I’ve never known of a film where the claims of the director differ so drastically from what is shown on screen. He talks about the beauty of the industrial machines; I see a claustrophobic, paranoid vision of a new hell.
By far, the most terrifying film i’ve ever seen.
It could just be Giuliana’s perceptions. I found some of the style of the film to be a little cheap. Keeping the back of Vitti’s head in focus, whereas the world’s blurry and opaque. Also, I kind of agree with Tarkovsky about the use of colour in the film, that it’s unnecessary and pretentious. The grey fruit especially. So, I think it’s possible that it’s just Vitti’s view of the world. I don’t know.
I had been interested in Antonioni because of the endless talk of alienation and industrial modernity, and when I saw this film I just thought “Yes, those things are there. Those words”. But that’s all. I didn’t think it was very rich, that there was something I hadn’t seen or known before. No detail. Though I liked the panic surrounding the scream they heard, if it was real.
I’ve read a few things about the film, though nothing struck or enlightened me except for Antonioni’s own views. I hope I’ll have a better time with his other films.
Red Desert is nothing like any of his other films so you should be alright! La Notte is his masterpiece. I’m not the biggest fan of Vitti but her performance in La Notte is great, her best by a mile.
God damn it MUBI.
Those who question it will suffer more than those who don’t.
Or, those who feel it will suffer more neuroses than those who don’t.
Red Desert is a great film.
Yes, I forget that Giuliana isn’t just ‘against’ this world by choice. It’s an irrational fear. Like Zeller’s description of deep sea creatures that frighten her. Antonioni said she was already neurotic and the world, Ugo’s world, was just another thing that set her off. But what then? What is the film Tannhowser? I hear only boring generalities about this film, and I fall all over myself when trying to understand.
Watch it again, you may discover more. Don’t look for answers from art, though.
I’ve seen it three times, and I don’t think I gained anything from the reviewings. I don’t expect answers, I expect something to hold on to. Some sort of progression, not a conclusion. Persona is my favorite Bergman film. I’ve only seen it twice but I feel I can dig through that film easier. I could be wrong (I hope I am) but it seems more rich than Red Desert. I’m only mentioning Persona because it’s also vague.
All great films can be opened up. No one seems to open this up. I remember Sorry I Can’t Help But Talk writing great things about Antonioni, but I’m not sure he spoke of Red Desert. He could probably rip it open.
I just need to watch his other films.
So, you’re saying that it isn’t an effective film? What are your specific criticisms? You don’t relate to Antonioni’s perspective?
For me, not only is it one of Antonioni’s best films (if not the best), but also one of the best films of the 20th century. Period.
If you’re looking for some kind of emotional attachment to these characters then you’re watching it for the wrong reasons. This is what really confuses me about the majority of people who dislike such filmmakers as Antonioni or Greenaway … they’re disappointed that there’s no obvious, direct connection to the characters and yet, why does there have to be? Why do humans insist on the fictional representation of a mere concept to be somehow connectable in a human, organic way? This is missing the entire point of this style of filmmaking. If you want human, relatable connections ad nauseum then watch Mike Leigh or Ozu or something. I’m not going to watch Belly of an Architect and then criticise it for not being romantic enough … that’s not the point – and while it’s a ‘valid’ criticism, it’s ignorant of the filmmaker’s intention. Context is important and the fact that you felt alienated and confused is pretty evident that Antonioni was at least partially successful.
I’m not sure why, but you chose a strange introduction to Antonioni … not exactly the most accessible film. For future reference, it’s usually better to start with a filmmaker’s more popular work then dig in to the rest of it and find the real classics (especially when one is given towards a more objective-oriented appraisal of art). It’s like diving headfirst into Finnegan’s Wake and then griping about how impenetrable it is … well, yeah.
I suggest this thread for some basic info: Abstraction and Ennui in Antonioni
I haven’t watched many films that are as intentionally disorienting than Red Desert. From the elliptical narrative to the most radical editing seen in any of Antonioni’s work, you’re meant to be placed in a state of heightened consciousness which in turn places you in a similar vulnerable state to that of Giuliana.
As someone who lives in a town that is centred around a steelworks, I recalled the fear I had of the structure when I was younger. Seeing it every morning and evening from my bedroom window, its belches keeping me awake many nights, left a lasting impression which the film reminded me of.
Yes, there’s a strange beauty to these industrial monoliths, but if Antonioni really intended the film to be an ode to the machines, he fooled me.
agree with Deckard, plus this would have to be one of the most ripped off films out there.
Th use of fog, the looming docks etc. all been used countless times before in the films of Angelopoulos, and even recently with Liverpool.
I think Antonioni also used the whole ‘but i wanted to show the beauty’ rebuttal as a way of making his film less obvious to read. not to say that he doesn’t do this btw, but if he did, it makes the fate of Giuliana seem very cruel indeed.
if it’s a beauty, it’s a bleak beauty, for sure. an acquired taste ;-)
In response to some of Blazes Boylans’ inquiries and confusions…
First off, I think the last line of the film dispels the notion that Antonioni is purveying any sort of pro-innovation/technology sentiment—if this is what is being questioned in this thread. The majority of the film that precedes it seems to strongly, logically indicate that the line is coming to us from Antonioni as well as Giuliana. Imagery can be beautiful whilst still being damaging and dehumanizing in its actual function. There is the aesthetic aspect, and then there is the practical, logistical reality of the content of the imagery. This disparity is what we’re dealing with in this film. Antonioni accentuates the curious beauty of the oppressive and as some have stated, almost at times terrifying industrial landscape. Yet this shouldn’t be read as endorsement of it. Again, the film seems to run highly contrary to such a notion. Much of the film deals with the conflict of nature and technology, and of people with nature. It also outlines a juxtaposition of nature and technology in which we see the technological landscape enact its own sort of new nature—being constructed by humans— yet a nature that cannot, of course, support and sustain humans as nature does.
(I’m aware the last few things here are cheaply vague and shorthanded, per your frustrations with vague readings of the film, but it’s the best I can manage at present. I’m just trying to set up the next few points…)
In the filmed interview included on the Criterion release of the film, Antonioni states that whether or not one has an issue with innovation, one can’t fight it, so one must cope with it, and adapt to it. This is what Vitti’s character has trouble doing. Finally, she seems to find a sort of contentment, or stability with the world around her. I’ve personally always viewed the ending as quite positive to this end. Her statement is a epiphany of sorts. The problems that surround the fact of a damaging and dehumanizing environment are not gone, but the torturous dissonance she has regarding it is. Her son asks the simple question and she can finally give a simple answer. She can name the thing that was once a blurry oppressive mass.
She makes sense out of the terror and alienating muddle of existence, which sort of what Antonioni does by finding a strange component of poetry and grace in the cold and maybe menacing landscape of Ravenna.
Deckard Croix – I don’t need to feel connected to the characters, I love Godard’s later films. I expected some sort of wall between me and them, but the film itself eluded me. I just don’t know what he was doing. At first I was worried that I understood completely, that it was just nothing new to me. I had read other posts including the ‘abstraction & ennui’ one and it seems like I just got caught up in the ‘alienation/industry/bourgeois decadence’ baloney like so many others. I’m gonna see it again, hopefully without blinders.
And yes! Stupid to watch this first. The only reason I’m here is because my interest has rekindled after reading about Blow Up (specifically) and his trilogy.
Dada Weatherman – I guess the film just isn’t for me. I already saw all that in my first viewing. Like I said about seeing those ‘things’, alienation and industrial modernity; I heard the film was about all that… and it sure was… but that’s all I felt. It was what I heard it was.
Curious… was anyone ‘moved’ by it? I understand that a film doesn’t need to ‘move’ or make the audience fight back emotions. Just curious. Giuliana’s story was good. Romantic, idyllic, beautiful after all the smog.
The thing I liked the most was the ‘scream’ that’s heard. I remember hearing it and wondering if it was a scream, and dismissing it as machine-noise the second time it’s heard. And of course they argue over it, and what does it say about them? The 2 men are either ‘adapted’ or no longer able to feel human compassion (does it matter if it was real or not?)… or both. Ugo is adapted, but “something of a robot”. Giuliana’s worried… for another human being. Material progress is more and more indifferent to humans.
For me, I wasn’t necessarily “moved” by the narrative, but it’s a wonderfully stylistic film. It’s one of those films where I appreciate the craft much more than the ‘narrative’ (such as it is) and I think that was Antonioni’s focus anyway. But we’re (as the audience) also following the perspective of Guiliana who’s detached and bewildered by, as stated earlier, the technological juxtaposition of convenience and destruction. And there isn’t really a “conflict” per se except that which is in her own battling emotions – it’s a psychological conflict (and of course, a far-reaching impact on the world, but the film isn’t about the “world” directly but Guiliana’s world, which involves the rest of us indirectly); and the lack of a straight-forward conflict in a film can hurt it a great deal especially in terms of accessibility.
And I personally don’t really find the film too literal, but rather highly symbolic. For me, the whole industrialization aspect of it is merely representative of Giuliana’s inner turmoil.
It’s like with Greenaway’s Prospero’s Books (another film I wasn’t really ‘moved’ by emotionally), he’s not really revealing anything necessarily “new” about the old Shakespeare play, but the way he approaches the subject is breathtaking and innovative.
The scene with the “scream” is intriguing but for some reason it doesn’t interest me much because it’s just a bludgeoning way of reiterating what’s already being said in the film. Giuliana is presented in the film as being more “in-tune” with her surroundings and, like most of those who are more sensitive to such things than the commonality, she is powerless to change how things are. She has been granted (in this film at least) the ability to see what we now consider “mundane” in a different context, a personal context. This is what the scream signifies for me – a lone voice crying in the wilderness, heard by everyone, yet dismissed as the product of a fevered imagination. This is the great tragedy of the film, no one will see through Giuliana’s eyes … except us of course.
Read the subtitles. They help me understand the film when it’s in an unfamiliar language.
Mathew (sic)
Antonioni said Ugo was something of a robot. Of course Giuliana’s an opposite extreme, but still a robot who doesn’t intelligently question her fears. Is Zeller in the middle? I couldn’t say, I don’t really remember.
Aren’t all human’s either going to lay down and let this dehumanization… dehumanize them… like Ugo and the sheepish masses; or instinctively distrust it, suffer, and potentially fall away from everyone else like Giuliana?
If that’s the case then what is the purpose of this material progress, and why was Antonioni so accepting of it? Those who question it will suffer more than those who don’t. We all either end up with a blissful ignorance or a hellish lucidity. Actually it’s worse, Giuliana suffers a hellish ignorance. Where’s the good? Shouldn’t material progress only serve what’s inside people? I can’t believe Antonioni. Did anybody not sense a mistrust of the modern world? This is the only Antonioni film I’ve seen and you can see I’m confused. What is this film?