Bad editing?
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Zabriskie Point
dragmio — 16 years ago(March 20, 2010 03:21 PM)
I must say that both the orgy scene and the final blowing up could and should have been edited way better. I even believe it would attract a lot more people to this film.
I've seen on IMDb that Antonioni did some editing, uncredited. Maybe that is the problem. Anyone agree? -
rgsalin — 16 years ago(April 01, 2010 04:21 AM)
I have just finished watching the film, and I agree with you. I presume that what Antonioni is trying to convey is some kind of magic, some kind of symbolism. In the case of the orgy scene, I seem to understand he's trying to show us some kind of wild nature at work, some kind of universal communion. The idea is very 60's and I am afraid it should have been transmitted some other way. The same goes for the final explosions. It is evident that she wants to move away from that reality she doesn't like, civilization, industry, capitalism, nature destruction, exploitation But, to me, the way the idea is conveyed is not good. She driving away would have been enough for me. There's an attempt to create some kind of climax which, to me, doesn't work. And the same goes for the orgy scene, which tries to create some kind of magical climax, something it doesn't get. I would have edited those scenes out.
-
keith66-1 — 15 years ago(May 26, 2010 01:09 PM)
I liked both scenes, but I felt that they went on a little too long, especially the end scene. I didn't really have a problem with the orgy scene's editing other than that. The shots of the building being blown up could have been put together differently though.
-
WarpedRecord — 15 years ago(January 30, 2011 11:56 AM)
Considering the main strengths of this film are the cinematography and the editing (really the only strengths), I have no problem whatsoever with the editing of the sand orgy and the house explosion. They both existed just in the mind of the characters and the audience, anyway, so why take a literal approach. Besides, all the bodies on the sand and the Kellogg's Special K looked really cool.
-
WarpedRecord — 15 years ago(March 20, 2011 05:22 PM)
Excellent points, Cafais. What's labeled as "editing" here is really Antonioni's vision. Calling it "editing" suggests that it's not what Antonioni planned, that an editor did a hatchet job after the director's work was done. In reality, Antonioni was very much in control of all aspects of his films, and his work wasn't done until the film hit theaters (barring studio meddling with the soundtrack, of course). On the other hand, I wonder if the performances of the leads here were out of anyone's control including the actors.
Antonioni's films are intended to be "felt" instead of merely "watched," and he sets a mood very effectively here. He went even deeper in "The Passenger," which I consider his masterpiece at least of his films I've seen, and I plan on seeing more. -
WarpedRecord — 15 years ago(March 21, 2011 11:32 PM)
Thanks very much for the recommendations, Cafais. Of the films you mentioned, I saw "L'Avventura," but it was in college many years ago and I don't remember it well. I'm sure I'd appreciate it much more now. I'll seek it out again, as well as the other titles you mentioned.
I also like the fact that Antonioni cast unknown in "Zabriskie Point," but I have to say I found their awkwardness distracting at times not enough to detract from my appreciation of the film, but enough to take it down a couple notches in my my book. The fact that Mark Frechette would be gone in five years of a strange weight-lifting accident makes him a real curiosity. I'd love to see a documentary or read a credible biography on him.