Is anti-industrialism inherently anti-capitalism? Was Zitti's character's alienation from society brought on more by urbanization and modernism than her own mental illness?
>>67877465
>posting about legitimately good cinema on /tv/
anon, you know better than that
>>67877465
>>67877465
>Is anti-industrialism inherently anti-capitalism?
i guess so, since capitalism is all about private owners doing whatever to maximize profits. So being anti-industrial puts dampers on what the owners can do which makes them less able to be free to maximize profits
On to Red Desert....
The first time I watched it I remember coming away thinking that antonioni was sayign that industrialism is killing those of us with humanity, and the rest are blinded by profits.
After my second viewing I don't think the film has such a strong agenda. Antonioni paints the industrial scenes too beautifully to make us hate them. I think he was simply trying to tell a story about someone who couldn't handle the transition.
>>67877465
chill brah
she was just a bored woman with mild depression
>>67878498
do you really think so?
why would antonioni go through so much effort to shoot at industrial places if he could just do a story about a depressed woman in a study from a comfy chair?
>>67878498
>Half the movie is shots of her being dwarfed by huge structures
>Nope, that is not thematically important at all
Why would such a simpleton even watch art house
>>67878824
yea, your immature little perspectives on this great film are not simple, faggot
>>67878449
>After my second viewing I don't think the film has such a strong agenda
I find this happens to be the case a lot of the time when I rewatch things. Whether it's me seeing the film from a new light/perspective or the message's impact naturally weakening after prolonged exposure to it I don't know though
>>67878449
Capitalism is not necessarily required for industrialism. The Soviet Union and other Eastern Bloc countries were industrial economies but definitely not capitalist economies.
Capitalism is, however, very good at generating the large amounts of funds needed for industrialization.
I guess one could make that interpretation, specially taking in account the color contrast between industrial landscapes/mother & son, the toy robot, and the beauty of the beach scene/the boat
also bump for actual film discussion
>>67880494
I didn't really like it, but it's the only serious film that gets seriously discussed on this board. I don't know why. Anyway, I'll probably give it another chance sometime. I didn't like L'Avventura the first time, but I watched it again and really dug it.
>>67880569
I still hate L'Avventura after multiple viewings but La Notte and Il Grido I loved after first viewings
>>67877465
>Is anti-industrialism inherently anti-capitalism?
No. Socialist economies can also be industrialist, and it's entirely possible for a capitalist economy to be agricultural. Capitalism is quite simply when the means of production are owned by private individuals. Now, let's also say that even if the means of production are privately owned but it's dictated by the public what can be done with it, then it's not really privately owned and therefore the economy isn't capitalist. Even so there's still a possible scenario were the owners and consumers both agree that industrialism isn't desirable and the economy therefore isn't out of the free will and consent of everyone involved. Even if one entrepreneur were to start industrializing there would be no need for others to follow him because the consumers would naturally boycott his products in that scenario.
>>67880651
The first 20 minutes or so of L'Avventura was still boring the second time for me, but I got into it eventually.
>>67880569
>>67880569
why didn't you like it?
also, tarkovsky, bergman, buñuel, tarr and kurosawa get discussed all the time tho
i hate this fucking board tho
>>67881136
I don't know. It wasn't bad, maybe I just wasn't in the mood. I thought it was a little boring. I'll try it again at some point.
I've never seen a Beñuel thread.
>>67881263
>>67879460
I'm also OP of this thread
>>67881291
Sweet Child O' Mine!
Antonioni, Bergman, and Beñuel on /tv/ at the same time.
>it's a pseudo intellectual thread
>>67881263
>>67881291
i don't get that buñuel thread, you're saying that you don't understand the titles he chose?
you have to remember he's a surreal director
i think El discreto encanto de la burguesía explains itself, you have middle class people having trouble with something, that's the "charm", that they can't get it done
have you seen un perro andaluz? what would you have named it? you have to understand, buñuel was edgy and random/experimental, his titles are not something to look sense in
>>67881414
that bergman thread is shit
>>67881446
>image.jpg
>pseudo intellectuals for discussing/analyzing a film on a film board
sorry it doesn't have explosions or the flavor of the month cape man
>>67881511
>that bergman thread is shit
I'm not asking for a miracle.
>>67881511
that's kind of a non-answer though, I don't accept that a title should be completely unrelated just because of surrealism or whichever art style is employed. it just feels almost like an aggressive form of audience alienation in the sense that a lot of those films were relatively coherent and accessible and yet their titles always had something off about them in order to reinforce the "edgy and random/experimental" themes but in a very shallow way
>>67881446
fuck off and die. I've seen your type before and you strike me as the kind of person that hates not only film, but art as a whole
>>67881511
>that bergman thread is shit
Hey, I put a lot of effort into making it
Do you know how hard it is to copypaste a flavorwire article?
This thread really is a peculiar animal. The Buñuel titles one 404'd virgin, the Bergman one is just e-penis contest through directors, but this here actually tries something good. But only if a sizable number of people were doing this daily there would be a real effect on the board quality.
>>67881872
we do you fucking retard
>>67880773
Fuck off to a random shitpost thread you fucking cancer
>>67881932
No you don't. If that were the case, this lovely place wouldn't be hitting new lows by the day.
>>67880773
Based capeshit xD
>>67882047
there's 1 daily thread for film discussion
between 12-14pm,everyday
it's not our fault that 90% of catalog space is capeshit
>>67880773
literally no different than /tv/
>>67882047
well then fucking help, make threads
>>67882105
>A question about The Red Shoes ending
It's probably a little better than /tv/.
>>67877465
>implying 'anti industrialism' is even a coherent ideology
top kek
if i fling shit on my walls am I an artist?
>>67882178
Depends on your justification
>>67882207
and considering the justification for 'anti industrialization' is personal angst and mental issues
