MovieChat Forums > L'avventura (1961) Discussion > Antonioni and Malick

Antonioni and Malick

posted 18 years ago by cinema512
5 replies | jump to latest

Its occured to me recently that these two directors have an extraordinary amount in common: They both use the environment in manner that completely supercedes the fuctionality of being merely the environment. As is the case with the work of both of these directors the environment surrounding the characters takes the form of metaphor, analogy and perhaps even characters unto themselves. It seems as if the narrative through line is at times superfluous to the higher order of thematic and coneptual concerns and both Malick and Antonioni use environments, whether it be the architetural elements in an Italian city or the sweeping fields in the pan handle of Texas, to communicate such things with incredibly deft hands. Does anyone else share this view? Disagree with it? Or merely have any thoughts?

[–] tim180-2 18 years ago

I certainly agree it applies to Antonioni's films--his environments become like a looming subconscious that dominates the actors. Not familiar enough with those of Malick to comment.

[–] nomahhhhh5 18 years ago

It's uncanny that you should make such a comparison between the two directors because, after viewing The New World in the theater for the first of many times, I became hellbent on finding a similarly crafted film (besides Malick's three others) by another director that contained the same rapturous beauty and dynamic cinematography. Somehow I stumbled upon Antonioni and L'avventura. I watched it for the first time last night, and I'm disappointed in saying that I was slightly disappointed with this film. I really wanted to like it after reading so many positive reviews. I was expecting it to be more organically rooted in nature and felt a little rattled when the film took a dramatic shift towards the urban landscape of Italy. I was under the false impression that the majority of the movie transpired on the island where Anna goes missing, which is to say I was expecting Antonioni's portrayal of the natural beauty of the island landscape to carry the picture --- a la Malick's films. I would have loved to have seen more footage of the island in all its splendor and desolation. I was hoping that Claudia and Sandro's relationship would unfold along the lines of John Smith and Pocahontas's relationship amidst the natural splendor of Virginia in The New World (although Claudia and Sandro clearly could never engage in such a relationship). Also, with the exception of Kit and Holly in Badlands, I find it much easier to sympathize with Malick's characters as opposed to the shallow and self-alienating characters of L'Avventura. Cinema512, you certainly know much more about the medium of film than I could ever aspire to know, so I was wondering if you could possibly assuage my disappointment and help me to understand why Antonioni made the choices he did. Thanks.

[–] rory2431 18 years ago

After seeing L'avventura, i'd say Antonioni is possibly more psychological, and Malick is more spiritual. It seems that in L'avventura, the backgrounds relate to/are metaphors for the people. In Malick films it seems reversed, people represent aspects of nature? That might be stretching it, but Malick films are certainly more spiritually philosophical.

I'd probably say Malick films are a little more uplifting...a little more optimistic.

[–] imwithstupid_35 18 years ago

I don't like Malick films.

my ymdb site

http://www.ymdb.com/mehsuggeth/l35858_ukuk.html

[–] fukeneh 18 years ago

Antonioni uses images for structural, architectural metaphors while Malick uses the emotions of an image and the rhythm of it in conjunction with other images. In the last shot of L'avventura, the girl character is on the left and the guy is on the right. On her side there is a volcano (ready to explode and give new life) and on his side there is a blank wall (emptiness). For The New World, the english gardens are beautiful and not beautiful in Wes Studi's perspective. They're beautiful in that the trees are nature, but the trees have been tampered with and cut for human liking.

Abracadabra.