I just watched this. My intro to art house. Why do people like this shit? I mean literally, and I'm not exaggerating here, nothing happened.
Like, this thing is almost three hours long and it had a plot for maybe the first 30 minutes and then nothing.
This has got to be a joke, no one seriously thinks this is a great film, right?
>>64031114
Uhh, I don't want to be that guy but you clearly didn't get it, anon.
>>64031114
If you didn't like L'avventura I recommend Wavelength
>art house
>>64031283
Don't play this fucking game. This whole 2deep4u meme has to end. It isn't deep just because you didn't understand it. There are no redeeming features to this other than maybe some good looking shots.
We love modern emptiness to be good-looking and glamorous. If L'Avventura had been about some fat short Italian guy looking for his pig-look-alike girlfriend with the help of an equally fat ugly woman, no one would care. e.g., the reason why La Dolce Vita was popular with so many people was not because of its moral insights but its peeks into the lifestyles of the rich and famous. Its social and moral concerns notwithstanding, we like it because it has people like big titted Anita, handsome Marcello, lovely Aimee, and the rest. If that movie had been about a fat ugly slobs of Rome, it woulda had far less appeal
>>64031351
Anon, its really simple. Watch it again, you'll probably get it.
>>64031399
>modern emptiness
What the fuck are you talking about. Are you saying the movie is about nothing?
an art filmmaker starts from scratch using raw materials. a genre filmmaker works with already assembled parts. the difference between a mystery genre mooie and an art film can be demonstrated by comparing silence of the lambs to l'avventura. the latter is an art film about weighty philosophical stuff. a mystery thriller is expected to solve the riddle at the end. an art film has the courage to say there is no final answer or solution to our existential malady or crisis or whatever. people who saw l'avventura as an mystery genre flick booed cuz they felt cheated. they saw it with genre expectations.
>>64031459
>What the f*ck are you talking about
I don't appreciate your rudeness, or find it hep or acceptable. Please learn to express yourself politely and with restraint even when posting anonymously.
>>64031530
>muh ambiguity
please go sniff your own farts somewhere else.
>>64031603
I know you're memeing but holy shit.
>>64031459
Yes you moron. The film is about nothing and what nothing does to people.
I'll post my thoughts about this film once The Force Awakens audience has left /tv/.
>>64031815
Nothing is not a subject. When nothing happens, nothing happens. You are literally speaking in circles.
>>64031914
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKX9LDo9eQo
>>64031114
>This has got to be a joke, no one seriously thinks this is a great film, right?
countless essays have been written about L'Avventura. read one if it interests you and maybe it could help you understand what all the fuss if about. if you don't care to, then don't, and just forget it.
also
>muh plot
"art films" tend to forgo a clean and clear plot in favor of mood/atmosphere and characterization is more psychological
>>64031918
You are so thoroughly and completely wrong that you must be trolling.
The movie is about the emptiness of modern life. The directionless search for distraction from that emptiness conpels our protagonists to quickly and easily give up search for their mutual friend and engage in their own relationship because it is easier than searching for the friend.
It's a profound movie up to and especially relevant in our time during which these problems not only continue to exist but have been exaggerated. When the girl goes missing, so does any pretense of purpose and we're left in a narrative drift that ends with the male lead finding yet another replacement.
>>64032152
I don't buy it. I think this one of those times when the movie was actually nothing and critics just watched it and ate it up making them imply a whole bunch of shit on it.
>My intro to art house.
yikes, theres' your problem anon: you're a fucking moron
>>64032346
Don't pretend you didn't watch an art house movie for the first time once.
I just don't think there's any reason you should consider something like this aimless garbage so good when everything fincher is doing is much more interesting and captivating.
>>64032322
The movie is pretty clearly a modernist piece in the tradition of TS Eliot and plays a lot with concepts of the new and old worlds
Maybe rewatch it? If neither the haunting atmosphere nor the philosophical questions interest you it's just not your kind of thing
Personally this is one of my all time favorites. I find it a terrifying ride from the moment they approach the island pretty much all the way to end. Nobody stirs up abstract fear like Antonioni.
>>64032322
God forbid anyone make a movie where you actually have to think to find its meaning
>>64032442
>everything fincher is doing is much more interesting and captivating.
you had me going for a minute
Your defensiveness in your posts tells us you only want us to reaffirm what you believe to be true - that there is no value in these "art house" films. Until you're more open to the non linear, non plot and more abstract thought that goes hand in hand with these types of art house films, you'll never understand them.
I'm sure you fully believe in the /tv/ meme where you shouldn't "turn off your brain" for a movie, but for these films that's exactly what you do. Thinking too much about them will get you nowhere. Instead learn to feel these films.
>>64032442
1) I'm calling you a moron for thinking "arthouse" is a valid categorization. A movie's a movie.
2) Fincher usually cannot hold my interest for fifteen minutes and has absolutely nothing to say in his films.
>>64032481
>"turn off your brain" for a movie, but for these films that's exactly what you do
holy shit
>>64031114
>My intro to art house
it shows.
>>64032481
I see what you're trying to say, but "turn off your brain" is not the way to say it. Obviously over-intellectualizing a film, (or any artwork) trying to reverse engineer it and force meanings onto all its parts is not the way to watch something, but 'turning off your brain' is not how I would label giving yourself wholly to something and becoming completely immersed in it. In fact I think that's being extra receptive and putting your brain to more use.
>>64032493
Name one thing in Gone Girl that is worse than this movie. It's more pointed a criticism of modern culture, more relevant, better paced, better shot, better soundtrack, better sense of dread.
I mean seriously. This movie, it isn't good no matter how much you've all deluded yourselves into believing it is. It doesn't do anything other than an ominous tracking shot in that abandoned village. None of the dialogue means anything or holds any interest.
There's some serious subtext about male-female relations in gone girl and much more interesting characters.
>>64032442
>muh fincher
Oh God, Is this you? So L'Avventura is your second first "art house" film? If you couldn't get Fellini, why did you try Antonioni?Of course, you're just trolling so whatever
>>64032684
Okay so fine. It's me.
I watched 8 1/2 and it was self indulgent. I watched this and it was tedious. Is literally all art house this fucking shit? Just aimless plot to aimless plot. I mean for christ's sake. Compared to this, 8 1/2 is riveting. At least the fucking camera moved and there was any music at all.
I feel like this is all one big con perpetrated on everyone by some nameless elite that has no idea what actually makes a good film.
>>64032670
>Gone Girl
>Better shot than L'Avventura
You have got to be kidding me. But you admitted already that you haven't seen many films so I'll give you a pass and tell you to just watch more film.
If you are going to keep watching "art house" movies you might like Wim Wenders since he covers modern life well, visually and with his scripts, and his films typically have a coherent plot for you to follow.
>>64032670
>It's more pointed a criticism of modern culture,
First of all I think it is a terrible criticism of modern culture and says nothing of any relevance about the media because it shoots itself in the foot by having Amy a one dimensional manipulator. Had it been a story about how the media leads to the conviction of an innocent man and no more, it might be interesting, but it only dances around themes that have been done a million times before.
Secondly, L'avventura is not a "criticism" of the time as if it's some indictment of modern living so much as a funeral song for the ways of old. It has very much to do with the loss of value with progress and fortune. A rich man values not money, an learned man values not god etc. The issue is there is no easy step back, to revert to the old world to recapture value is insane and pretty well impossible. It's the loss of traditionally meaningful lives in a new world. (Antonioni takes this further in Red Desert suggesting things may not be as grim as they seem and that it is only a matter of adaptation)
>more relevant,
Yeah dude, my ex was just like Amy. Movie really helped put things in perspective.
>better paced,
>better shot,
>better soundtrack,
>better sense of dread.
This is obviously incredibly subjective, and both films are going after entirely different things, but I will say criticizing L'avventura's "pacing" is outright stupid. How would it have been better "paced"? This term hardly means anything outside of genre pictures with conventional narratives that aim to hit certain emotional and conflictual notes. L'avventura moves entirely at its own pace, you don't have to like it, but then you don't like the film as a whole. To say Gone Girl is "better paced" than it says absolutely nothing.
The rest of course is subjective, but Antonioni works in a subtlety Fincher lacks. Fincher's dread is a broad genre stroke, Antonioni's is something existential and untethered.
>>64032804
You have been brainwashed by hyper-fast mtv/ youtube style editing since your probably recent birth and have no idea how to appreciate films with a less than current sensibility. 8 1/2 is both hilarious and action packed (and easy to follow) especially compared to other well regarded directors. I can't wait to see the moronic threads you post when you watch Last Year At Marienbad.
>>64032932
>>64033014
Okay, so you're telling me that my 3rd and 4th art house films should be Paris, Texas and Last Year at Marienbad?
>>64033011
this is good stuff
>>64033060
If you want a movie like gone girl that goes much deeper into the impact of media on people watch Network. You'll like it. It has a plot, excellent writing and most importantly for you its in english so you won't have to read subtitles.
>>64033060
Why not? They are both great for entirely different reasons. However given your reaction to slightly more palatable stuff like 8 1/2 you might try something more appealing to a modern aesthetic first. Paris texas is at least in english and in color if those are the things bothering you about art house so far. Marienbad is straight up obtuse on purpose, so your complaints about "nothing happening" would at least make sense after watching that one.
You should watch The Grande Illusion or A man Escaped next though, as they both have much to offer and are quite accessible.
>>64031311
wavelength was legitimately shit though, tbqh (to be quite honest)
>>64033155
Horrible fucking post which added nothing to the thread.
>>64031114
L'Avventura is a cornerstone of "art house" cinema, along with Rashomon and The Seventh Seal. It's about mid-century alienation and expresses its ideas in a high-modernist way, ie, without giving the viewer obvious clues as to its agenda, and bringing the whole idea of "plot" into question.
If you didn't like it, that's fine, but it's not shit. It really is a great film.
>>64033212
>implying
in your dreams, pleb
>>64032804
You aren't getting the full experience because you probably don't know how to read art like this, or else you are not giving yourself the opportunity to try.
There's the very real limits of one's own intellectual abilities and familiarity with the genre.
In the same way someone who can't read English will get NOTHING out of a book written in English, someone who is visually illiterate won't be able to understand the meanings carried in symbols or visual cues.
A lot of what is called "art house" often seeks to achieve unique aesthetic and intellectual experiences. If you've never been able to submerge yourself in poetry, all the same you won't get anything out of Antonioni's spare but meticulously composed shots. If you've no understanding of certain cultural or philosophical concepts, you obviously will not be able to engage in the intellectual layer of certain films.
However, much of a contradiction as this sounds like, you shouldn't NEED to be experienced in the arts to understand them as long as you feel a genuine desire to, as long as the mystery of what you're being teased with is enough to drag you along into greater understanding.
Obviously films like L'avventura aren't for everyone same as Classical music or Classical painting isn't. Whether or not you're experienced in it, it may or may not just be 'your kind of thing'
>>64033060
I say stop calling shit "arthouse" like it means something and watch whatever you enjoy. But drop the mentality that anything you don't understand is just a big con and that everything must be understood by everyone. Forcing yourself to watch movies you aren't enjoying sounds pretty fucking retarded to me.
>>64033222
>>64031114
L'Avventura is shit dude but don't let it deter you. Most of the "art house classics" are 100x better. You just happened to open Minesweeper and click on a mine before hitting any free space.
>>64033238
michael snow pls, you're not fooling anyone
>>64033295
ok, so it is me
>>64033277
This is the most based gif
>>64033287
Descent: FreeSpace is one of the greatest art house games of all time.
>>64033263
High quality post friend.
Things did happen.
She did disappear after all.
Look, kid. I was in the other thread too.
You truly honestly need to stop this. You clearly do not understand enough about these films to have a relevant opinion on them.
There are in fact legitimate criticisms if both Antonioni's and Fellini's films but nothing you have said is legitimate. You can tell simply by the conclusions you make and the way you're presenting your arguments. Instead of accepting that these movies may have something in them that you don't yet appreciate, you are going to yell about them to literal strangers and imply that the entire filmmaking community is in some sort of conspiracy to force you to like shitty movies with no point.
Just get over yourself, watch some movies and stop posting on tv for at least a week.
>>64033011
>it shoots itself in the foot by having Amy a one dimensional manipulator
I loved Gone Girl but it lost a ton of potential when they revealed this. Any real satire or social criticism went out the window for a standard "wrong man" plot
>>64031399
that might be why it is/was popular but it's not good because anita is hot or marcello handsome
a lot of the scenes (outside of the trevi fountain) will stick with me forever because of their emotional resonance. The three kids and the massive spectacle of the vision of mary, or when marcello's father comes to visit and he has all those old people medical issues while trying to please the girl, or steiner playing tocatta and fugue in the church, or the party wandering around the disused decaying villa outside rome
it's not just lifestyles of the rich and famous, it's not that simple. the title of the movie itself is meant to be taken ironically
>>64033277
damn i just love the way this thing is shot. Almost every still is gorgeous
>>64033287
I haven't seen l'avventura but i've seen l'eclisse and the whole nothing happening thing is partly the point.
I mean that movie literally ends with the two main characters ditching out on their rendevous and it's just shots of the empty neighborhood (spoilers?).
Not every movie needs people yelling at each other to import some sort of meaning or have an effect.
L'Eclisse > La Notte > L'Avventura
>>64031114
antonioni a shit, try someone else
I'm disappointed with all this uncalled-for complaining against OP's true apathy concerning a idol of art house cinema - as if people aren't allowed to lack affinities for certain artists? no, like good bourgeois consumers, they must develop a taste for practically everything!
after seeing La Notte and L'Eclisse, I filed away Antonioni and didn't watch L'Avventura 'cause I fucking knew that it would be more of the same.
all this about "it's about emptiness of modern existence" sounds like making excuses in the face of OP's real dissatisfaction with the film's lack of an obvious point, and doesn't make up for the lack of any protagonist we feel empathy for in the film. even Mastroianni couldn't pull this overbearing style out of the fire for me.
if that was partly Antonioni's point - that WE aren't particularly empathetic beings, like some sort of statement - isn't a replacement for setting up protagonists we feel empathy for. I simply reject it - not out of hand - but because it just doesn't communicate anything meaningful to me.
>>64031114
No idea OP. I went through a big Introductory Art House phase in my mid teens. Never enjoyed anything by Antonioni, was mixed on Fellini and downright fucking loathed Goddard.
I always chalk it up to "having to be there" and witnessing it's impact on the cinema of it's time.
Unlike say, Bergman, who is great at any time.
Also I immediately distrust anyone who says they like Tarkovsky.
Holy fuck you fucks are comical.
Art house fucks > Modern art fucks
At least the /lit/ snobs are actually reading something with a content you are literally arguing and watching nothing just because you are too laxy to read books lmao.
>>64036836
If you dislike Tarkovsky you're a fucking retard
Also what Godard have you seen?
>>64036981
I've seen nearly everything by Goddard up until the 80's. I think his most "recent" one I watched was Hail Mary.
And chalk me up for retarded, because I think Tarkovsky is hilariously bad at times.
>>64036836
that first line sums up how I feel about those 3 60's directors. but I'm curious: why so suspicious of Tarkovsky's fans? I haven't seen his last 4, but Ivan's Childhood and Solaris were stylistically focused and had real emotional impact for me.
>>64032804
OP seriously, you don't get arthouse. I think you could learn to like it if only you understood it better, it's depressing to have your tastes limited to shitty studio productions.
Try a pleb director like Kurosawa or Wenders
>>64037035
How can you say that? Tarkovsky is one of those directors that is universally loved and doesn't have a single weak film in his filmography (ok maybe Ivan's Childhood)
>>64037082
>Kurosawa
>pleb director
it's come to this? really?
>>64037117
pleb doesn't mean bad in this context, it just meand entry level
>>64037058
Because I think a lot of Tarkovsky's stuff is literally pretentious and there is a huge case of "cloud watching" and emperors new clothes going on.
I dunno. Certain things don't work for certain people, I'm willing to admit. But I burst out laughing at the pool scene in Nostalgia (no I won't spell it faggy) and couldn't believe how po faced self serious dumb it was.
Usually it's Spanish language directors I seem to be out in the cold with, but in this case I just honestly think Tarkovsky's my dad's generations answer to Inarritu.
Guys who looks like they've assembled films based on off cuts from Oscar Nominee reels.
>>64037115
I don't mind Stalker and I genuinely like The Sacrifice.
But, without hyberbole, Adrei Rublev might have been one of the hardest films for me to force myself to finish, and I've happily sat through a 2 session run of The Cremaster Cycle and didn't even nod off once during Landscape Suicide.
I've even seen every Michael Bay film save for the last three Transformer entries.
>>64037207
This has to be bait
>>64037173
I'd agree with you in the same way that you could call Shakespeare's plays "entry level" because the groundlings would love his ribald humor and swordplay. but they'd miss the deeper meanings embedded in them, which are the probably the actual reason we say his name today. I can't see it being different for Kurosawa.
I never got over how people are quick to attack the quality of a piece of art they do not comprehend instead of blaming their own shortcomings. It's disrespectful and presumptuous to assume that the understanding of every piece of culture should be readily available to you when the appreciation art, like everything else in life, requires an education. If you watch a movie and you don't get it or think it has no meaning, you should first make a self-evaluation: is this going straight over my head? Am I ready to make a coherent, sensible judgement?
Having this in mind, I really don't think you should get into arthouse by watching to filmmakers like Antonioni. Try Kubrick, Kurosawa, Fellini, etc.
>>64037253
Not even bait.
It's how I genuinely feel about his films.
You asked, I explained as best I could in a short post.
Like I said, I'm almost open to saying "Not For Me", since I see myself in conflict with most other people over other high profile directors like Inarritu or Almodovar.
I mean, I'll happily straight up say that Goddard is a genuinely garbage filmmaker who (mostly) made nothing but provocative trash.
But I also do not like Tarkovsky, and I've found a lot of people who do and who defend him do so from a literary criticism style standpoint. Rather than a film craft standpoint. You know, like the anti-Hitchcock.
>>64037290
Picture someone watching his filmography chronologically...exactly.
They start out with judo flicks and move on to more artistic Shakespeare adaptations, It's perfect for a beginner even though most plebs on /tv/ don't even watch their directors chronologically
>>64037447
I grew up pre-internet.
So I got into Kurosawa this way.
>Watching TV
>Something called Seven Samurai is coming on
>Expecting Enter The Ninja or Shogun Assassin
>Black And White Old Film Instead
>Is awesome, especially the final battle
>Ask at video store for more
>Get Ran
>End up finding other stuff over the years.
>>64037447
I don't see why most would - usually the best policy is to pick a few popular choices and see if anything clicks. going through over 30 films from one director isn't a common practice for anyone: it's an act of love and devotion, though it's rare to find a director more deserving
>>64037635
It helps you understand the growth of a director and how his themes stay consistent while his sensibilities change, there is no other way to get this effect
THIS WHOLE THREAD:
"The emperor has no clothes"
>nolan and Innarittu fans try to watch a real movie and it hurts their pleb brains
Lmao , stick to Star Wars and batman, retard
>>64036014
La Notte > L'Avventura > L'Eclisse
>>64031459
Jesus, if you can't figure out what that phrase means, you're not prepared to watch most any film on a legit top 500 list (outside the Imdb/reddit list lol)
>>64031114
Satantango will be perfect for you OP
i fuck with antonioni, especially red desert and zabriskie point. glad we can have some discussion beyond what just hit theaters on here from time to time.
art cinema is hard to get into after being used to genre films but you just have to be open to it.
I really can't get over the fact that you managed to pick this one of all films as your "first arthouse movie". I can't imagine going from MTV to L'avventura but it is certainly amusing to read your butthurt posts, and I'm not even big on Antonioni
I unironicallly agree with OP. Nolan and Fincher should be the only directors allowed to make movies. At least you know there will be a plot and an epic ending and nobody would have to waste their time and money on bullshit hipster trash like Enemy.
For how long we will have to stick with OP? Every time that he fails to engage with an acclaimed film we shall get another one of these? And more and more enablers and supporters of braindeadism in these threads keep a-popping.
Considering the damage that the new /starwars/ crowd will represent to this board, there will be unironically people nostalgic about the quality of 2014 in a couple months.
