Big Duhhh?

email this story
read comments (37)
post a comment

Which director working today is the ultimate anti-Antonioni? A filmmaker who not only expresses an overwhelming indifference to the "haunting nothingness" element woven into the films of Michelangelo Antonioni, but whose films seem to be strenuously arguing with this -- films that seem to say over and over that there's no such thing as spiritual ennui or alienation, and that each and every particle of each and every moment in our lives is filled with vibrancy and connectivity. Or should I ask if there's any filmmaker at all out there who seems to be at least aware of this age-old current? Or has "nothingness" become so prevalent that alluding to it in any way, shape or form would be regarded by audiences as a big "duhhh"?

Antonioni is dead<< previous | next >>Maxim-Screen Gems horndog movies

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on July 31, 2007 at 11:07 AM

comment #1

MAGGA says ...

The movie Amelie seems very focused on meaning in everything and anything. Pointing out the positives is as meaningful as nothingness, in my opinion.

Posted by MAGGA at July 31, 2007 11:25 AM

comment #2

jeffmcm says ...

Michael Bay is pretty much the perfect example of a filmmaker in strenuous denial that there's anything to life outside of reptile-brain pleasures like explosions and bare midriffs.

Shyamalan is a pretty big offender on the front of trying to prove that everything is connected and wonderful and he has things all figured out.

Posted by jeffmcm at July 31, 2007 11:32 AM

comment #3

Josh Massey says ...

This post is an underhand softball to D.Z....

Posted by Josh Massey at July 31, 2007 11:33 AM

comment #4

dcc77 says ...

The romantic comedy genre and all its dramamtic practitioners are fervently anti-Antonioni. I indict Nancy Meyers, because her sanitized, morally bankrupt film The Holiday was so bad it knocked my girlfriend out of the mood during a recent viewing. Some might call MA's style deliberate (i.e. slow) but he delivered his version of truth, never disposable narrative gloss.

Posted by dcc77 at July 31, 2007 11:35 AM

comment #5

Craig Kennedy says ...

Maybe I just don't understand the question, but I'd rather turn it around in a positive direction think of the directors who are the most Antonioni like.

The first one that comes to mind is David Lynch for his ability to look into the void and for having the balls to tell about it without providing safe, concrete answers.

Posted by Craig Kennedy at July 31, 2007 11:49 AM

comment #6

Craig Kennedy says ...

Wow, that didn't come out right at all but I don't know how to say it any better. Please forget I opened my mouth.

Posted by Craig Kennedy at July 31, 2007 11:55 AM

comment #7

source188 says ...

Tarantino.

Posted by source188 at July 31, 2007 11:56 AM

comment #8

kadoogan says ...

Cameron Crowe. Not that there's anything wrong with Crowe. I own several of his movies, but if there's anyone that likes to spit in the eye of nothingness, I'd defintiely say it's him.

Posted by kadoogan at July 31, 2007 12:01 PM

comment #9

erniesouchak says ...

Baz Luhrmann

Posted by erniesouchak at July 31, 2007 12:19 PM

comment #10

Marcello says ...

This is an interesting question. I have no idea what it means, and I'm not sure I accept the premise. But it's interesting.

Mike Leigh's characters tend to reach out, however clumsily, toward some kind of connection. "Life Is Sweet," "All Or Nothing" and "Secrets & Lies," at least, feel close to being about something that's the opposite of alienation (in those cases, caring families).

Posted by Marcello at July 31, 2007 12:27 PM

comment #11

Rich S. says ...

Shouldn't Mike Binder be chiming in on this? Both Upside of Anger and Reign Over Me explored some of the themes of alienation Jeffrey's talking about.

Posted by Rich S. at July 31, 2007 12:37 PM

comment #12

frankbooth says ...

Cj,

Your comment makes perfect sense. I was thinking the exact same thing.

As for the anti-Antonionis, Bay and his ilk are the obvious choices. But (and it pains me to say this) I'd have to include Peter Jackson.

I love Braindead, Heavenly Creatures is a huge artisitc leap forward for him, and the LOTR movies are an amazing achievement, as good as the genre has ever gotten onscreen. Kong is not a total disaster -- there's nothing wrong with it a good (severe) editing job couldn't fix. But more and more often, he tends to spell out and underline every...single...moment, and it can be exhausting. Each scene is treated like its own mini-movie, with a conflict and reslution within it. Example: Naomi at the restaurant with Jack Black. She needs the job, we KNOW she's going on the boat, and yet it's unnessecarily drawn-out in a contrived manner to generate false suspense. He does this over and over. Has Frodo been stabbed? Will Samwise drown? Uh-oh, Aragorn fell off a cliff! There's enough conflict inherent in the material without faking it.

And then there's the general obviousness of his technique, every scene cranked up to eleven. Theoden can't just be under the thrall of Wormtongue. He has to be possessed, with long, scary fingernails and milky eyes. Wormtongue himself must look like a zombie coated in grease, as if the casting if Brad Dourif weren't enough of a signifier that he's a creep. And so on.

I realize that in some ways it's not his fault--it's the natural legacy of years of Spielberg and Cameron and the need to constantly turn up the intensity to keep the ADD generation from tuning out. These Transformers fans are cinematic crack babies, and they have to be catered to. But I really hope PJ gets over this, because he has real talent.

Disclaimer: the above long-winded diatribe is not intended to be construed as a personal attack on any persons, places or institutions.

Posted by frankbooth at July 31, 2007 12:44 PM

comment #13

bagelfilm says ...

Remember: "Claude Hooper Bukowski
Finds that it's groovy
To hide in a movie
Pretends he's Fellini
And Antonioni
And also his countryman Roman Polanski
All rolled into one
One Claud Hooper Bukowski"

The Anti-Antonioni is Quentino Tarantoni.

Posted by bagelfilm at July 31, 2007 12:47 PM

comment #14

bagelfilm says ...

Remember: "Claude Hooper Bukowski
Finds that it's groovy
To hide in a movie
Pretends he's Fellini
And Antonioni
And also his countryman Roman Polanski
All rolled into one
One Claud Hooper Bukowski"

The Anti-Antonioni is Quentino Tarantoni.

Posted by bagelfilm at July 31, 2007 12:47 PM

comment #15

MilkMan says ...

McG
Ed Burns
Brett Ratner
Frank Coraci
Steven Spielberg
Penny/Garry Marshall
Robert Luketic
Luc Besson
Robert Rodriguez
Tony Scott
Joe Carnahan
Jan De Bont
Marcus Nispel
James Cameron
Paul Haggis
Ron Howard

Posted by MilkMan at July 31, 2007 1:00 PM

comment #16

jeffmcm says ...

"The Anti-Antonioni is Quentino Tarantoni"

In my opinion, this is only true if you think of Antonioni as defined by dourness, pompousness, and a lack of cinematic joy.

Posted by jeffmcm at July 31, 2007 1:01 PM

comment #17

Mr. Muckle says ...

I've got to go with Mel Gibson.

Posted by Mr. Muckle at July 31, 2007 1:10 PM

comment #18

Mr B says ...

I must not understand the question because to me the answer is Alejandro GonzÃƒÂ¡lez IÃƒÂ±ÃƒÂ¡rritu, not Michael Bay et al.

Posted by Mr B at July 31, 2007 1:10 PM

comment #19

Mr B says ...

whoops, seems it doesn't like my chaqracters, I emant to type: Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu

Posted by Mr B at July 31, 2007 1:12 PM

comment #20

Mr B says ...

whoops, seems it doesn't like my characters, I meant to type: Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu

Posted by Mr B at July 31, 2007 1:12 PM

comment #21

MAGGA says ...

And I was just about to get into the mood of rewatching some Antonioni. This kind of discussion takes all interest away, even if it is not at all the fault of the filmmaker. So a filmmaker describes nothingness brilliantly and so every director who believes that things, even smaller things, contain meaning is some kind of anti-christ. There are different approaches to making a film, and all are valuable if done well.

Posted by MAGGA at July 31, 2007 1:24 PM

comment #22

DavidF says ...

Just to back a bit too FrankBooth's comment. I agree with some of it for sure but some of those LOTR criticisms come straight out of the book.
I mean, Brad Dourif or not, the dude's name is Wormtongue.
(And, c'mon, that morph when Theoden is freed is as subtle and beautiful a special effect as there is in those movies.)
Frodo does get almost-killed mutiple times in the book etc.

Jackson has just come off of too mega-epic labours of love. I think once we see The Lovely Bones we'll have a better sense of who he (ie whether Heavenly Creatures was a blip or a sign of true mastery with more to come.)

Posted by DavidF at July 31, 2007 1:40 PM

comment #23

gruver1 says ...

The Ultimate anti-Antonioni is Peter Jackson. The spiritual current in every one of his films except for Heavenly Creatures is about energy for energy's sake without a second's thought for anything else.

Posted by gruver1 at July 31, 2007 1:54 PM

comment #24

jeffmcm says ...

I politely disagree. Critics and audiences wouldn't have responded to Jackson's movies as they did if they were as vacuous as you suggest. Once again: Michael Bay, whose movies are about nothing.

Posted by jeffmcm at July 31, 2007 1:57 PM

comment #25

Rich S. says ...

"The Ultimate anti-Antonioni is Peter Jackson."

Like we couldn't see this one coming up Sixth Avenue.

Posted by Rich S. at July 31, 2007 2:02 PM

comment #26

MAGGA says ...

(Sigh)

Posted by MAGGA at July 31, 2007 2:09 PM

comment #27

christian says ...

The Ultimate anti-Antonioni is now...

Antonioni.

Posted by christian at July 31, 2007 2:27 PM

comment #28

JC says ...

I'm not sure Jeff is asking for box office ruling uber-hacks, like Bay. I think he's looking for filmmakers whose movies would be safely programmed in a double bill next to Antonioni's without embarrasing anyone. On the living front, I'm not sure there is a match. No one seems to be seriously considering matters of faith and the absense of God. GonzÃƒÂ¡lez is all about connectedness, but the God issue remains safely outside of his dramatic realm. Maybe the Dardenne brothers. Cheating a little bit and diggging in the graveyard, I think you'd find a better match in Krzysztof Kieslowski. Faith in God and human connection soaks every frame of his movies, specially the Three Colors Trilogy. Like Antonioi, he films the material world as an extension of the inner lives of his characters. Those are spiritual films even an atheist could love.

Posted by JC at July 31, 2007 2:33 PM

comment #29

le corbeau says ...

I find most of Antonioni's films frustrating but I grant that he was a great filmmaker in at least a certain sense-- he taught the movies to stare, to be in the moment and not rush along to the next scene. Many of the truly great movies of the 60s wouldn't exist without him-- the difference between Bridge on the River Kwai and Lawrence of Arabia is L'Avventura; it's the difference between Spartacus and 2001, too, and between A Fistful of Dollars and Once Upon a Time in the West, and-- apropos of the other recent passing-- between The Seventh Seal and The Silence.

Of course movies now are all about rushing to the next scene, about chopping the moment to bits of sensation. So Bay, Stone, anybody whose work is about throwing something new in your face every second or two is the anti-Antonioni.

Posted by le corbeau at July 31, 2007 2:34 PM

comment #30

lazarus says ...

First filmmaker that came to mind, and I'm surprised hasn't been mentioned already, is Paul Thomas Anderson. Already considered a touchy-feely variation of Altman, Magnolia is the clearest opposite to the vibe I get from Antonioni, where everyone (and everything) is connected, and there are answers to our questions if you look hard enough.

Posted by lazarus at July 31, 2007 3:05 PM

comment #31

Craig Kennedy says ...

"the difference between Bridge on the River Kwai and Lawrence of Arabia is L'Avventura; it's the difference between Spartacus and 2001, too, and between A Fistful of Dollars and Once Upon a Time in the West"

Wow, I really like that.

I've always been frustrated by Antonioni as well, and yet his movies are oddly compelling even though I can never explain why. I find I get the most out of them when I just surrender instead of worrying about analysis and classification. Fruity I know, but there you go.

I still don't know exactly what Jeff means by an anti-Antonioni nor am I convinced it's an inherently bad thing. Antonioni does his thing and Jackson does his. The two can co-exist peacefully in my opinion without one lessening the other.

If you accept the idea of an Antonioni film as being about nothingness, then Bay is an interesting suggestion. His films ARE nothingness. Again, not that there's anything wrong with that.

Posted by Craig Kennedy at July 31, 2007 3:54 PM

comment #32

T. Holly says ...

Steve Carr is THE ULTIMATE Anti-Antonioni.

Posted by T. Holly at July 31, 2007 5:03 PM

comment #33

Matthew Lucas says ...

Miranda July's "Me and You and Everyone We Know."

Posted by Matthew Lucas at July 31, 2007 7:46 PM

comment #34

frankbooth says ...

Have I given the appearance of being on the same side as Mr. Wells here? (Maybe I should suck up as a get-out-jail-free card for the next time he starts arbitrarily smiting readers...)

To David F and all the other Rings fans: you'd obviously have to be a fairly big geek to zero in on specifics the way I did. I own the extended edition DVDs (there go my suck-up points). That tendency to drive home every minute of every scene is the one thing that annoys me about the films, which are very successful -- in every sense -- adaptations of virtually unadaptable material, and it's even more pronounced in Kong. I just don't want to see a talented director dig himself into a bottomless pit.

You don't see me saying this about the Bays and Sommers's and Ratners of the world, because I think they have nothing to lose. They never had potential to piss away.

Disclaimer blah blah blah oh just go ahead and zap me.

Posted by frankbooth at August 1, 2007 12:21 AM

comment #35