Category Archives: Michelangelo Antonioni

1960 Films, Art, Drama, Gabriele Ferzetti, International, International Drama, Italian, Lea Massari, Michelangelo Antonioni, Monica Vitti

L’Avventura-1960

Leave a comment

L’Avventura-1960

Director Michelangelo Antonioni

Starring Gabriele Ferzetti, Monica Vitti

Scott’s Review #1,167

Reviewed July 30, 2021

Grade: A

L’Avventura (1960) is similar to the horror masterpiece Psycho (1960), released the same year, although they couldn’t be more opposite on the surface.

One is an American horror film by an esteemed British director and the other is an Italian art film. What could they possibly have in common?

Forgetting that the former is not a horror film, L’Avventura first introduces a character that the audience is certain to be the main character only to pull a switcheroo midstream and make other characters the central protagonists.

Think what Janet Leigh’s Marion Crane was in Psycho to John Garvin and Vera Miles, Sam Loomis, and Lila Crane.

Be that as it may, as an interesting if not completely odd comparison, L’Avventura is a brilliant film and not just for the story alone. Black and white cinematography of the grandest kind transplants the film viewer to a fabulous yet haunting island where the events occur.

Frequent shots of the gorgeous Mediterranean Sea and its roaring waves pepper the action.

In Michelangelo Antonioni’s classic of Italian cinema, two beautiful young women, Claudia (Monica Vitti) and Anna (Léa Massari) join Anna’s lover, Sandro (Gabriele Ferzetti), on a boat trip to a remote volcanic island.

They plan to spend their time cruising, resting, and relaxing on the Mediterranean. The trio is all good-looking and resides on the outskirts of Rome. They join two wealthy couples and depart on their excursion,

When Anna suddenly goes missing on an island stop a search is launched. In the meantime, Sandro and Claudia become involved in a romance despite Anna’s disappearance, though the relationship suffers from the guilt and tension brought about by the looming mystery.

Their relationship is intriguing based on the roller coaster emotions they face. Their burgeoning romance and Anna’s disappearance overlap.

Assumed to be the focal point of the film Anna eventually serves as more of a ghost character and quickly disappears from the screen.

This threw me for a loop.

Events do not remain on the island but return to the Italian mainland where Sandro and Claudia continue with their guilt finally becoming convinced Anna might have returned!

The brilliant and ambitious thing about L’Avventura is that the film changes course many times.

On the surface, it appears to be a film about a missing girl and a friend’s attempts to locate her. But Antonioni delves into a film about emotions and the meaning of life making the audience go deeper along with the characters.

Eventually, Sandro and Claudia chase a ghost of their design and plod along unhappy and unfulfilled suffering paranoia.

L’Avventura is all about the characters and the cinematography and each immerses well with the other.

Many characters exchange glances with each other that the audience can read into. What was the relationship between Sandro and Claudia before the cruise? What is Anna and Sandro’s backstory? And what’s become of Anna? Did she run off and drown or was she murdered?

The camerawork is stunning, each shot a lovely escapade into another world. Particularly, the yacht cruise and the island sequences are astounding. I love how the characters explore different sections of the island instead of dully standing on the shore or similar shots.

As the title says the point is both physical and cerebral adventure.

L’Avventura (1960) is a film that will make you think, ponder, escape, and discuss the true meaning. Isn’t that what great art cinema does?

Antonioni also made me consider comparisons to another great art film creator- the Swedish director Ingmar Bergman.

1966 Films, Michelangelo Antonioni, Thriller, Vanessa Redgrave

Blow-Up-1966

Leave a comment

Blow-Up-1966

Director Michelangelo Antonioni

Starring David Hemmings, Vanessa Redgrave

Scott’s Review #305

60033579

Reviewed December 21, 2015

Grade: A

Blow-up is a mysterious and compelling 1966 (the spawn of more edgy films) thriller that undoubtedly influenced the yet-to-come 1974 masterpiece The Conversation, directed by Francis Ford Coppola, as both films are tense tales of intrigue focusing on technology as a tool to witness a murder.

This film is legendary director Michelangelo Antonioni’s first English-speaking film and what a film it is.

Set in hip London in the 1960s, it certainly interestingly portrays the fashion world. The story is about a fashion photographer named Thomas, who is in high demand. He revels in bedding women so they may have their photos taken by this rock star photographer and is chased around London by gorgeous women.

He aborts a photoshoot one day because he is bored. He is not the nicest guy in the world and is rather an unlikable character.

But perhaps that is secondary or even intentional. While walking in Maryon Park one day, he comes upon a couple in the distance. They appear to be amid a secret rendezvous, nervously kissing,   so he begins photographing them.

The woman, Jane,  (played by a very young Vanessa Redgrave) realizes they have been snapped and is furious- demanding the film.

This sets off the mystery and the meat of the film.

The film is a tremendous achievement in cinematic intrigue. It is quite psychological and open to much interpretation, which is the genius of it. The main questions asked are “What exactly transpired in the park and who is responsible?”

We feel little sympathy for Thomas, which perhaps is intentional. and what about Jane?

Talk about mystery!

We know little about her other than she has secrets, but is she responsible for the crime? Thomas and Jane play a sort of cat-and-mouse game throughout the film, both seemingly trying to outwit and outmaneuver the other.

The unique aspect of the film is that the viewer will often ask questions- “Was there even a crime committed”? “Are the events all in Thomas’s imagination or has he misinterpreted the series of events”? One will revel in the magnificence of these questions.

Comparisons to The Conversation were apparent to me right away- both feature one of the senses as a means to solving or realizing the crime committed- in The Conversation, it is hearing, in Blow-Up it is sight.

In both, the main character uses these senses for a living and both are arguably not the most likable characters. Both films feature mimes.  Both films are quite cerebral and both are cinema gems for the “thinking man”.

Blow-Up has weird, little intricate moments- a very tall, female, Russian model experiences an odd photoshoot with Thomas. Later,  a giggling pair of young girls end up in a grappling match with Thomas after asking him to take their photos.  A topless (from behind) Jane prancing around Thomas’s apartment is an unusual scene.

As a first-time viewer, I adored this film and it is a good example of a film that requires multiple viewings to fully appreciate and I look forward to doing just that.

A fantastic creative achievement, Blow-Up (1966) is a masterpiece that can be dissected with each subsequent viewing.

Oscar Nominations: Best Director-Michelangelo Antonioni, Best Story, and Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen

1975 Films, Art, Ian Hendry, Jack Nicholson, Michelangelo Antonioni, Thriller

The Passenger-1975

Leave a comment

The Passenger-1975

Director Michelangelo Antonioni

Starring Jack Nicholson, Maria Schneider

Scott’s Review #259

70042799

Reviewed July 19, 2015

Grade: A

A true art film in every sense of the word, The Passenger (1975) is a thinking man’s film, not for those content to munch on popcorn and escape the day’s stressors, but rather, custom-made for a film fan willing to ponder the meaning of the film, revel in the slow pace, and appreciate the film as an art form.

The Passenger is tough to “get” throughout most of its over two-hour running time, but its complexities are also its most beautiful characteristics. To say that the film will leave the viewer with questions is quite an understatement, but is pleasing to analyze and come up with conclusions of meaning.

Michelangelo Antonioni directed this film and is well-known for directing Blowup and Zabriskie Point, neither of which I have seen as of this writing.

Jack Nicholson stars as a journalist named David Locke, who is on location in Africa (specifically the Sahara desert in Chad). David’s assignment is to produce a documentary film. While there he mysteriously assumes the identity of a businessman named Robertson, who he finds dead in his hotel room.

This task is easy because David and Robertson look very much alike. As events unfold, it becomes clear that Robertson is involved in arms dealings and smuggling matters related to the ongoing civil unrest within the country.

Flashbacks reveal David’s former life, including his friendship with the businessman, and his relationship with his wife, Rachel, and these scenes are mixed in with the current action until they become more linear with each other.

The film is complex, to say the least. The initial scene when David spontaneously decides to switch identities is excellent. We wonder, what are David’s motivations and what is the appeal of him taking over another man’s life? Who is the man? Why is David so unhappy in his own life?

The film succeeds immeasurably as the plot is not simply told to the audience like so many other mainstream films. Events seem genuine and not forced for plot purposes.

In the current time, whereabouts in London, Rachel sadly mourns the assumed “death” of her husband David, though we learn that Rachel has secrets of her own she has been hiding and suffers from tremendous guilt.

To further complicate matters for everyone, she is attempting to find the businessman, since she has learned that he was the last person to see her husband alive. Also mixed into the story is a mysterious young woman whom David meets when the story moves to Barcelona, Spain.

What makes The Passenger so compelling to me is its intricacies- story as well as camera styles. The seven-minute-long shot towards the end is brilliant filmmaking and the climax is quietly intense.

The camera’s focus is on a hotel room, switches to the parking lot, and returns to the hotel room. I was transfixed by the character of David enormously, struggling to empathize with him, while all the while enjoying an intelligent character study mixed in with a story of political intrigue.

I do not confess to understanding everything about The Passenger and will surely need more viewings to make more sense of it all, but the film fascinates me.

In a time of mediocre films, how refreshing to stumble upon a forgotten relic from 1975 and have a renewed appreciation for film as an art form.