vellutogrigio

@randolph: I wrote the review in the form of a dialogue on purpose; if you read the comments, I've received a string of 1 ratings and criticisms, like those from Poletti, precisely because some people refuse to question sacred cows like Antonioni. Anyway, the outcome I was aiming for was to spark some debate, as highlighted by the posts you see above. If I had lavished unreserved praise on Antonioni - which was possible, I just needed to eliminate Mr. Grigio - everything would have gone down smoothly like calm water. Instead, I thank happy for his non-conformist viewpoint.

@ajeje and other critics: by adhering to your reading of Antonioni, we could arrive at the paradox whereby a 4-hour film that merely frames a tree, an inanimate object, a face, or whatever, is the ultimate masterpiece - since form alone is sufficient, and the content of the narrative is irrelevant. This is Antonioni's limit, and of this film: form prevails over everything, but if you take that away, nothing remains. Regards.

@franscescobus: really too much esteem;

Write well, so your review is a 4/5 (as you can see, I don't judge reviews by the opinions they contain...). As for Fellini, you already know what I think; I haven't seen this film, and I'm not inclined to watch it. If I'm not mistaken, there's a cameo by Moana Pozzi, who was at the time the lover of Craxi and various politicians... who knows if even Fellini - behind his critiques - wasn't hiding a conformist soul, deeply connected to Roman power. Bah.

Of course, this "pseudo Scaruffi" comment is taken verbatim from the site of the real Scaruffi... it seemed too intelligent compared to the following comment;

Thank you Fenni: but the comment by "Scaruffi" speaks for itself. As for the rest, it seems to me that my review has succeeded, in order: i) in starting a debate; ii) in demonstrating how there are many Professor Velluto and few Mr. Grigio; iii) in showing how many of these professors claim the right to know the one and only Truth, ignoring the relativity of existence, which the film I reviewed illustrates masterfully (do you really think I don’t know Antonioni?) iv) in proving how the guardians of Truth can sometimes be quite rude, very rude.

@ajeje: things are getting complex; i) the films of Rosi, Monicelli, De Sica, Risi don't seem masturbatory to me; ii) music is different, it's about technique and aesthetics. Anyway, Madonna is not masturbatory in the philosophical sense of the term... iii) the ethical message of 2001 is found entirely in Nietzsche, to whom the film refers under various aspects. Of course, Argento is not characterized by ethical interests, at least in the mentioned films, but I have never censored Antonioni for a lack of ethics. I just want to say this: it’s completely self-referential cinema, all form and little substance, which doesn't entirely please me. I hope I have been a bit clearer;

@debeer: it seems to me that philosophy, art, and science have always related man to the world, certainly through individual sensitivities. It seems to me that Antonioni wanted to be an intellectual, but his cinema ended up seeming like a vicious and spoiled circle. Always opinions, mind you!

@ajeje: for example, even 2001: A Space Odyssey speaks of incommunicability and ineffability, but behind the film lies a more careful philosophical reflection. It is true that the black monolith contains everything – and is therefore a pure signifier [without specific meaning] – but this depends on its alien nature, and ultimately, on the fact that man is the instrument of god... until he becomes the Übermensch or the child of the stars, and thus god. Even in Argento, it is difficult to decipher the real, but this depends on the fragility of the senses, and not on the fact that the world is unknowable: an objective reality exists (cf. Uccello, 4Mosche, Profondo Rosso), but it is man who cannot know it except through anamnesis, through intuition. These are all cases of completed reflections around a concept that Antonioni could only hint at in Blow Up.

@ajeje: Antonioni positioned himself as an intellectual, and, in my opinion, the intellectual must help us understand reality, to understand the real. What does this film tell us about reality? In my view, nothing authentic, merely stating in a Pilates-like fashion that everything is incommunicable, that there is no substance, and that one might as well describe a nonsense like a simulated tennis match without a game. It seems to me a rather "masturbatory" vicious circle, if you will... which is why I consider this film a kind of useless embellishment. But these are just opinions;