MovieChat Forums > L'avventura (1961) Discussion > Complete waste of time

Complete waste of time

posted 17 years ago by robi1138-1
38 replies | jump to latest

Let me qualify two things before I support my opinion:

1. I love (and appreciate) "film-as-art" films. IMHO, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Apocalypse Now, Magnolia, Eyes Wide Shut, 8 1/2, and almost any film by Kurosawa or Zhang Yimou are some of my favorite films.

2. I did not finish watching this film...I only made it through about an hour and a half.

My first qualification is written simply to emphasize that I am a fan of film and do not deride something as "boring" simply because i don't understand the deeper meaning of a film. My second qualification is included because I have not finished the film and really shouldn't be offering my opinion on it...but of course, I will.

For any film to be successful, you have to have some type of connection with the character (even if he is evil, despicable, etc.) In M, the main character is a child molester whose pursuit by the law is compelling, but he is an empathetic character (to whatever degree) and this lends weight to the movie. Even if he wasn't, the hunt for him makes an interesting film. Dave Bowman (in 2001) is neither a sympathetic character nor a villain. He is quite emotionless throughout the film but there is still a connection made with the audience due to his predicament and the larger picture Kubrick is painting.

L'Avventura, on the other hand, is simply a picture about annoying, petty people...nothing more. It's arguable if the film is "wonderfully shot" (as I have read)...personally I found it to be adequate...neither wonderful nor pedestrian. The direction is better than average but not mind-blowing either.
So what is left? The story: a disappearance that doesn't get solved. That's fine by me if Antonioni has a higher purpose than simply depicting a mystery. Apparently he does, from what I've read. To sum it up succinctly: money can't buy you love and the decline of morals in 1960's society.

Is this message potrayed adequately? IMHO, not at all. In order to see this point, one must have some empathy towards the characters. Unfortunately, every single character in this film is a shallow, self-absorbed, a**hole (for lack of a more appropriate term). If they are meant to represent the lack of morals in 1960's society, they do a grand job. Does this make the film entertaining, thought-provoking, deep, and/or compelling? Absolutely not. I've never cared less about characters and what happens to them then I did in this film.

Very often films require multiple viewings to fully understand the whole picture being painted. Just as often films are devoid of anything interesting or entertaining on any level. This film falls into that latter category.

ADDED: Just wanted to add that now that I've seen La Dolce Vita (a film about similar topics) that L'Avventura appears even worse than before. La Dolce Vita is a far more interesting, artistic, and appealling take on similar subject matter (though it is a bit long).

[–] stephen-morton 15 years ago

I agree with you, OP. I am a college student who loves film as art, and I've been trying to watch as many of the "great films" as possible, reading reviews of them and trying to understand their unique messages and language. I enjoy plenty of foreign films and filmmakers, including Fellini, Renoir, Kurasawa, and Bergman.

But this film was boring and pointless.

I finished the whole thing in one sitting, and I'm glad I did just because it's considered so important and I wouldn't consider myself properly "educated" if I hadn't seen it, but I also feel I pretty much wasted two hours of my life. The movie was slow and eventless even by art-house standards, and there wasn't even any humor to keep my interest (with the possible exception of the 17-year-old "artist"). The characters were all appallingly uncaring, immoral, and weak, and I felt no connection to any of them.

The starting conflict of the missing girl was pretty interesting, but the characters' reactions were unbelievable and stupid (I knew they weren't going to find her going in, so that didn't bother me too much.) Some commenters/reviewers have talked about how the audience feels bad along with the characters as they forget Anna so quickly, but I was merely angered at the way the characters acted--I was reasonably invested in the search, and imagined how I would feel if my friend just disappeared, and nothing interesting came afterward to make me forget her.

I agree with the OP that existential ennui has been done much better in plenty of other movies, though I will admit that the cinematography was incredibly beautiful, and probably very difficult to accomplish on that rocky island. It's not the fault of modern blockbusters: This is exactly the type of movie that has trained Americans for years to dislike foreign films.

[–] queens2010 13 years ago

Yes, Renoir, Fellini, and Bergman are all important filmmakers, but they're also more accessible than Antonioni, not that it's a bad thing. Antonioni's films, however, require more patience and dare I say it, repeated viewings to fully understand and appreciate. Antonioni relies on visual language to express himself. Antonioni's films are meant to be viewed the way one would examine a painting in a museum. He is all about examining the image rather than following a plot or a narrative. The plot and narrative are there, but they're not central to an understanding of the film. I have this to say, duh, the narrative is not all that intricate or interesting, but it's irrelevant to understanding and appreciating the film.

[–] thebankteller01 14 years ago

I agree. The film is overrated pretentious dribble. It's the equivalent piece to Martel's The Headless Woman... another impossible film to like.

[–] RaymondRoman 14 years ago

I got to where you said you didn't finish watching the film, and then I didn't finish reading your opinion.

[–] Henry J Sosenite 13 years ago

I watched the whole thing, and although I don't agree with a lot of the OP's points, I agree with his/her sentiment. And unlike the OP, I have seen and enjoyed movies that can actually be compared to this one.

More idiocy: http://idontknowwhatsevensgoingon.blogspot.com

[–] rc-108 13 years ago

it was a difficult movie to watch.

the way I see it...just about everyone in the film is pretty much spiritually bankrupt.. their lives are hollow shells...going thru the motions...
looking for anything to let them feel alive.

Everything is superficial...and empty..such as that town they stopped at..

The men in the towns were just creepy around women....like dogs in heat.

interesting sad take on humanity.

[–] Errington_92 13 years ago

As some have said on this thread, this film is slow in its pace. Which is why I could not get into the film. In my opinion there were no stand out moments to keep me interested as a viewer.

"I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not".

[–] jnt-4 13 years ago

It's funny how differently people react to this film. Some people say they have difficulty enjoying slow films. I don't at all. Slow, uneventful films are generally the best. I totally disagree that every film must have at least one positive character the viewer can sympathise with and relate to - why?? Also, I completely disagree with what people in this thread have said about having to learn to appreciate a film like L'avventura and how you couldn't grasp its beauty when you see it for the first time. I watched it for the first time last night and thoroughly enjoyed every minute of it - a wonderful, beautiful film that even at 140 minutes never made me look at my watch and think "how much longer will it go on".

I actually think the opposite: if you don't enjoy films like this the first time round, there's probably not much point in trying again.

[–] cpuller-642-329716 13 years ago

Watched it all and I have no idea what this film is trying to tell me and why it couldnt do that in less than 2:30h.

I have seen one antonioni that fascinated me, zabriskie point but all the others that I watched disappointed me.

[–] Mixalidis 12 years ago

This should be a sticky before someone watches this movie without having a clue what to expect.

Yes, Renoir, Fellini, and Bergman are all important filmmakers, but they're also more accessible than Antonioni, not that it's a bad thing. Antonioni's films, however, require more patience and dare I say it, repeated viewings to fully understand and appreciate. Antonioni relies on visual language to express himself. Antonioni's films are meant to be viewed the way one would examine a painting in a museum. He is all about examining the image rather than following a plot or a narrative. The plot and narrative are there, but they're not central to an understanding of the film. I have this to say, duh, the narrative is not all that intricate or interesting, but it's irrelevant to understanding and appreciating the film.

The OP obviously missed the point. Still, I equally hated the movie. And no, just because it's a classic and supposedly deserves another watch, it won't get it from me (in near future). I am saying this because from some IMDB reviews you get the impression that many are intimidated by this movie since it's a classic, so they feel obliged to praise its technical values as they disliked pretty much everything.

[–] axelpuri-1 11 years ago

Well said jnt-4. I watched it today and there is so much to appreciate from such movies that are based in a different era. I find it rather amusing that people do not appreciate film for what its worth , movies that give us a picture of a different era and time and about the sensibilities of those people , their motivations, desires and such . and there is a lot to learn about the character of women from this movie and i can see nothing that we see has changed from the 60's . they are still the same

Infact i will watch again probably a year later to go deeper into the visual aspect of the film . I also thought the ending was stunning. I got a spine tingling sensation , and whenever that happens i know the movie has had a deep impact on me.

[–] kenny-164 11 years ago

axel,

At the risk of seeming to be rigidly formal, your general agreement with jnt-4 does not parse out whether you agree with his taking issue that L'avventura should be seen more than once. Now, of course the question really is for what reason it should be seen more than once, and there jnt-4 was not very clear, I think. But he did seem to take issue with such a recomnendation.

Perhaps this is a semantic issue, but I do think it deserves clarification.

Perhaps jnt should be understood to mean that this film can be understood and appreciated on first viewing. Of course I agree with that. But that does not really address whether the nature of this film is one that seems to suggest, or demand, perhaps even require?, additional viewings, depending on how strongly one chooses to describe such relation.

I think L'avventura certainly is a film that more than most bears repeated viewing. What makes it so?

When one watches a film the first time, particularly if one knows very little about it beforehand, the viewer I think inevitably uses that first experience to both make a basic assessment of the characters, their relations with each other, and what they are doing. What they are doing is another way of saying what is the plot? What is the narrative, and implicitly what do we understand the film's narrative structure to be, meaning how well does the film's structure convey what happens.

But in more thematically centered films, of which L'avventura is certainly one, it is difficult to use the approach a first time viewer uses and also adequately (that being a key word, of course) understand the film's themes and meaning.

I am certain those arguing for repeat viewings in effect are saying of course one can enjoy the film after only one viewing. I did so myself. But additional viewings certainly did help me better appreciate the film's thematic aspects, and from that its meaning. In this particular film that in turn led me to alter my view of significant characters in the film.

[–] axelpuri-1 11 years ago

Not wanting to asnwer on jnt's behalf what i think jnt meant was if you didnt get it the first time or dont like and cant appreciate slow films , the probability that you wont get it or like it the second time is very high. He obviously doesnt imply that you shouldnt watch it a second time incase you are inclined to derive something more a second time than what you got and didnt get the first time. The nature of this film obviously requires and demands a 2nd viewing for those people that enjoyed the pace and the art direction of this movie. for eg i didnt get the deeper aspect of the ending scene till i read the board and i will be keeping an eye out for such details during a second viewing . Hope that clears it up

[–] !!!deleted!!! (30498379) 12 years ago

It's funny how he says certain films need 2 viewings, yet he didn't even finish watching L'avventura.

Well, guess what, L'avventura is one of those films too.

[–] edshu33 12 years ago

Well, it's not for everyone. I found it far from a waste of time. I had rented the DVD after seeing it in Roger Ebert's Great Movies column, and I left it unwatched for quite awhile, suddenly assuming it was some quaint old Italian relic. When I finally did decide to watch it, I was immediately captivated by the raw energy of the film's soundtrack, and from then on it had me on a tight leash. That day I recommended it to one of my friend (she liked it too), and now it's my favorite movie of all time.

Having said that, I can understand why you didn't like it. Different people look for different things in film, and it's only fair to be at least somewhat pluralistic regarding taste. Maybe you need to empathize with the characters to get the point, but I sure don't. I found it rather refreshing to look at the phenomena objectively and watch the characters follow the predetermined course of destiny with little to know emotion. It struck me as distinctly Spinozist-- the actions and reactions of humankind are just as much a part of nature as the formation of the volcanic island, or the growth of towns and civilizations and churches on the Italian peninsula. All of these epiphanies came to me after I had seen the film. Truthfully, I found the story and dialogue all quite entertaining, sparse as it was, and I was just really interested in the little incidents such as Guilia's happenstance with the young cubist painter.

In conclusion, all of your criticisms are valid (though none of them interfered with my appreciation of the film), but I think you're wrong in simply generalizing that this film is a waste of time. Sure, it may be a waste of time to you, but to others it may be a revelation. I certainly liked your input, but my advice to you is to loosen the aggression toward the film and open your mind to other ideas.

[–] kenny-164 11 years ago

As for the negative comments on this thread about this film, I think they look for different things in films than those who enjoy it. Whether they are incapable of enjoying what those who do enjoy it is perhaps an interesting question, but I do not have a firm opinion on that, and without having such a firm opinion, to say so is gratuitously insulting, so I won't. I do wonder, though.

I do think however there are some who are predisposed to be averse to films that look at existential alienation as a theme. That is probably not everyone who does not like L'Avventura, but it is some of them, without question. And I do find that troubling.

I enjoy the film's what I find to be mesmerizing pace and point of view. For starters. Those who do not enjoy this kind of pace are looking for something else in films. So that's another group who make up those who do not like it.

This probably does not cover the whole field as it were, but it should serve for starters.