Strange choice for Antonioni
-
RBresson34 — 14 years ago(July 16, 2011 06:56 PM)
Antonioni clearly was not a political filmmaker. A strike in a film doesn't make it political. A film can contain political "elements" while not being about politics at all. I can't think of one film where Antonioni takes a political stance or makes political statement in any film. Antonioni was a humanist, and if you think other wise, you're not watching correctly.
-
RBresson34 — 14 years ago(September 25, 2011 10:11 PM)
"Everything is political" is an empty statement void of any real meaning and should not be uttered in public. Antonioni isn't a mouthpiece for any ideology except the "human." You can try to twist the meaning of his films to fit your own personal agenda but it will always be your own personal agenda, not Antonioni's.
-
RBresson34 — 14 years ago(October 07, 2011 06:13 PM)
No need to feel sorry for me, I'm doing just fine, thank you. But, what do you mean when you say, that's exactly what I'm trying to do? I have expressed no political ideology in any of my posts. I would suggest reading peer reviewed journals on Antonioni to get a better feel for his work. You won't find many scholars (if any) who agree with you (I could find none).
Antonioni was "psychologist" who dealt with themes of alienation, modernization and communication between persons. What makes him incredibly interesting is his ability to resist making political films like his Neo-realist counterparts. I'm not saying that makes him better than them but he is certainly unique in that sense.
NOTE: Of course I am talking about all of his films EXCEPT for Zabriskie Point, which is clearly political.
EDIT: Ahh, I see now. I went through some of your other posts and you are quite the politician, and a crude one at that. You are willing to sacrifice and exploit beautiful films to serve and support your leftist ideology. Pauline Kael is dead. You can move on now -
RBresson34 — 14 years ago(October 08, 2011 08:37 PM)
You're not even addressing the original argument anymore and quite frankly your logic is difficult to follow. You're throwing around a bunch of meaningless goobly goop.
Never once did I imply Antonioni was apolitical as a person. My argument is simply that he was not a political filmmaker, nor was he an ideologue of any sort. He was not an activist, his films did not try to influence public policy. He was concerned with the human condition which runs deeper than politics.
You're world view is a very depressing one if you actually believe everything is political. I do however believe you are young and have only taken a few undergraduate classes in film and politics. You still have room to grow but your argumentative nature might make it difficult for you to come to terms with reality.
Now that I think of it, you have not put forth a shred of evidence to support your claim that Antonioni was a political filmmaker. Honestly though, I have nothing learn from you you can teach me nothing. This conversation is for your benefit, not mine. I'm actually getting bored with you. -
mise_en_bjoern — 14 years ago(November 05, 2011 09:04 PM)
Nice conversation, guys.
Why is nobody mentioning CHUNG KUO - CINA? This should answer the question whether Antonioni was a political filmmaker or not.
And if that's too late for consideration, think about IL GRIDO. -
miac — 10 years ago(December 07, 2015 04:23 PM)
Antonioni was quite an elegant writer and thinker; his collection of essays can be found in the volume The Architecture of Vision. The chapter on Zabriski Point is unequivocally political and critical of U.S. racism and capitalist-imperialism: "What America Means To Me." Antonioni spent his post-fascist career working to make meaningful humanist and political films. He was political in the very best and most thoughtful way. Also to be recommended: his "sketches" for stories and screenplay ideas, That Bowling Alley on the Tiber. Long live Antonioni!!
-
Monsieur_Arkadin — 12 years ago(July 27, 2013 11:03 AM)
I can't comment on whether Antonioni was a generally political filmmaker or not, as I haven't seen enough of his work to really say.
However, I do hate that old clich "everything is political." Politics is a human construct. It'd make a lot more sense to say "everything is sexual" because at least is a basic human urge. However, even that would be inaccurate because it presumes everybody feels sexual urges. It assumes asexuality doesn't exist. which it does in humans. Stick bugs haven't had sex in 1.5 million years so that certainly isn't true of them either.
The belief that everything can be one thing is profoundly simplistic, and just flat out untrue.
What's the ugliest part of your body? -
escalation746 — 12 years ago(July 15, 2013 10:35 AM)
I'm surprised Antonioni decided to make this film, he wasn't a political film-maker yet he made a political film about a country he clearly didn't understand.
He shows more understanding in this film than a thousand other directors. You will have to be clearer in expressing why you think he missed the mark. You might start by explaining why, in your opinion, Antonioni was not a political film-maker.
Was he trying to cash in on the student protest movement?
Oh yes, Antonioni was all about "cashing in", which is why he made such accessible blockbuster movies.
This is a technically well made and beautiful looking film but for me its also Antonioni's most misjudged project, I just don't think he achieved whatever he was setting out to do.
Since, by your own admission, you don't know what he was trying to do, how can you judge whether he was successful?
Your logic is baffling.