Once you expand your pov, if you ever can, to grow out of a very narrow, supeficial, linear bandwidth, which accounts for about 95% of all films made---just not Antonioni's, who chose instead to delve into difficult subjects, graduate work, not your preferred elementary school movies---you can then understand the differences between (1) what the audience is seeing, as tho it's directed to be seen for the audience and (2) that what the audience is confused about is precisely that which the main character is seeing, which confuses her to no end, which is the problem that is being depicted. You are being put in her frame of mind. It's irritating, no? Exactly as it is to her. She can't stop it, which is made pretty clear repeatedly. That's what you're seeing, what she sees, and feels, and it drives her into repeated frenzies, while your response is to dismiss it because you don't understand what you're seeing. Your reaction is about the level of a child's, who grows impatient with aspects of life he can't grasp, so he ends up just calling it "stupid". Which is itself, on your part, an adult without enough life experience, stupid. Maybe some day you will grow to the point where you don't flail out at things you don't yet get, if ever. Maybe you'll grow to where you can understand this brilliant film and Blow Up, L'Avventura, et al, Antonioni's genre of the point of view that comes with circumspectful life experience.
It seems slow because everyone's life seems slow to people not living it. It's when you TRY to put yourself in her shoes that you see the terrible mental state she's in that won't go away (unless, my prescription, she gets the hell out of that toxic human-made landscape, the plague of the planet).
BTW, critics who don't get this film or Antonioni in general don't pretend they like it. They respond like you, frustrated, angry, confused. That would be the more childish 32%.
Give it a few decades and maybe you'll see it.
~ Native Angeleno
reply
share
bokibongbing
10 years ago
I wasn't frustrated, angry or confused by Red Dessert. I just didn't like the film very much. Tastes vary and even people of equal intelligence and life experience do not always agree. A 100% consensus on any work of art is a little dubious in any circumstances, I'd say.
Some of my favourite films are early Haneke, but I'm well aware of the fact that many people don't "get" or enjoy those films. However, I don'tt reply to his detractors with the patronising attitudes I see here from Antonioni's fans.
reply
share
The_TJT
8 years ago
That must be one of most pretentious and self-congratulatory posts I've ever seen. Disgusting.
Also you give far too much credit for the director. You should actually read what he said about the film himself...
She can't stop it, which is made pretty clear repeatedly. That's what you're seeing, what she sees, and feels, and it drives her into repeated frenzies
While I agree that the imagery succeeded in creating the metaphor with her mind and environment - the dialogue and the story was not very successful in it. What happened in the film has lots of the time very little to do with meaning and conclusion of the film, so one can certainly argue that the film wasn't a success in respect of storytelling.
Your argument is basically that the story can be incoherent mess if the protagonist's mind is supposed to be one as well. No, not really - that just leads to entirely abstract film.
You want to see a TRUE gripping masterpiece on conflict of the mind? See Polanski's "Repulsion".
reply
share