Onefly,
Since I noticed you also posted on the L'Eclisse board, I take it you follow Antonioni more than just Blow-up. In questioning an assertion that he uses heavy handed symbolism, I would certainly agree he is not guilty of being heavy handed, but as to whether he is "about" symbolism or not, is a less clear question.
I don't think he uses symbols in some obvious sense, and in that case you are correct that such an approach is not what he was about.
But then if you go to L'Eclisse, and see such things as the broken ashtray in the opening scene, later the antique piece Vittoria brings into her apartment as a decorative piece of art, various other "things" that seem to point to some pattern of the way the characters relate to objects around them, I do think they stand as symbols of something, if you will.
Before I get too far into this, and other examples from L'Eclisse and other of his films, to be clear there is something of this going on in Blow-up very early on, when we see quite obviously how the models are obviously being photographed in a way that turned them into objects, or "things" not human. Yes, this is not conventional use of symbols, but I do think the transformative process involved in the photo shoot stands for something larger than merely the narrative purpose or development in the story.
reply
share
!!!deleted!!! (30498379)
10 years ago
Yes, what I meant is that he doesn't use symbols in a 'traditional' and limited way, and more in a metaphoric, visual and direct way. On the commentary track of L'Avventura Youngblood describes this very well - quote:
The story is being tould to us through images. But the images are not symbols in a traditional sense (the way we understand them) - They are, what it's called - metonyms - that is, part for the whole - they actually are the thing that they refer to. Antonioni achieves a visual density, as the images narrate the story. We learn how to understand what is happening reading the behavior of the characters , their movements in the composition and sensing the overall imagery in terms of what it suggests or evokes to us.
So I believe simply saying that he uses (heavy-handed) symbols would be to massively oversimplify his approach and what he achieves through his visual language.
''You must have chaos within you to give birth to a dancing star''
reply
share
Whatlarks
10 years ago
Hi Oneflyride,
I have appreciated many other filmmakers' "symbols" just the way you describe. We are trained to think "symbol" in a certain way, which I find creates a distancing effect. The traditional way is an abstraction, an intellectualization. But I think cinema is fundamentally emotional.
Symbols that work more deeply seem to me to refer to a state of mind, either in the character or in a certain POV. They are particular, organic to the stories they serve so that they wouldn't fit somewhere else. They are also ambiguous, resistant to generic, concrete, fixed meanings. To me this is faithful to the way we experience events in real life which seem to speak to us.
reply
share
!!!deleted!!! (30498379)
10 years ago
Yes, very well said and I agree. Tarkovsky also similarly spoke about the distinction between symbols and metaphors.
''You must have chaos within you to give birth to a dancing star''
reply
share
Whatlarks
10 years ago
Thank you. Yes, Tarkovsky, he's another like that. I had trouble accessing him until I "let go" of trying to place his "symbols" so exactly. Maybe that's what Bergman discovered in him, and made him feel that what he'd done to that point was false.
This also brings to my mind something Joseph Campbell stressed about myth:
“Mythology is a song. It is the song of imagination, inspired by the energies of the body... Heaven and hell are within us, and all the gods are within us. This is the great realization of the Upanishads of India in the ninth century B.C. All the gods, all the heavens, all the worlds, are within us. They are magnified dreams, and dreams are manifestations in image form of the energies of the body in conflict with each other. That is what myth is. Myth is a manifestation in symbolic images, in metaphorical images, of the energies of the organs of the body in conflict with each other.”
reply
share
kenny-164
10 years ago
Onefly,
I agree that is a useful distinction. Since Franz apparently did not follow up on your questioning why we should agree with the assertion that Antonioni uses "heavy symbolism", I don't know why he thinks that is an appropriate assertion. Perhaps on clarification he might well acknowledge the obvious, that Antonioni did not use symbolism in the traditional sense, but in a more thematic way, metaphorically as you said.
Btw be careful with Whatlarks. He/she is an insidious troll who argued with me on the No Country boards and eventually found his way over here to attack me personally, 3 days ago, and is now trying to pretend he really wants to talk about Blow-up.
reply
share
Whatlarks
10 years ago
Kenny, let's not go down that route, okay? People can judge my contributions for themselves. I don't talk trash about you. Please don't bring grievances into every discussion.
As mentioned I am looking forward to a retrospective of classic Italian films at the local cinemateque. Mostly De Sica and Rossellini, but there are some Antonionis I haven't seen on the big screen. That is why I have landed on the Antonioni board. Your presence is happenstance.
reply
share
kenny-164
10 years ago
Your presence may be happenstance, but it remains beyond questoin that your first "contribution" here was to carry an argument from tne NCFOM boards here, and in so doing you completely misunderstood the context of the discussion here to make your personal little agenda driven "point".
Yes, let others judge for themselves, but in my judgment you add nothing here other than posts that have a surface veneer of seriousness, only to serve as preludes to troll like attacks on other posters.
Have a nice life.
reply
share
Whatlarks
10 years ago
I understood the context of your your critical remarks about some viewers' response to certain films, and having experienced extreme resistence of your own to one, I felt that deserved a response.
As you say, this intolerance can end up as an "aggressive, obnoxious kind of conservative reflex... that serves as the starting point of name calling." You've been extremely aggressive with me and others for challenging you to account for context you prefer to redact.
Perhaps privately you can be more honest with yourself.
reply
share