullshit reasons for doing so, but it would still be wrong and not fit the rest of the film. I will simply never buy that such a great Hitchcockian mystery unresolved in the worst possible way is somehow more meaningful than a great Hitchcockian mystery resolved such as Vertigo, which again says more in 5 minutes than Antonioni could say in 5 years.

Moving on...

Bob le Flambeur

Not horrible, but horribly overrated. Made the same time as Rififi a great heist film that kicked that genre into high gear. Bob is a not very good heist film that kicked the New Wave into high gear. Considering I love great heist films, and don't think much of the French new wave, it's no surprise that Rififi sits proudly on my shelf, and Bob never will.

**HTF Ads**

rich_d · 01-03-2007, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by george kaplan

The discussion of Blow-Up reminds me of the alternate ending of Dodgeball. I realize it was meant as a joke, but he could have indeed ended it that way and claimed all kinds of bullshit reasons for doing so, but it would still be wrong and not fit the rest of the film. I will simply never buy that such a great Hitchcockian mystery unresolved in the worst possible way is somehow more meaningful than a great Hitchcockian mystery resolved such as Vertigo, which again says more in 5 minutes than Antonioni could say in 5 years.

Moving on...

Bob le Flambeur

Not horrible, but horribly overrated. Made the same time as Rififi a great heist film that kicked that genre into high gear. Bob is a not very good heist film that kicked the New Wave into high gear. Considering I love great heist films, and don't think much of the French new wave, it's no surprise that Rififi sits proudly on my shelf, and Bob never will.

I think Vertigo is a great ending but I question whether anything is resolved.

Does Madeleine fall to her death or does she trick Scottie yet again and in virtually the same spot as before? Do we see a dead body or just Scottie staring down in the dark looking for one while Madeleine makes her way around the ledge to the other side?

Is there even a reality or is this merely a dream that continues? Perhaps the dream of the mad woman we see in the opening credits.

Point is that the richness that is Vertigo is in its possibilities. If you prefer to see it as resolved that's fine but I don't see that as what Hitch was going for.

I'm a fan of Bob Le Flambeur but I can see how it is not for everyone. I really enjoy duality in all its form and Bob Le Flambeur is all about presenting duality including repeated words, repeated props, mirror images, old/young etc. etc. (little pun there).

Thomas J. · 01-03-2007, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by george kaplan

Thomas,
I come to the conclusion that he was too lazy or too stupid to figure out a solution to the mystery.

Oh brother. I thought about responding to your post, but, alas, now I think I won't, and I'll just let everybody else read this quote and make up their own minds about whether or not you actually "get" Antonioni's cinema at all.

It's gotten to the point where Antonioni now is "too stupid" to identify Anna's kidnapper in L'Avventura and the murderer in Blow Up, as if that was what he set out to achieve and was simply too incompetant to accomplish.

I'll just let people marinate on your assertion that I quoted.

Thomas J. · 01-03-2007, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rich_d

If you want to avoid the question so be it

Just the same, I gotta thank you for NOT avoiding my direct question to you about how, exactly, the two leads in L'Avventura end the film just "hanging out?"

Thanks again.

Thomas J. · 01-03-2007, 11:23 PM

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).

rich_d · 01-03-2007, 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas J.

Just the same, I gotta thank you for NOT avoiding my direct question to you about how, exactly, the two leads in L'Avventura end the film just "hanging out?"

Thanks again.

First, how about we lose the phony baloney words and just say what we mean? You sure don't mean to thank me so please cut the nonsense.

And I did respond to your question but I'll reiterate.

Don't change YOUR discussion point and not expect to be called on it. It comes across as a bit of a bait and switch rather than an honest discussion. First you talk about 'great film endings' and all of a sudden it shifts to a 'great ending shot' ... big difference.

Edit: Reading the post above it appears that you've back off and now your position is enjoy Antonioni's films as 'art for art's sake.' No problem here.

Quote:

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.

Dude, that's waaaay out of line. Don't tell people that they're not intellectual enough to enjoy the films you like. Your follow-up about Apocalypse Now ... comes across as 'I get smart things and I really don't get dumb things'

Just dazzle us with the intelligence of your thoughts and ideas and drop the only slightly veiled insults.

Thomas J. · 01-03-2007, 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rich_d

First, how about we lose the phony baloney words and just say what we mean? You sure don't mean to thank me so please cut the nonsense.

And I did respond to your question but I'll reiterate.

Don't change YOUR discussion point and not expect to be called on it. It comes across as a bit of a bait and switch rather than an honest discussion. First you talk about 'great film endings' and all of a sudden it shifts to a 'great ending shot' ... big difference.

Looking over your two posts prior to this one, I see you asked me only one question, so I guess that's the one you want me not to avoid answering. Fair enough, so, let's see, that initial question you addressed to me a couple of days ago was:

"...what does hanging around the street have to do with encapsulating the overall theme of the film?"

I would indeed try to answer your question if not for the fact that I don't think they end the film "hanging around the street."

How can I answer a question which is based on what in my opinion is a false premise? That gives rise to my rejoinder to you. Please justify this "hanging around the street" premise -- then I will be happy to address your question.

I'm trying to be rational about this. Thanks.

Thomas J. · 01-04-2007, 12:15 AM

Look, I'm willing to drop this whole thing. In retrospect, I feel as if it's going to appear as if I've come in here and sabotaged this great thread. So, even though I'm just trying to have a rational discussion intially based on imo irrational hyperbole, and didn't intend things to get so heated, I'm willing to let it go. Things are getting too tense in here, lol.

Let's just agree to disagree. You did call Antonioni "too stupid" though, lol.

I should probably join this challenge, by the way. I've read all 100+ pages, after all. Maybe this weekend. Cheers.

rich_d · 01-04-2007, 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas J.

How can I answer a question which is based on what in my opinion is a false premise? That gives rise to my rejoinder to you. Please justify this "hanging around the street" premise -- then I will be happy to address your question.

I'm trying to be rational about this. Thanks.

No problem as long as this isn't just a semantics issue. The last 4+ minutes are spent here.

Now, where I come from, if you're here, you're hanging around the street or hanging around a parking lot if you prefer. Now if the problem is that you don't like the word 'hanging' I'll change it to say 'they're on the streets.'

Edit. Interesting forced perspective, from the first shot it seem more probable the couple is staring at another building in front of them rather than at any mountain.

george kaplan · 01-04-2007, 04:59 AM

Quote:

See, Bob "gets" it.

Bob Turnbull · 01-04-2007, 08:01 AM

Quote:

where two purple and red striped zebras would be sitting at a table, debating Sartre.

Which proves you don't get Antonioni George...They'd be giraffes. Geez.

To clarify in my own mind, are you saying that you think it is more likely that Antonioni was incompetent at resolving a plot (which he went to great lengths to start up) instead of having an initial plan that would leave certain things unresolved (which fits in with the themes suggested)? Now if this was his first or only film, I might say that Occam's razor slides to the former statement. But since he's shown a pattern of unresolved endings, wouldn't this likely show that he intends these and it's a simple matter of taste going on here ("Yeah, I see what he's going for here, but it bored the crap out of me" or "I wish he had continued with the murder story because he certainly had the filmmaking chops to reel me into the plot.")?

Or am I totally missing your response to Thomas and making this a semanti