Blow-Up

I said Blow Up inspired them which is true probably, i wasn't comparing the quality. I wouldn't really call those 2 art films, they are genre films.
>look at me I have symbolism look haha look mimes in a car dude the symbolism duuude I'm so smart oh bro you wanted a conclusion no way bro haha you wanted a real story with a satisfying payoff haha fuck you imperalist
You probably shouldn't watch this type of films. Also you seem like a quite a brainlet since you need a satisfying payoff to everything.

never seen Blow Out, how would you have ended blow up? i think it was an ok ending even if it was a bit on the nose.

>but he's definitely not for everybody
Yes, this is probably it.

There wasn't a general yesterday i think, otherwise there were few threads which hit a pretty high amount of replies.

>Also you seem like a quite a brainlet since you need a satisfying payoff to everything
>haha bro you want to enjoy the movies you watch what a brainlet haha geniuses like me know that truly great movies have to be boring slogs

Boring is not a criticism, maybe you just have ADHD since you can't focus for 2 hours.

This movie captures everything one must hate about the boomers.

The ending is fine I guess for the kind of movie it was. My main gripe is really that so much stuff remains unresolved that the whole movie feels like a cheat. Almost nothing we think might happen ever actually comes to pass, so Antonioni never has to prove that he had a coherent story and wasn't just making it up as he went along to push his "symbolism." There's nothing wrong with a symbolic undercurrent as long as it flows beneath a plot. What is the point of symbolism if it's a boneheadedly obvious circlejerk?

Sorry, I forgot you were the criticism police and only your approved arguments are allowed here

The plot doesn't really matter. It's not like Antonioni's other films are plot heavy. It's about perception and the power of perception. Was the body really there? It's about how we perceive reality, how the reality may be skewed. L'Avventura involves disappearance of one of the main characters, it's not explained what happened to her because the movie is not about that. Not everything has to be explained and you can fill in some blanks yourself, also Blow-Up is not only empty symbolism. The film nicely captures atmosphere of 1960s London.
>Almost nothing we think might happen ever actually comes to pass
How is this a bad thing? If i want to watch some conventional thriller there are plenty to choose from.
Now you know. I hope it won't happen again.

Blow out is a much better film

everything this poster said is correct
don't watch movies that ask you to think for yourself if you don't like thinking

I disagree. But i like Blow Out too.

I'm sorry but Blow up had an awesome concept and did literally nothing with it and Blow out had actual emotion, anticipation, characters and it developed the concept in a very intersting way. Blow up only has "muh symbolism" going for it.

>Antonioni's other movies are shit so that means it's ok for this one to be shit too
>there aren't many movies like Blow Up so its scarcity automatically makes it good
The summary of your argument. But I see why you tards like this stuff. It's the pinnacle of LOOK MOM IM AN ART FILM and it gives people like you a way to feel superior in a world that knows you aren't

Blow Out is the movie you watch for yourself. Blow Up is the movie you watch to tell your cinephile subreddit you watched it for internet points.

Your arguments aren't any better. You just want a standard plot and not having to think about anything.
>Antonioni's other movies are shit so that means it's ok for this one to be shit too
Yes, not being plot heavy means that it's shit. Are you actually retarded, or are you only pretending to be retarded? No wonder this board is full of GoT and capeshit threads when such retards as you, who are unable to watch film which doesn't explain everything to you, post here.
>it gives people like you a way to feel superior in a world that knows you aren't
Nice projection. Just continue to watch films with the exact same plots, plot beats and everything. God forbids that some films actually don't follow established film structure and framework. Seems like you can't cope with that.

The reason people end up moving to bottom of the barrel genre B-pictures, stuff like Dwain Esper movies, Poverty Row thrillers and westerns, lesser kung fu, 50s monster movies, and especially '80s slashers, is because the enjoyment comes out of your own individual experience assigning meaning to the symbols of the movie, using them in self-reflection. Interpretation is an activity, not a passive experience like simply listening to a story as it's being told. These, of course, are movies where there is NO intent from the filmmaker besides making a commercial product. Movies of the sort Antonioni makes, where self-regulated interpretation is suggested to the audience by the filmmaker intentionally, are a gateway to that sort of movie-watching. Personal, active, engaged movie-watching. You already know this.

We're not the same pearson, Blow up is the only Antonioni film I've seen and it doesn't make me want to watch the rest.

Sorry about that then. I assumed he was samefagging. Try watching La Notte it's more of a character focused drama with most of his directional trademarks present. It moves quite quickly and it's a very good study of one relationship.

I agree with you, many people look for an objective answer to a subjective medium

Bump

Attached: quote-art-has-to-be-severe-it-cannot-be-commercial-it-cannot-be-for-the-producer-or-even-for-vittori (850x400, 62K)

It created the whole "frenetic fashion photographer" archetype.

You are right user.Antonioni Films Need some gun fights ,car chases and an exploding helicopter to be good.

>If you have seen any other Antonioni films are they as good as this?
No. This is the best one, and the only one that counts that's not tedious as hell.

Alienation trilogy is great, Red Desert is decent, Zabriskie Point i wasn't a big fan of and The Passenger is a very interesting film. His films before alienation trilogy are also worth a watch.
But La Notte and L'Ecslisse are much better. L'Eclisse is one of the most interesting films ever.

ANTONIONIONIO

Attached: 1160223C-D2CA-4C56-AD43-8A8459F3E5C1.jpg (2400x2400, 713K)

Is that a description of Zabriskie Point or The Passenger?

Based Welles doing a better Antonioni mock than Antonioni in TOSOTW

Cringe

Bump

TOSOTOSOTOSOTOSOTOSOTOSOTW

I guess I'm destined to pleb with enjoying Italian popular cinema from that era but being unable to get into the artsier stuff. I'll take films dealing with alienation, ennui, existential aimlessness, or whatever, but I need somebody going around killing supermodels or unhinged loose cannon cops to draw me in.

L'Avventura is really good and I'm sure La Notte and L'Eclisse are worth checking out too- all a loose trilogy.

What artsier stuff have you seen?

Kek

explain

he doesn't like their hair or clothes

>Blow Out
>Good
It turns into a generic slasher towards the end.

god, Yea Forums is awful

Nah, it has a great ending

The ending is fine. But it's literally a generic slasher. It becomes the genre the movie makes fun of.

Why?

But it's still good and fun.

The only other movie of his I've seen is Zabriskie Point but I liked Blow-Up more. I saw both films because of the Yardbirds and Pink Floyd. Blow-Up seems unsatisfying because the most important event in the film (the murder) happens offscreen and is told through the photographs he took. Zabriskie Point is a lot more straightforward and with a satisfying ending especially if you want explosions and stuff with Pink Floyd playing in the background.

Foreign and indie films are mostly shit.

Foreign films. Luchino Visconti made a few good ones, as did Ingmar Bergman, but the shit far outweighs the gold.

Indie films. They're fucking depressing. Not much needs to be said about them other than that they're lazily shot and written. The film-maker's goal should not be to depress his audience as much as humanly possible but to uplift them. Tragedy isn't supposed to make you want to commit suicide after you're done experiencing it.

>Foreign films are mostly shit
that's at least like 75% of all film, you asshat
that might be the dumbest thing I've ever seen anyone ever say on this board

Attached: 1316905394001.jpg (600x450, 30K)

The only Antonioni film I've watched was L'Eclisse and I found everything about it extremely boring. From the characters to the setting to the dialogue to the music to the extremely unnecessary scenes at the stock exchange. The only good thing about it was the cinematography.

Considering schlockbusters made in the 80s and 90s (stuff you'd see on RLM) was so prolific, I would counter that 75% of all film is actually direct-to-VHS action-comedies shot on low-grade cameras.

Does that make them good? No. Film, as a medium, is not difficult to make when you get the right people together. The director or auteur can be a stupid child with stupid visions and the pretentious art snobs will praise his work because they want to be accepted. It's why Picasso and Pollack were famous.

man, you know NOTHING about movies
I mean fucking NOTHING
jesus christ
how fucking old are you????

Only worth watching for Monica Vitti.

Maybe you went to film school, but I went to movies.

Attached: still-of-monica-vitti-in-leclisse-tv-9ffc2b8e498c780e06296987c36453cb-large-681950-1280x930.jpg (1280x930, 90K)

>Only worth watching for Monica Vitti.
this

Attached: vitti.webm (1280x694, 2.49M)

did you actually WATCH them, or were you just napping?
and was that all you did, watch a few movies and then assume you knew everything??
I've watched 8000 movies (300 so far this year), and I'm just scratching the surface
I don't think you have any idea of HOW MANY types of movies, let alone movies overall, that there are
and it honestly doesn't sound like you even like movies. It sounds like you just like being told that you're smart when you haven't earned it.
that's fine, I don't care what YOU think, I just hope there are other people reading this thread who will know to point and laugh at you also.
Foreign films are mostly shit, holy fuck, hahahahahaha

Attached: caeka6mp7hanw83gwqs4.png (1238x1238, 647K)

The most retarded shit i have read this month. No wonder this board is so pleb.
The scenes at the stock exchange are not
unnecessary. You chose the worst starting point, L'Eclisse is one of his most challenging films. It's almost an experimental film because of its elusive structure.

Every part of her face is perfectly proportioned.

kek look at this newfag

good night, funny bunny
you're really fucked

never come back to Yea Forums you stupid child

Attached: whatsgoingon.jpg (470x243, 19K)

buenas tardes, uno retardo

>The scenes at the stock exchange are not
unnecessary.
Explain to me how 30 minutes of dudes doing nothing but screaming at each other about stocks wasn't "unnecessary".

Strange question, i watched this a while ago, but isnt this film a statement saying that film is now completely post-modern and that all objective meaning is being thrown out of the window from now on and only the thoughts of the viewer matter?

Seems like a pretty boring post-modern stance to me. Im sure it was revolutionary when the film came out but it has been explored so much since that it has become a cliche in itself.

>Which one his films had a scene at a bank? With everyone freezing? I completely blocked it.
you're thinking of The landscape in the mist. Really strange film. Better than Blow out imo.

Ignore this weepy little cukk. Let's talk about sexy foreign film girls.

youtube.com/watch?v=9muBm_Twm1U

Bardot's another obvious pick.

Attached: bardot.jpg (540x765, 66K)

also the scene
youtu.be/Rxq0t_1_2og

I don't think it's 30 minutes. But the film is not structured like a normal film, nor is it paced like one. Antonioni has a backround in docs and the film merges both expressionistic style and doc style. The stock exchange shit is mostly the doc style. You can't really look at this film like on a normal film, the film is essentially a series of digressions. It's not plot heavy it's just series of events. The first act you have Vittoria and Riccardo, second act you have Vittoria, third act is Piero, fourth act is Vittoria and Piero, ending is none of them. Well the stock exchange scenes provide the chaos in the film once again the film is structured in a way where you have a calm scene and then kind of louder chaotic scene. The airplane scene= calm, followed by the stock exchange= chaotic. I think especially the second stock exchange scene provides very good feeling which runs through rest of the film, you could focus on any of the character there, everyone of them feels like you could just have a film about them. After that scene there is a digression which shows this, where Vittoria follows the fat man who lost money. I don't think Antonioni is terribly interested in how the stock exchange works, it just shows capitalism in different light, not as what you imagine. It's almost animalistic, just a bunch of dudes screaming at each other. I think you were bored, i was too the first time i have seen it, i didn't like the stock exchange scenes. The second and third time i have seen it, i was so swept up in the film that it didn't bother me. His films have this quality where you stop to perceive time. If you like them of course.
Theo Angelopoulos is great.

what is /ART/ opinion on Costa Gavras?
youtube.com/watch?v=RBiT0_poxEU

Z, The Confession and Missing are all good. Mad City was bad. I haven't seen the rest.

I liked Amen and The Capital

Emmanuelle Beart