MovieChat Forums > L'avventura (1961) Discussion > Women as impossibly complicated...

Women as impossibly complicated...

posted 16 years ago by Bladerunner
8 replies | jump to latest

This movie portrays women as impossibly complicated and eternally unhappy no matter how good things are for them. Anna is beautiful, her father is a wealthy diplomat, her fiance is a good-looking, successful man who loves her, and yet she is irascible, unhappy and absurdly malcontent.

She expresses her sadness and discontent with the fact that they are frequently parted, up to a month at a time. Then, in the next sentence she says that she wasn't time alone, more than a month, "two months, a year, three years".

Then, moments later, in once sentence she says, "the thought of losing you makes me want to die. and yet I don't feel you anymore."

Her fiance Sandro is an even-tempered, friendly man who clearly loves her but is at wits end trying to understand her ridiculous mood swings and pouting behavior.

It is films like this that create that stereotypical gulf between men and women based on the illogical behavior of women. It creates that idea that beautiful woman are impossible to please. They want this, they want that, but when they get this and that, they don't want either, they want something else. Nothing pleases them. It also perpetuates the myth that women need to be "tamed" or "trained" in how to behave. They need a man to "rein them in".

This portrayal always frustrates me, and it seems more pronounced in Latin and Italian films where "machismo" has a more firm foundation amongst the male mystique... particularly in cinema.

In this film however, I think it is used as a device to justify the growing feelings between Sandro and Claudia.

"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus

[–] thethirdman49 16 years ago

It's not only women who are complicated, but human beings. How could you expect anything less from Antonioni?

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] thethirdman49 16 years ago

Yes, I agree that the men in L'Avventura are shallow. We're speaking of Sandro, mainly. If they aren't complicated (which means an elaborate combination of incongruous parts), they are complex (a combination of many associated parts - in Sandro's case his job, his marriage, his sex life, which culminates in a restless, dissatisfaction with life in general). See the distinction?

Without a doubt, certain things do contribute to the public consciousness and this complicated depiction of women is one of them. But is it a false one? I would say that Anna is the most complicated female character. She is something of a mystery. We aren't sure why she feels contempt for Sandro, but we could probably guess that it has something to do with his aloof and miserable personality. Claudia, on the other hand, is more understandable. Her conflict is clear - she is caught between her waning feelings of loyalty and friendship toward Anna and her newfound feelings for Sandro.

Furthermore, biologically speaking, women are made up very differently than men. Their emotions effect their moods and decision-making more than they do for men. So, naturally, they're the more complicated gender - for better or worse.

[–] Bladerunner 16 years ago

That was a very adroit and insightful post. I agree with most of it, but I'm torn about the definition of women. Being a man and a bit "old school", I agree that women are different in psychology because of their biology. I simply believe that women are different than men. I even believe things like, women should stay at home with the kids and raise them rather than work.

I am also progressive and believe that women should be paid the same as men and that all opportunities should be available to women that are available to men.

One thing I think a lot about... back in the time before the 60's, in the 50's and before companies would pay a man a salary that would take care of his whole family. Now that women are paid equitably as men, they don't pay either as much so both have to work to take care of a family. It's a two-edged sword. Women now make as much as men (or rather, it is working toward equity) but they achieved this by paying men less. So now, a middle-class family can't survive on a man's salary alone like they could before the 60's.

I think a lot of women would say they long for the old days when a woman could stay at home and raise her children. The days when a man's salary was enough for a whole family. However, I definitely see the other side where a woman shouldn't be penalized for being a woman. The side where a single mother needs to make enough to take care of her family the same as a man would. So, as I said, it's a two-edged sword. On the one hand I long for the days when a man made more so he could support a family, and at the same time I'm glad that women now are paid on a more equitable scale with men.

I agree, Anna is the most complicated character, but she is also the most stereotypical character. The woman who (seemingly) has everything and yet is still malcontent. In retrospect, she is correct in feeling insecure being with Sandro, as he proves to be very fickle with his affections.

I think there is a very stereotypical "Italian" vibe also working in this film, where men are all these dogs that can't control their sexual urges. Consider the girl who tears her dress and causes a sensation like the Pope visiting. Also, when Claudia is on the street waiting for Sandro and the men flock to her and look like hungry wolves about to devour her. In fact, it seems quite clear that had Sandro not come down from that room when he did something was going to happen to Claudia from the men circling her. Rape? I don't know, but something.

I have been to Italy, and know people who visited it back in the day (around the time the film was made) and some of it is true. Men are MUCH more "forward" there, much more aggressive in how they approach women. However, I doubt it was ever as rabid as it is portrayed in the film.

As far as women being "the more complicated gender", I think that is only true as they are viewed by men. To women, I'm sure they are very simple and understandable. I know this is true for myself: learning to understand women has made a huge difference for me in judging their "complicated-ness". Women are driven more by verbal stimuli than men are (who are more stimulated by sight and touch). This can be easily proven by the whole phenomena of porn. The number of women subscribing to porn sites compared with the number of men is on the order of 1000 to 1, if that low. It is simply a truism that men are more visually stimulated (sexually, and maybe in general) than women are. Women are excited more by conversation. A fried of mine who is a pastor who does a lot of pre-marital counseling (which is required before he will marry a couple) says that basically men believe that marriage is going to be a continuous orgy, and women think it's going to be one long meaningful conversation. I laugh every time I hear this, because I know in my own experiences that he isn't far off the mark.

I disagree vis-a-vis Sandro's "miserable personality"... I find his personality to be very agreeable and understanding. I think he does a great job of dealing with Anna's moods and discontent. It is true that he is very, very aggressive with Claudia, and not sensitive to the situation whatsoever. However, he is a very kind and understanding person with Anna (and for the most part with Claudia). The miserable part, in my opinion, is his inconstant fidelity. He is the quintessential cheating male, which is one of my sticking points with this movie.

As far as your contention with my criticism of the film's characterization of women. I suppose it's stupid to complain, but these things matter.

I do take issue, however with your characterization of Sandro "complex" as an "elaborate combination of incongruous parts" (wonderful phrasing by the way). Instead I think he is simply a stereotypical, Italian male. I see the distinction you draw, but I don't see any complexity in the combination of his stereotypical parts. He is a sympathetic character. He has feelings, he cares, he is loving and considerate, but he is so predictable in the fact that he is led around by his doink. It is in this predictability that I have a contention.

Thanks, by the way, for your insightful and friendly comments. A lot of people on IMDB have a hard time discussing or debating things without getting angry and/or ugly. It's a pleasure to meet someone like you who is intelligent and friendly.

[–] sevenwaves 15 years ago

This frustrates me too. I felt similarly about La Notte and Godard's Contempt. One of the reasons I love Red Desert is that it provides an explanation for the female protagonist's alienation (post-traumatic stress disorder after a near-fatal car accident), which makes her seem more real and less like a man's idea of woman as a incomprehensible mysterious "other."

I will say, though, that I'm not at all convinced that Sandro is a good guy. The way he tries to pester Claudia into having an affair with him just a couple of days after Anna's diappearance, the way he cheats on her with a stranger after they've established a relationship, hell, even the way he impulsively upsets an inkwell onto that young artist's sketch (possibly out of jealousy due to the fact that his own architectural career has gone nowhere?) -- he doesn't seem to have a lot of consideration for other people. Anna must have known this about him, wouldn't you think?

[–] Bladerunner 15 years ago

I completely agree with your opinion of Sandro. Antonioni is consistent in his stereotypical characterizations of both men and women in this movie. Women are complicated malcontents that cannot be satisfied and men are capricious and ready to have sex with anything in a skirt.

I'm not sure though that I can agree with you that Anna must have recognized Sandro's propensity for infidelity, because of the fact that the male and female characters are so stereotypical drawn. If we saw some other male or female characters that acted differently than the very prosaic manner they are portrayed, then perhaps one could consider that possibility.

It seems to me that the filmmaker has a pretty dim view of humans in general. I wouldn't go so far as to call him a misanthrope, but he approaches that definition.

"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Jes' Sayin' (6424) 2 years ago

There's a different possible interpretation. It's not so much that people are intrinsically bad as that those Cold War times with the prospect of nuclear conflagration hanging over their heads like the sword of Damocles making them feel too much emptiness and futility. Anna complains that she doesn't like islands because they're all surrounded by water. For her there's no there there. No growth, no opportunity for expansion. Everything is empty and dead.