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).

[–] franzkabuki 11 years ago

"La Dolce Vita is far more interesting, artistic".

No - it`s just that more stuff happens in La Dolce Vita, the film`s blood is pretty much constantly up. L`Avventura is constructed of and around a void, an existential lack. Things that do not take place.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] variable0 10 years ago

I normally have a disdain for these " Malaise of the Bourgeoisie" stories, but i actually liked this movie, for a few reasons:

First, the (complicit?) disappearance plot twist is something that brought uncertainty and kept me engaged. Not only the question of what happenned to her, but did she choose to vanish? (IMO yes) Eliminating the initial protaganist, and having the supporting characters step into the forefront is bold effective technique.

Second, I actually did find the characters endearing to an extent, mainly Monica Vittis. While on the surface, they are well endowed with looks, money, posessions and lifestyle freedom, Antonini shows that they are spiritually bankrupt. They know something is missing in their lives, and try to fill that void somehow, whether its thru inappropriate affiars, or going off the grid, etc.

Lastly, it is a well shot film, with the island scenes being the most memorable.

[–] Degree7 9 years ago

I love (and appreciate) "film-as-art" films IMHO, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Apocalypse Now, Magnolia, Eyes Wide Shut, 8 1/2,

Wow, only some of the most popular and accessible "art" films ever made.

~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here.

[–] Musashi94 9 years ago

I had to watch this film for a class in college a few years ago. I'm not exactly averse to art films, but I have to admit that I found the film to be painfully boring. The first third on the island is great but after that the film just drags painfully from one scene to the next. After being similarly frustrated with another Antonioni film (Red Desert) I have to conclude that I simply don't get his style.

I can appreciate that the film is technically well made and certain shots are beautiful to look at, but Antonioni just doesn't know how to make a film engaging in my eyes.Even Truffaut spoke of Antonioni as "the only important director I have nothing good to say about," so I think his body of work is just one of those love it or hate it" kind of resumes.

[–] cooler56 8 years ago

All of those films you listed are iconic cinematic Masterpieces.

"L'avventura" is not.

However, it is a unique, elegant Drama.

The movie was not meant to "entertain" in any sense of the word, there is no bells and whistles to get the audience's attention. The audience has to actually put in effort into watching the film and understanding its themes.

While "boring" is not the word I would use, I would prefer "not engaging."

The movie is meant to evoke some genuine human emotion against a backdrop of gritty realism. Yes, there is something exotic about the Italian setting, but it becomes repetitive and numb by the end of the movie.

Just like how the characters felt. The movie keeps tricking us into thinking that there will be some suspense regarding the disappearance of Anna, or the developing and scandalous romance between Sandro and Claudia. But the reality is, we forget about Anna quickly. We notice how shallow Sandro and Claudia's romance is.

At the end of the movie, we feel the despair of the characters. There was no resolution, we spent hours of watching Italian countrysides and fancy parties to realize how shallow and uninteresting the characters really are - and how predictable the audience is to hope for some sort of satisfaction. We then realize how we project expectations onto things - such as the title of the movie (The Adventure) - but our excitement and beliefs can quickly fade away into nothing - just like Anna.

[–] Jes' Sayin' (6437) 2 years ago

There's more to it than that. One thing most commenters seem to miss is that it's very much a film of its time. The Cold War had been going on since the late 40s and all through the 50s. It was now 1961, a new decade, and yet it continued, with no seeming end in sight, except the horrible specter of nuclear conflagration hanging over everything. Why exert yourself, why try again when all can be blown up in an instant. Despair weighs heavily over the film.