Zabriskie Point- I took this film as Antonioni flipping off America, which I’m fine with. Yes, the film is beautiful to look at, great cinematography. The acting is bad, but I think that is on purpose. I don’t think Antonioni wanted good actors to give a real feel, I think he wanted bad actors to display the US as a country full of fake people (which it is). And the ending, the blowing up of capitalism is great, and the orgy in the desert, I feel was commenting that the idea of free love is a waste of activity. The film is not bad at all, the “bad” parts are just as much commentary on the subject as any of the good parts. The film is more art than a straight film and more an op-ed than a narrative. In an interview with Roger Ebert, Antonioni mentioned the 68 protests, and while he highlights a similar thing, his protagonist is only looking for the action of a protest, not the point behind it. Like Mark says later, he wants the risk, he’s like an adrenaline junkie. He was a rich kid that got bored (that is hinted at in the long ride to the school when he runs the red light in Beverly Hills), he’s not interested in change, he’s just a dumb kid. Ive read various pieces and opinions on the film and when people say the film is vapid, they aren’t right, but neither are they wrong, the main characters are vapid, he more so than she, and that is what Antonioni was going for. In the end, I think that those feeling the film was a waste of time, kinda got the point, because I think that Antonioni found the US to be a waste of time. I saw an intelligent filmmaker making decisions based on what he thought of America, not a filmmaker out to create the greatest film ever.
Posted on: Sun, 06 Jul 2014 22:59:15 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015