Michelangelo Antonioni is often referred to as a director whose work is not for all tastes. Well, what artist is? What the utterer of such sentiments usually means is that they do not 'like' his films, because they are not filled with insipid action, worse dialogue, lack of character development, etc. In fact, some critics of Antonioni even claim that his characters are all warped and one dimensional loners, potential Lee Harvey Oswald types bathed in depression and anomy. What this evidences is that the critic has not really watched the film, or confuses a character that is confused with a confused portrayal of the character. Callow critics often mistake the thing itself for how it is presented. A good example of this tendency is Antonioni's 1964 film The Red Desert (Il Deserto Rosso), his first film shot in color.
The film is lauded as a great example of the use of color, or an expressionistic or impressionistic work of art (apparently critics cannot decide, again proving they do not even know what the terms mean), but then dismissed as slow, dull, or that old stand by, 'It's like watching paint dry.' Well, only if you're an idiot, or think that the lowest common denominator crap of a Steven Spielberg is somehow an example of 'genius.' As with Stanley Kubrick's later magisterial 2001: A Space Odyssey, this film does not lack a narrative, nor is the narrative poor. It is simply a different form of narrative, and an outstanding example of such. Yet, even The Red Desert's boosters often make the error of stating that Antonioni is 'more interested in shapes and spaces than character.' Not so, for how those characters enter certain spaces, what those spaces are, and how they act and react within those spaces is essential to the story, which is the depiction of how human beings react to the permanence of loneliness in the stasis of change. Although often lumped together with Antonioni's L'Alienation Trilogy (L'Avventura, La Notte, and L'Eclisse), this hour and fifty-three minute long film transcends those three because, by film's end, the protagonist has learnt how to survive, and will. The heroes of the earlier films all flounder, founder, or despair at their plights.
It is, in fact, a remarkable script, penned by Antonioni and Tonino Guerra- who also created great films with Federico Fellini and Theo Angelopoulos, thus positioning himself as one of the greatest screenwriters in cinema history (alongside Ingmar Bergman and Woody Allen). And, whereas the use of color is often lauded as 'beautiful,' there is very little said as to why it's beautiful, and that's not because of the colors themselves, but how they contrast with the desaturated world the characters inhabit- such as a fruit stand that appears early on in the film, yet all the fruit appear grayish, as if covered with a mold. The reason for this is that the world is being portrayed subjectively, but from an objective perspective. This is so the audience can sense some of what Giuliana (Monica Vitti) is sensing without having to couch all of that in predictable point of view shots from her perspective. It is a technique that accomplishes what it attempts, but so successfully that few viewers and critics seem to even realize this fact . there is no denying that Antonioni avoids cheap sentimentality; but this lack only adds to the deeper takes that his camera eye allows the viewer. The characters do not willfully slough off emotions with ease, as in so many wannabe droll Postmodern Hollywood takes (think any Bill Murray film and character). Instead, as in the best films of Stanley Kubrick and Theo Angelopoulos- two other filmmakers accused of lacking character insight and narrative strength, this allows Antonioni's characters to fully humanize- not merely artificially preen before the camera. We see them think, reject, regret, observe, and many other things. While this bores some simply for the act of doing so, to an astute lover of art, it is how these things are done that matter, not if they are done. And Antonioni does these things superbly, making every glance, facial tic, sigh, etc., count for something that is a throwaway in lesser films.
If the 18th Century was the century where poetry was the dominant narrative art form, the 19th Century was dominated by the novel, and last century was owned by the film- especially those of giants like Antonioni. What art form will take the mantle this century may not have even been developed, but it will have a hell of a long way to go to match the greatness of a film like this, for, with each successive art form, the complexity of the narrative increased, even if poetry today is almost solely lyrical; thus not even competing in the same area. The Red Desert stands not only as a triumph in the master's oeuvre, to equal his other masterworks, La Notte and Blowup, but as one of the great films and art works of all time, equal to the very best, and superior to most- be they the best plays of Shakespeare, the best symphonies of Beethoven, or the best paintings of Picasso. Trust me on this, for time will avail both this work of cinema, and my assessment.
The film is lauded as a great example of the use of color, or an expressionistic or impressionistic work of art (apparently critics cannot decide, again proving they do not even know what the terms mean), but then dismissed as slow, dull, or that old stand by, 'It's like watching paint dry.' Well, only if you're an idiot, or think that the lowest common denominator crap of a Steven Spielberg is somehow an example of 'genius.' As with Stanley Kubrick's later magisterial 2001: A Space Odyssey, this film does not lack a narrative, nor is the narrative poor. It is simply a different form of narrative, and an outstanding example of such. Yet, even The Red Desert's boosters often make the error of stating that Antonioni is 'more interested in shapes and spaces than character.' Not so, for how those characters enter certain spaces, what those spaces are, and how they act and react within those spaces is essential to the story, which is the depiction of how human beings react to the permanence of loneliness in the stasis of change. Although often lumped together with Antonioni's L'Alienation Trilogy (L'Avventura, La Notte, and L'Eclisse), this hour and fifty-three minute long film transcends those three because, by film's end, the protagonist has learnt how to survive, and will. The heroes of the earlier films all flounder, founder, or despair at their plights.
It is, in fact, a remarkable script, penned by Antonioni and Tonino Guerra- who also created great films with Federico Fellini and Theo Angelopoulos, thus positioning himself as one of the greatest screenwriters in cinema history (alongside Ingmar Bergman and Woody Allen). And, whereas the use of color is often lauded as 'beautiful,' there is very little said as to why it's beautiful, and that's not because of the colors themselves, but how they contrast with the desaturated world the characters inhabit- such as a fruit stand that appears early on in the film, yet all the fruit appear grayish, as if covered with a mold. The reason for this is that the world is being portrayed subjectively, but from an objective perspective. This is so the audience can sense some of what Giuliana (Monica Vitti) is sensing without having to couch all of that in predictable point of view shots from her perspective. It is a technique that accomplishes what it attempts, but so successfully that few viewers and critics seem to even realize this fact . there is no denying that Antonioni avoids cheap sentimentality; but this lack only adds to the deeper takes that his camera eye allows the viewer. The characters do not willfully slough off emotions with ease, as in so many wannabe droll Postmodern Hollywood takes (think any Bill Murray film and character). Instead, as in the best films of Stanley Kubrick and Theo Angelopoulos- two other filmmakers accused of lacking character insight and narrative strength, this allows Antonioni's characters to fully humanize- not merely artificially preen before the camera. We see them think, reject, regret, observe, and many other things. While this bores some simply for the act of doing so, to an astute lover of art, it is how these things are done that matter, not if they are done. And Antonioni does these things superbly, making every glance, facial tic, sigh, etc., count for something that is a throwaway in lesser films.
If the 18th Century was the century where poetry was the dominant narrative art form, the 19th Century was dominated by the novel, and last century was owned by the film- especially those of giants like Antonioni. What art form will take the mantle this century may not have even been developed, but it will have a hell of a long way to go to match the greatness of a film like this, for, with each successive art form, the complexity of the narrative increased, even if poetry today is almost solely lyrical; thus not even competing in the same area. The Red Desert stands not only as a triumph in the master's oeuvre, to equal his other masterworks, La Notte and Blowup, but as one of the great films and art works of all time, equal to the very best, and superior to most- be they the best plays of Shakespeare, the best symphonies of Beethoven, or the best paintings of Picasso. Trust me on this, for time will avail both this work of cinema, and my assessment.