Il filo pericoloso delle cose (Michelangelo Antonioni, 2004)

[Nihonophile]

The Dangerous Thread of Things is okay. Not as horrible as I thought it would be. After reading so many negative reviews of this film, I tried my hardest not to expect anything of this film. The dialogues are so tacky (very badly dubbed) that I don't know what to make of them. Is that intended or what? I have no idea what Antonioni is trying to say (failure on my part? or his part?) It is frustrating. But I wouldn't call this film abysmally bad and I did enjoyed some aspects of this film - I dig love triangles and the women are extremely good-looking, nearly cinematic.

I was at last night's screening of Eros as well. I'd have to agree with you Micheal on Antonioni's short. I walked out frustrated, confused, and unsure if I was to blame or he.

Kar-wai's short was my favorite because to me it felt like it was the most complete and thoughtout short. I can't wait to see what he cut out because the beginning felt a bit rushed. I would hazard a guess that The Hand is the last we will be seeing of this type of movie by Kar-wai. The Lady from Shanghai truly sounds like he will be moving in a new direction especially since Chris Doyle won't be DPing this time. Nevertheless after watching In the Mood for Love, 2046, and the Hand and loving them all, I'm afraid I can't tire of these films.

I didn't go to Oldboy at midnight out of fear that I would have the reaction you did to the movie. However, I got my ticket to tonight's showing and I can't wait.

[backstreetsbackalright]

Saw Eros last night. Gorgeous as "The Hand" looked, I didn't even care for that one. It has really solid moments, but on the whole I found it kind of lackluster. Soderbergh's segment I found harmless but hardly great. And, sorry to say it, but I thought Antonioni's segment was truly abysmal. Though I resisted the impulse from start to finish, I continually caught myself laughing at the dialogue. Its pretty much impossible for me to recount scenes or paraphrase dialogue exchanges without sounding like I'm ridiculing the film, and I don't really want to taint anyone else's reception of the film, so I'll leave that alone. I also didn't think it looked all that great. A friend and I wondered if our opinion would differ if it were shot in B&W and starred Monica Vitti. After considerable contemplation on this point I can safely say that, no, I'd still greatly dislike it. Lacking the critical faculties to properly address my concerns for the film, I'll stick to a simplistic "Antonioni's abilities are seriously diminished." So many poor choices were made in this film, its maddening. Maybe not the worst cinematic experience of my life, but I can safely say the worst I've had this year. However, its probably worth seeing, not because its made by a director of such stature (though perhaps that's reason enough), but for the ways it differs from his better work and reveals how careful and miraculous a film like, say, L'eclisse is.

As an aside, I quite liked Rohdie's book on Rocco and his Brothers....

[Lino]

I don't know if anyone is aware of the fact that you can buy this film on DVD from Italy

[Dylan]

Yes, but it's all in Italian (dubbing the first two segments) with no English subtitles. The R1 can't be too far off (four months tops, I'm guessing), and hopefully it will have some interesting extra features.

[jorencain]

I just ordered the Mei-Ah DVD from CD-WOW and watched it this morning. Like the rest of the world, I enjoyed WKW's and Sodernergh's films, and was less than ecstatic about Antonioni's. Having only seen the past 2 Wong Kar-Wai films, I didn't feel that it was too much retreading of the same territory, as others on the forum thought. It's similar, for sure, but is still a very nice and effective stand-alone story. "Equilibrium" was very entertaining, and was probably the best part of "Eros."

Antonioni's.....I wanted to be pleasantly surprised after all of the criticism, but: the acting is terrible, I wish the dialogue was spoken in another language and I was reading it as subtitles, and the music (which happened to be by a woman with the last name Antonioni, hmmmmm) was horrendous. It was visually very nice; the locations and the slowly moving camera are great to watch. I also wish I knew what it was about exactly, as it only seemed like part of a story. The ending didn't really hit me with any meaning, but that may have just been me.

The linking art and music are very nice; I thought I recognized the voice of Caetano Veloso from "Talk To Her". He sounds beautiful in both films.

[Dylan]

I've been waiting a long time for this announcement. At last, the Warner R1 of the omnibus "Eros" has been announced.

Extras are slim aside from the inclusion of the largely acclaimed short film by Antonioni, "Eye to Eye."

I'll definitely be purchasing this, but I'm disappointed that I have to wait until February.

[jcelwin]

Nice cover art, very emotive. Took me a second to realise what it was, as I followed the image downward.

[benm]

jump on down to chinatown. i have a VCD version of it and it's great quality with great subtitles

[Oedipax]

I'm probably most excited about that Antonioni short. Is this the one where he gets up and walks around a museum? Rosenbaum mentioned it somewhere, I figured I'd never get a chance to see it.

[Barmy]

It appears that the Antonioni segment is in that badly-dubbed Italian, rather than the original English. Could they not have offered both versions?

I still think the reaction to the Antonioni piece was overly harsh. It was my favorite of the three.

[kinjitsu]

On the Australian R4 SE of 2046 Wong mentions in his hour long single take chat with Maggie Pomeranz that Almodovar was indeed slated to do an episode but couldn't meet the contractual deadline.

What a pity since Almodovar would have justly rounded out the omnibus with something offbeat and sexy.

[cdnchris]

It was because Almodovar dropped out that Soderbergh signed on. Originally it was supposed to be Antonioni, Wong, and Almodovar. I'm suspecting Almodovar's would have played where Soderbergh's was.

[DrewReiber]

According to all the publicity and project information on Eros at the time of initial development, Almodovar was attached to direct the interlinking segments.

[Andre Jurieu]

As I recall Almodovar was supposed to direct one of the three segments, but decided he didn't have the time (due mostly to filming Bad Education) and was thus replaced by Soderbergh. He was then supposed to direct the interlinking segments, but then was unable to because of duties/publicity for Cannes. I also recall that the entire project was conceived based upon Antonioni's involvement. I'm also doubting Soderbergh was trying to be overly erotic with his segment.

[Barmy]

Ahh, the Antonioni-bashers are back. Here's an interesting article on the filming of Antonioni's segment

And a quote from a good review:

Sure, it has all the elements of male fantasy, right down to the super-sexy Maserati convertible. But in the end, that male fantasy is revealed to be puny in relation to the power of women. It's no accident that the male character's last words come over a mobile phone, when he complains that it's snowing in Paris. It's not snowing on the beach in Italy. Nor is it an accident that his former partner Chloë is driving an SUV and not a sports car. At the conclusion, the two female leads exult in their bodies and their freedom in his absence in a way that reveals how incidental he has been in their bliss. I realize that, since this is an Antonioni film, we are dealing with a male fantasy of the female deconstruction of male fantasy. Still, that's a damned sight better than an uninterrogated male fantasy.

[Andre Jurieu]

I'd hardly consider myself to be an Antonioni-basher, but I am most certainly a The Dangerous Thread of Things-basher. As David points out, it's not the meaning that's being criticized so much as the execution.

[Barmy]

The very "offness" of "Dangerous" is what appeals to me. A 90-something stroke victim who has limited speaking and writing abilities is naturally going to make a different kind of film.

At the same time, the film seems very much of a piece with MA's other work. That meandering camera and the amount of footage devoted to matters that do not advance the "plot". For example, I loved that endless bit at the beginning where Cloe just puts on some clothes.

The cinematography is undeniably beautiful. Admittedly, it is a bit dialogue-heavy for Antonioni. I was definitely bothered by the dubbing, but otherwise I don't really see what was so bad about the actors' performances. In terms of what the film "means", the review I quoted above says it best.

I guess I don't really expect much from a short film. It's hard to think of more than a handful that mean anything to me. "Dangerous" has enough of the old Antonionian magic to make it worthwhile. That is why it surprises me that Antonioni fans have attacked it.

[Barmy]

So who got the DVD? I'm disappointed they did not give you an option to play Antonioni's piece with English dialogue. The "Eye to Eye" short is very nice.

From Daniel Kasman. I couldn't agree more. Also he is probably reviewing the Italian dub which makes the dialogue sound worse than it really is (admittedly the English version is a bit dodgy too, but at least it is the actors' own voices).

[quote]Notes on The Dangerous Thread of Things of Eros

I personally found Michelangelo Antonioni's section of Eros, titled The Dangerous Thread of Things from a story in the director's book The Bowling Alley on the Tiber, the most interesting and ambitious of the three, Wong Kar-wai's stumbling over a lame script and emptily aestheticized images, and Soderbergh's a disposable curiosity. Does Antonioni's section have its problems? Sure. While I have seen a whole lot of the director's work, I have not seen his fictional film (co-directed by Wim Wenders) made in closest proximity to this, Beyond the Clouds (1995) and his film shot after but released before Eros, the melancholy, exquisite Michelangelo Eye to Eye (2004) is not in a fictional context and has more in common with the director's many documentaries and quasi-documentaries. So it is a bit difficult to understand where the director is coming from in his approach to fiction in this film.

The “charactersâ€

[evillights]

From Daniel Kasman. I couldn't agree more. Also he is probably reviewing the Italian dub which makes the dialogue sound worse than it really is (admittedly the English version is a bit dodgy too, but at least it is the actors' own voices).

That's a nice piece; I think I've only read two or three others that took Antonioni's segment seriously. (As for the other two pieces, the Wong section is, in my opinion, one of his greatest films to date; the Soderbergh film has no redeeming qualities.) 'The Dangerous Thread of Things' -may- in fact be a masterpiece, maybe a minor-masterpiece (like there's any kind of universal value to these varying degrees). I have the impression that the film has as much to do with "cable television" and the "soft porn" aesthetic of the modern B-film, as it does with finding the intersection of (or tracing the thread that connects) cinema and the arousal of the spectator -- wondering, too, what role a "morality" plays in the whole thing (and what kind of morality it is, if it "does" at all). Two other good recent films exploring that latter idea (both in a completely different way) are Bonello's 'The Pornographer' and Tsai's 'The Wayward Cloud' (probably his greatest film, besides 'The River' and 'The Skywalk Is Gone').