MovieChat Forums > Eros (2004) Discussion > Antonioni's Segment

Antonioni's Segment


Antonioni's segment is the most embarrassing, amateurish half hour of cinema I've seen in a long time. Did nobody dare tell him on the set what pretentious nonsense he was turning out? Or that discussions of the sun and the moon, or gazing at the ocean do not count for profundity? Jaw-droppingly awful.

When people become too old and frail to drive a car without a risk of harm to others, we take away their license. It's time to let the old master retire gracefully before he soils his reputation with these dull portentous nudie flicks.

=Doctor Fact is Knocking at the Door. Someone, please - LET THE MAN IN=

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

I think that it is relatively universally agreed on that the best work of the three is Wong Kar Wai's segment, but I think it has almost become in 'vogue' to hate, make fun of, and call Anotonioni's piece crap. I don't mean to play the devil's advocate, but I felt like I needed to bring this up and here was the place. Antonioni was a very old director by this time, and ideas and beliefs about film and it's uses, I assume, change as you grow older. Now there is no escaping the fact that his short had some of the worst dialogue I've ever heard in ANY movie, period, but I think that, in his old age, he might have gone past he point of language, realized language's limitations, and focused almost exclusively on the visual, and the symbolic. I'm drawn to two examples in particular. One, the woman's body, which I think we all understand to be the main purpose of this film. And secondly, a specific scene, where the man is on top of the other tower, while the woman is masturbating, and he and we stand there looking out over the horizon. That, for me, made the entire movie, and made the next scene where the two are playing around in bed, even more sensual. Anyways, just my thoughts. I think that many people overlook this part because of it's awful dialogue and 'excess' of nudity and don't give it it's fair judgement.

reply

Why is it in a film called Eros people give it grief for "excessive" nudity and sex? My God, a film titled after the God of love, lust, desire, and in 100 minutes there's very little of any of it. To me, this was classic Antonioni, and this was roughly what I expected from him. He's always been a master at combining people and settings, and using visuals to speak for themselves. The only difference is this time he was celebrating the female form and beauty while doing it. I can assure you that there was more going through his brain than "let's show her naked a dozen times". His shot composition is beautiful throughout, as is his camera movement. I also feel it is a very strongly symbolic piece and, much like his films of the 60s I'm quite sure he's saying alot more that the audience (and myself) is just completely missing the first time around.

but I think that, in his old age, he might have gone past he point of language, realized language's limitations, and focused almost exclusively on the visual

Ever seen a tiny little film that almost nobody's ever heard of called L'avventura?

I honestly don't know why Wong Kar-Wai's piece is praised so highly. YES it is good, but it also grows tiring after a bit. He uses the same techniques continuously and I, personally, grow tired of them. For me, that film is saved by the incomparable Gong Li.

Last Films Seen:
Tokyo Godfathers 8/10
Eros 7.5/10
The Informer 9/10

reply

The visuals are there and more sophisticated than ever before.

reply

Just because you mentioned L'Avventura... I see in "Antonioni's Segment" some continuation or development of certain visual/dramatic ideas presented earlier in Identificazione di Una Donna, or Al Di La Della Nuvole... perhaps.
Just my 2 cents.

reply



I totally disagree with you. Antonioni is a giant of a director, one of the sacred gods of cinema. Having said that, his short was bad, plain and simple. I think you're going out of your way to defend something that cannot be defended. I'd just like to add that no one, least of all me is denying that he is a great director. I'm not saying he is unworthy, I'm saying his short is unworthy. It really was quite awful and it's safe to say it ruined Eros, especially since the first 2 shorts were good.

reply

I totally disagree with you.

And I totally disagree with you. I'm not "going out my way" to defend anything. When the film ended, Antonioni's film is the one that resonated with me the longest, for whatever reason. Probably because Antonioni is a master at perfecting tone and mood through images and it's those that stay with you long after the film is over. Of course, if all you're after is a story and great characters, then you're looking in the wrong place.

Last Films Seen:
Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance 7.5/10
Eros 7.5/10
City of God 8.5/10

reply



You don't actually say much about Antonioni's segment, all you say is that he is a "master at perfecting tone and mood through images". I think you're defending him cause of his status more than anything else. I bet if you had no idea that it was done by him you wouldn't feel the same way. And I must say that the other 2 films didn't have especially great characters or stories. Okay the first one had a good story but I must say that it also was perfect at tone and mood through images.

reply

I said:

"When the film ended, Antonioni's film is the one that resonated with me the longest, for whatever reason."

I think his is the most beautifully filmed, and arguably the most erotic of the 3 (I guess I'd put it and WKR's on about equal ground in those terms, just different moods). I don't deny that WKR also has a signature style, tone, and mood but his just doesn't appeal to me nearly as much as Antonioni's more natural shot composition and camera movement. To this extent, I don't know how one argues a preference when it comes to tone, mood, and style. I just prefer Antonioni's and I think people overlook it because its meaning(s) isn't obvious.

Last Films Seen:
Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance 7.5/10
Paprika 6.5/10
Bourne Ultimatum 6.5/10

reply

The Hand was a masterpeice. But Antonio's segment was appealing.



."Gong Li is still the most beautiful actress on Earth"
-L.A Weekly (2006)



reply

I think we can even go beyond "empty sex" to find classic Antonioni themes like those invisible spaces between people - in particular, men and women. Those things that separate us. Sex seems to be merely a device Antonioni uses to show how we try to come together and make contact, but how often is it selfish, untruthful, and, ultimately, empty. He seems to be able to use both the ennui of his characters and the settings their placed in to correlate and elaborate on themes. Much in the way Eisenstein used montage so that the sum of scenes said more than their parts, Antonioni seems to use setting VS people so that the combination says more than either individual element. I think what makes Antonioni so difficult is how abstract and vague his symbols are.

For instance, we can see the light house as a phallic symbol, but what of the characters actions once inside? The characters' walk through the tunnel made out of bramble-like bushes seems obviously symbolic of a sexual act. What of the beach, water, and horizon? What of the lake amidst mountains and forest? To me, these aren't merely superflous designs, but purposive and important settings that are meant to say much more than any character is saying.

Last Films Seen:
Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance 8/10
Strike 9/10
Lady Vengeance 8.5/10

reply

[deleted]