Really, what was the point? The two protagonists are unlikeable, the story line weak and convoluted, the dialogue inane,
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Zabriskie Point
max-tavros — 18 years ago(December 04, 2007 07:25 AM)
Really, what was the point? The two protagonists are unlikeable, the story line weak and convoluted, the dialogue inane, i.e. "Somehow I always knew it would be like this" "What?" "The desert". The ending is also nonsensical in that the heroine blows up or imagines she blows up that neat vila in the desert again why? What did her boss do to deserve such a fate? Perhaps "pointless" will be the only way to describe this aberation of a film which means nothing in our today's day and age. Were the '60s really such a pseudo-intellectual, pathetic era?
-
pninson — 17 years ago(April 07, 2008 10:16 PM)
Daria is having an affair with her boss, who represents the Establishment. On her way to meet him, she runs into Mark, who represents rebellion not in the ideological sense of the Marxist revolutionaries, but in the sense of chaos vs. order, freedom vs. rigidity. Their encounter changes her outlook, and when she gets to her boss's house she now perceives him as a hypocrite and realizes that she really despises him.
The house exploding is symbolic of her rage. As symbolism goes, it's not exactly subtle.
Believe it or not, I liked this movie better when I saw it on laserdisc in 1997 then when I saw it in a theater in 1969. For one thing, the "revolutionaries" at the beginning are utterly authentic, and the film evokes that milieu flawlessly.
If you think Zabriskie Point is pointless, by all means avoid the film that made Antonioni famous: "L'Avventura" (the Adventure). I have to admit I didn't understand what that movie was about, other than being a statement about bored, alienated rich people.
In fact, if you don't like Zabriskie Point, it's unlikely you would like any of Antonioni's films.
We report, you decide; but we decide what to report. -
tieman64 — 17 years ago(June 19, 2008 03:59 AM)
"In fact, if you don't like Zabriskie Point, it's unlikely you would like any of Antonioni's films."
Nah, I love his films and hated Zabriskie Point. It comes across as such a simplistic and stupid film. It feels very desperate, almost as though Antonioni was trying to feel hip and rebellious. The metaphors of the sex, desert, airplane, billboards and cardboard capitalists are really quite silly.
"For one thing, the "revolutionaries" at the beginning are utterly authentic, and the film evokes that milieu flawlessly."
Yeah, but that opening scene, with the soft red focus, is really the only interesting thing about the film. What other great scenes or moments are there?
"Rape is no laughing matter. Unless you're raping a clown." -
Clemencedane — 13 years ago(May 21, 2012 12:24 AM)
Yes, except I didn't like the song at the end. It seemed so obvious and simplistic that I thought Antonioni must be using it ironically, but then I wasn't quite sure. I almost felt like he wanted the ending to be felt like the ending of Easy Rider and didn't pull it off. The
exploding fridge
seemed epically silly to me. -
PsychoDingo — 11 years ago(August 07, 2014 08:55 PM)
the aerial shots of Los Angeles are cool
the whole scene at the Zabriskie Point turnout and riverbed is fantastic
the major atmospheric shifts throughout the film, though particularly during the ending sequence, are excellent
Surreal Cinema:
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls006574276/ -
franzkabuki — 16 years ago(April 22, 2009 03:47 PM)
The film takes a nose dive from the moment the dude flees L.A. and never fully recovers although somewhat regains its footing after hes shot dead - and the final explosion sequence is quite a marvel in itself. Up until the take-off it was masterfully shot, atmospheric stuff - although not very subtle with its implications. Not a total waste but an something of a failure nevertheless.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan -
CitrusWithFuschiaTrim — 16 years ago(May 27, 2009 05:41 AM)
Does IMDB have a roster of volunteers to provide the obligatory "the protagonists are unlikeable, therefore this is bad" argument on each and every film, or what? I seem to read this literally every time step into this domain.
I suppose on a clear day you can see the class struggle from here.
-
peterrichard30 — 16 years ago(December 02, 2009 12:01 PM)
The two protagonists are two of the most likeable characters ever in film history compared to the 'boss' character who lives only for money. The very ordinariness of them is what is meant to be attractive, they are just ordinary people trying to live a freer life. They are not meant to be clever people, they are ordinary people. And the ending is for those who have imagination and are willing to think there can be a different way to live. The ending is more powerful than the end to Blowup and is just more ambitious.
And for those who say this film is just trying to be be hip, have a look at Blowup. Although that is quite a good film it obviously tries to be far more hip than this film because of some of the actors featured, the use of the Yardbirds gig within the film etc. -
Quanfa — 16 years ago(January 11, 2010 07:46 AM)
I think Blowup was ultimately more fun than Zabriskie Point, but as hippie movies go, I liked Zabriskie Point. I don't look for too much relevance in hippie movies because I don't see much relevance in hippies - and yes, I think the movie depicted hippies for what many of them are - self-righteous know-it-alls that don't know squat about the world. But maybe that's the point of youth, so it's hard to take it very seriously.
I watched this because of the soundtrack. The other pink floyd hippie movies More and Obscured by Clouds had very similar pretension, but the music helps make them forgivable time capsules.
The only thing I think was badly done was the ending and the timing of the music. "Careful with that Axe, Eugene" has that great intro before leading into the chaotic scream ending - why didn't the beginning of the song build up with the girl walking out of the building calmly and looking back, then climax with the screaming in the song at the first point of explosion. Instead the building already blew up 20 times before we get the climax of the song. Wasted opportunity. I knew the ending was an exploded house synched with Careful with that Axe Eugene and I couldn't wait to see how it came out, but was very disappointed. -
dragmio — 16 years ago(March 20, 2010 03:19 PM)
The two protagonists are unlikeable, the story line weak and convoluted, the dialogue inane
And it was made because of everything else that makes a film. But most of all because of cinematography and film directing.
If you want pretty people, buy a Vogue. If you want a story read a book. If you want dialogues, go see a play.
But only in cinema you have cinematography and film direction. And it's hard to think where any of those it's better accomplished than in this film. -
maz89 — 13 years ago(August 17, 2012 05:27 PM)
But only in cinema you have cinematography and film direction. And it's hard to think where any of those it's better accomplished than in this film.
It's hard to be too concerned about the gorgeous cinematography when much of the film does feature inane dialogue and wooden protagonists. If these elements are not enhancing the visuals, then they're weighing them down.
Clear eyes, full hearts, can't lose. -
feodoric — 11 years ago(August 27, 2014 11:12 AM)
Zabriskie Point
? Gee, it was foreign even to Antonioni himself! And although set in California in full student protest hoopla times, the movie was anything but Hollywoodian. ZP was so anti-American, in fact, that due to fears that a movie director with the growing stature such as Antonioni was thought to cast a dangerously political dark shadow on the US. A movie targeted at everything that was making the USA so powerful, such an ominous presence everywhere in the world. Quite bizarrely, Antonioni (who had been enraptured by the whole booming London rock scene he had befriended for his previous movie, was now obsessed by calling
that
next movie
Blowup
instead. However, one afternoon, the big chunk of Nepalese hash that the crew had brought to Death Valley - to withstand the intense heat and boredom - had finally been completely used up by the hippie commune already gathered there for a complex desert orgy scene, he realized he had already used the title himself just a couple of years ago.
"Shoot!", said he, in a moment of Italian anger directed at the whole USA. Quite funnily, the film crew took his words literally then, and shot whatever Antonioni was pointing at, i.e. randomly in front of him, where the hippies in full epidermal costume were getting aroused from the massive THC load now rushing into every cell of their naked bodies. This resulted in one of the most baffling, bizarre, chaotic, non-erotic orgy scene of the whole history of cinema (excluding porn, which usually makes everything very clear about such scenes.
But the critics saw nothing wrong with it. And it remains to this day as foreign as a Martians pussy to everybody, including (or especially) to Antonionis fellow country(wo)men.
And dont worry if the word foreign still comes to mind irresistibly and still sounds terribly appropriate after viewing ZP for the fiftieth time. This is the kind of movie that grows on you if and when you watch it repeatedly. It grows on you like couch grass, that is.
I rarely come to terms with a movie by ending up standing against a strong critical appreciative current. I usually come to realize having missed some important angle that provides a key to understand and make sense of everything. Or succeeding in getting it through repeated exposure, by a kind of mental capillarity, like a piece of paper inserted under a plant leaf in a tightly bound herbarium becomes all soaked up from the leafs watery content.
But ZP is no Last Year in Marienbad ! I too was, for a little while, pretending that I had understood ZP and that I truly, consciously and honestly, liked watching the movie as though it had actual content for approx. 2 hours. I, too, was trying to self-justify my interest in the movie by dwelling on this or that panning shot, on the intrinsic beauty of the cinematographic material to behold in a dark room. Instead of seeing that I was only counting down the minutes before the orgy scene. which unfortunately, had really nothing truly erotic (which would have constituted an actual, true motive for confessing a personal interest). Thus, not even the beauty of the images - which is in itself a strong motive for watching most of Antonionis movies of the 60s was sufficient to drive a sustained interest of mine in the movie.
ZP is a nice shell whose inside is so empty that, having been opened for a while under the scorching heat and hot winds in the Death Valley, its internal wooden surface was bleached out completely and shone as brightly and beautifully as its exterior. A very nice shiny object, somewhat subversive at first for a short while, but that becomes rather harmless, nondescript, and finally . bland as a sun- and wind-bleached shiny object found in the Death Valley. Even its political discourse is so tame in the end, by want of demonstrable purpose perhaps. or because of Hollywood- or even Washington-originating pressure to tone down its originally blatant anti-American message(s). Antonioni was indeed harassed by political agents or forces during the shooting of ZP, which may have killed what the director had in mind.
If ZP was indeed transmogrified to such an extent because of political ideas that Antonioni wanted to convey with it, one must say that the film was de facto killed in the process, because what apparently remains of its message is so adulterated (or adult-rated?
that it verges on being a sheer chaos of well-polished images that rapidly lose their appeal as the movie progresses to its never-ending point, like a painter trying to capture the vanishing point of a scene depicting eternity.
I wanted to like ZP. After all, it ends up already gathering positive points for its progressive and folk rock soundtrack and for the aesthetic values of its main actors and actresses . well before they utter any sound, whereby movie loses a point or two at least. Innocence, purity and earnestness are nice things to capture on film. However, these qualities, which Mark Frechette and Daria Halprin co -
Xeokym — 11 years ago(November 13, 2014 04:54 AM)
Wow, that is some post. I agree with most of what you said. I like a lot of Antonioni movies &
Blow-Up
is one of my favorite movies, but ZP just seemed like a total train wreck to me. I love movies that take place in stark locations but by the end of ZP I had to admit to myself that the whole thing seemed like a pretentious stab at America. It had some interesting symbolism that made me think, but that hardly save it. And no matter how slick the cinematography was, the bottom line is the actors suck because they weren't even actors to begin with, the dialogue is trite, and as others have pointed out, the orgy is one of the most un-erotic sexual encounters I have ever seen.
Nobody's perfecteveryone who is creative in some way eventually does a stinker. ZP is Antonioni's stinker.
I can't understand your crazy moon language.