Really, what was the point? The two protagonists are unlikeable, the story line weak and convoluted, the dialogue inane,
-
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. -
maz89 — 13 years ago(August 17, 2012 05:25 PM)
I'm going to chalk this one off as a (somewhat interesting) failure. It definitely had potential but its flaws weighed it down considerably: the awful script (which featured some of the worst dialogue to ever make it in Antonioni's cinema), the sub-par acting, and most importantly, the centerpiece romance which felt contrived and forced (therefore stripping that woman's grieving process - no pun intended - in the end of its emotional power).
There were some great moments, however, and they were the ones which were not sabotaged by poor writing or acting basically, the moments where Antonioni's spellbinding cinematography took over the storytelling. The plane whooshing up and down (and I don't think the film really gets to "breathe" until the man gets on the plane). The woman driving on the highway. Zabriskie Point itself (excluding that sex-cum-orgy scene, which felt like a failed experiment more than anything else). That climax, definitely.
Clear eyes, full hearts, can't lose. -
JellyFish19 — 11 years ago(May 03, 2014 04:08 PM)
It's the only work by Antonioni that I saw, I'm sure I'll be seeing some more soon. I really enjoyed this film, like most movies set in isolated locations in general. Sure, the plot is basically non-existent and it's just covered in symbolism about the 60s counterculture, however I'm really interested in that time period.
The explosion at the end was the only thing I found silly, just because it reminded me too much of that family guy clip - -
kenny-164 — 11 years ago(July 11, 2014 11:19 AM)
Why was this film made? I am not sure whether Antonioni himself ever spoke to the subject, but I would have to guess he was intrigued by the social doings in America at the time, as in Blow-up he was with that period of Swinging London, and I would guess gravitated to LA first and the wider southwest due to the presence of Hollywood. After all as a practical matter he recruited much of his cast there, and I would guess much of his technical help as well. A very practical consideration, in short.
As for WHAT the film was intended to be about, certainly one recurring theme from earlier films is man in the landscape, and again the comparison between the low slung but still urban environment of LA and Southern California on one hand and the southwest desert on the other is a recurring element in his films. Think of the Aolian Islands off Sicily compared to the more urban scenes in I think Palermo? in L'Avventura, or the street scenes in Blow-up compared to the Arcadian nature of the park. The industrial settings in Red Desert compared to the scenes shot in the lowlands.
This comparison in Zabriskie Point I think is rather comparatively explicit in showing how different man's existence is, depending on the setting, even while we bring elements of ourselves to both. Daria's sexual involvement with the businessman would have been a very different experience, for him as well, if it had taken place in the same desert setting as did her lovemaking with the younger man.
An example of this sort of difference in existential awareness occurs in L'Eclisse, where Piero, preparing no doubt to make his first real sexual move on Vittoria, seems at first to make an odd choice of taking her to an apartment belonging to his parents, rather than his own. But perhaps he did so subconsciously to make him appear less superficial, as he may have feared he was, in substituting the trappings of his own existence for the rather overt historical references to his family, earlier existence, and social background. This is paralleled in an earlier scene where we see Piero examining Vittoria's bedroom in her mother's apartment, which we compare to her own apartment. What do these places and the things in them show us about the characters?
In Zabriskie, the desert is described as dead, and yet it truly isn't as a factual matter, of course, but also becomes the scene of the couple's lovemaking, Eros prevailing over Thanatos? Perhaps. But only briefly, right? Thanatos soon appears, literally enough as it is.
In short aside from the concededly rather simple plot or narrative, I think the film is an exercise in examining some of Antonioni's perennial themes in a different country and setting.
Needless to say I enjoyed it. -
hockeyhrs — 11 years ago(March 25, 2015 08:28 PM)
I would encourage you to read more on film criticism. Your obsessions with superficially compartmentalized characteristics of a movie such as
"the point" (of the film)
"the like-ability of protagonists"
"the story line"
"the dialogue"
"the ending"
"motivations" (What did her boss do to deserve* . . .)
seem rather facile.
You: "Were the '60s really such a pseudo-intellectual, pathetic era?"
Me: "Compared to what (other era you've experienced that wasn't pseudo-intellectual/pathetic)?"- as if the universe doles out rewards & punishments according to merit