criterionforum.org

Official site is up Official US site is up with trailer.

Are they still going to recut this as to have Antonioni's come first? I'm asking because on the US site, the order is the same as it always was (Kar-Wai/ Soderbergh/ Antonioni) and I heard that Antonioni's segment would be switched with Kar-Wai's. It would be a smart move, I believe, rather than have what most people are calling the best segment (Kar-Wai's) come first.

And the film opens limited in the US this Friday. Anybody going? I doubt a theater near me will get it (we still haven't even gotten "Melinda and Melinda" yet), but I'm looking forward to a wider spread of opinions on this.

Dylan

Last week I saw a screening of the film as it will be released in US theatres. The segments go as follows: Wong* / Soderbergh / Antonioni. Antonioni's segment is now in Italian with English subtitles, but its quite obvious to anyone looking at the film that the Italian voices are dubbed. And for anyone who looks particularly carefully, its clear that the original language the characters are speaking is English.

* better to refer to him by his family name. In China family names come first.

I'd like to hear a defense of "the Dangerous Thread of Things" from someone who has studied Antonioni with more gusto than I have (not a very high bar to surpass, admittedly) I found it pretty hard to comprehend what he was trying to do in the film. On the other hand it wasn't among the worst cinematic experiences of my life either, or even close. At least it was beautiful to look at.

Brian Oblivious wrote:Antonioni's segment is now in Italian with English subtitles, but its quite obvious to anyone looking at the film that the Italian voices are dubbed. And for anyone who looks particularly carefully, its clear that the original language the characters are speaking is English.

That's a really interesting decision. As I stated previously, I really felt the dialogue was rather awkward in English, and felt it might be more easily accepted in Italian. It would be fascinating to see how the film plays out with dubbed Italian, especially if it's fairly obvious that it is dubbed over english. It's weird that I believe I'd be more willing to accept what I originally felt was cheesy, pretentious dialogue, if it is delivered in a foreign language.

Brian Oblivious wrote: I'd like to hear a defense of "the Dangerous Thread of Things" from someone who has studied Antonioni with more gusto than I have

So would I.

Brian Oblivious wrote:On the other hand it wasn't among the worst cinematic experiences of my life either, or even close.

To each his own.

Brian Oblivious wrote:At least it was beautiful to look at.

I have a feeling if I used this argument with a Hollywood film, I'd be torn to shreds on this forum.

It's the Antonioni that bad?, I have heard/read nothing but being bad...


Axel.

I think it's also possible that Antonioni and company re-wrote some of the (reportedly awful) dialogue for the Italian dub. And I agree with Jit that this is indeed an interesting decision, and a very welcome one.

Dylan

Andre Jurieu wrote: I have a feeling if I used this argument with a Hollywood film, I'd be torn to shreds on this forum.

Well, please don't spare me from the shredder!

While you sharpen your blades (or don't), let me fortify my position a bit:

1. I know exactly what you mean about being able to accept cheesy pretentious dialogue if uttered in a language you're not as familiar with as your native tongue. I sometimes wonder how much of my gravitation toward foreign-language films was due to my increasing intolerance for certain types of dialogue and delivery, types that I tolerate perfectly well when spoken in languages I don't know. Meaning: I wouldn't be at all surprised if I had a reaction more similar to yours if I saw the English-language version.

2. I admittedly have trouble being a hardass on films I don't understand. I guess I don't consider clarity one of the greatest virtues a film can aspire to. In fact I like some of my favorite films precisely BECAUSE of their ambiguity. Most of the worst cinematic experiences of my life happened while sitting through a film that was trying too hard to be obvious all the time. Not something Antonioni ever has been accused of, to my knowledge.

Brian Oblivious wrote: Well, please don't spare me from the shredder!

While you sharpen your blades (or don't)

I'm not sharpening any blades or putting anyone through the shredder. I respect your opinion on Antonioni's segment, since it appears to share similarities with my own reaction. It seems that Antonioni is once again working at examining the male gaze, but it just appears so shallow and laboured at this point. I too hope there is much more that Antonioni may have wanted to convey, and I agree that the ambiguity within his projects often adds to their appeal.

I'm just saying this forum usually doesn't seem to be the type of place where one can just mention, "well, the film did look really nice" and leave that as the only positive aspect. I'm certain this wouldn't be tolerated if we were discussing the latest Hollywood hit.

It's just the double-standard that frustrates me a bit. If I were to say Con-Air was a problematic film, but that I'm not willing to declare it a failure because I enjoyed the cinematography, I'd be laughed off the board (and probably rightly so). However, there is this strange exception we make for something created by artists such as Godard or Antonioni. They have rightly earned our respect through their past efforts, and I'm sure their present ideas may complex and work in theory, but if their basic execution of the filmmaking doesn't work, I have to be honest with myself and declare the fact I didn't enjoy the project.

Perhaps, The Dangerous Thread of Things isn't THE worst cinematic experience I've had in my life (there is still Cool World, and I hadn't seen Spanglish at the time of my original statement), but its basic filmmaking elements were executed so poorly that it became difficult to see beneath the basics in order to understand whatever Antonioni's deeper message may have been. That's why I'm really interested to hear what a person, who is more knowledgeable than myself (and that's not a hard thing to find) might have to say about it.

Ebert's review.

The Hand- ****
Equilibrium- ***
The Dangerous Thread of Things- *

Seems to follow the general consensus.

No offense to anyone who didn't like the film, but I don't think it's wise to take any Ebert review seriously. In fact, it only makes me want to see it more. Luckily, I get that chance tomorrow night...

DrewReiber wrote:No offense to anyone who didn't like the film, but I don't think it's wise to take any Ebert review seriously. In fact, it only makes me want to see it more.

I second that. It's beyond me the respect this man has garnered through the years as I don't think he's a very good opinion maker.

Well, since I made the post on Ebert I feel inclined to comment. I too don't believe he's a great critc. I posted the link to the "Eros" review because it was one of the first I've read, and of course that his also follows the general consensus (which is, again- Kar-Wai: great, Soderbergh: good, Antonioni: bad).

A very positive review from (possibly my favorite) online critic, Jeffrey Anderson:

About Antonioni's:

"...an overly artsy and confusing metaphor, not helped by its odd and clumsy Italian dubbed soundtrack...nevertheless, taken one at a time, many of the film's images are fascinating and strikingly beautiful, not many living filmmakers could match them."

So, did anybody see it?

Dylan wrote:So, did anybody see it?

I just did, and again, no offense to anyone... but I really enjoyed Antonioni's segment. Couple of points to make regarding my criticisms (and opinion):

A) This short does not work on it's own terms. It's clearly a disembodied satellite from Antonioni's earlier work, most likely Beyond the Clouds and/or the stories of his he adapted from. If you come to this film with an understanding and appreciation of his themes and motifs, you can create a parallel to his visual and thematic storytelling in "The Dangerous Thread of Things".

However, the real danger lies in the lack of contrasting clues in this particular work. What stands out as one particular element may or may not be addressing again in those 30 or so minutes, thus leaving anybody hoping for a standalone story at a loss. This is perhaps it's greatest flaw, because it becomes more inaccessible than I think Antonioni intended. Though, as an extension of his previous work, it's definitely comprehensible and actually a much more positive comment in his feelings on eros than we are used to.

B) The music is terribly misguided. His choice for a soundtrack is so ill-concieved that it pushes the lovemaking sequence into something that sounds more like the stereotype of pornography. I found the sexual sequences themselves less explicit than the one in Beyond the Clouds with John Malkovich, at least in the cut presented at the Florida Film Festival.

Yes, there are definitely a few sequences with nude people, but not in what I would deem explicit. I mean, if you are so sensitive to naked people dancing around that you can't take it for it's meaning but rather must apply it as exploitational, than I think that's more about you than the film.

C) The fact that the sexual sequences are not far in place from those other moments is something that probably immediately confuses the audience. The film seems to carry many of the major plot points you might find in a feature length Antonioni work, but with less space between them and no interlinking narrative (as in Clouds), it only heightens the impact of using the nude form or sex in the context of this anthology.

I fear this is what has caused the attacks such as "amateur pornography" because the only contrasts provided are the far more subtle and sensitive approaches in "Equilibrium" and "The Hand". This short just does not get the impact it wants when bunched with these other works. Either this should have been shot as a feature length or been attached to an anthology much closer to Beyond the Clouds.

Those are the comments that immediately came to mind after seeing his short, along with the film. Though the lack of cohesion between the stories may harm them, I really enjoyed Eros and I just think you have to approach it with a little more preparation than it should have required. It's a unique film and most likely the last new piece from Antonioni we shall ever be privileged to see before his inevitable passing. I would go into more about "The Dangerous Thread of Things" but I don't want to give everything away before you have all had a chance to see it for yourselves. If there's anything else I could add that you want to know I'll be happy to try and provide it.

DrewReiber wrote: A) This short does not work on it's own terms. It's clearly a disembodied satellite from Antonioni's earlier work, most likely Beyond the Clouds and/or the stories of his he adapted from. If you come to this film with an understanding and appreciation of his themes and motifs, you can create a parallel to his visual and thematic storytelling in "The Dangerous Thread of Things".

But couldn't we say that about any film that is perceived to be flawed by a respected auteur filmmaker? Within the context of an entire career of a respected artist, any single piece may be interpreted as being significant, or undervalued and worthy of examination, but that doesn't necessarily mean it should be praised as a success or works on as an individual piece.

DrewReiber wrote:Yes, there are definitely a few sequences with nude people, but not in what I would deem explicit. I mean, if you are so sensitive to naked people dancing around that you can't take it for it's meaning but rather must apply it as exploitational, than I think that's more about you than the film.

Has anyone actually deemed these sequences to be explicit?

Andre Jurieu wrote:But couldn't we say that about any film that is perceived to be flawed by a respected auteur filmmaker?

Not really, no. "The Dangerous Thread of Things" was initially produced as part of a plan to create an anthology very similar to Beyond the Clouds. Pedro Almodovar was supposed to do the interlinking sequences to bring together the other sequences. After Antonioni finished his short in 2001, the others (made over the next few years) ended up having very little to do with each other what appeared to be the original intention of the film.

As this was adapted from his written work just like Beyond the Clouds (as per my understanding), it seems to me that Antonioni assumed a similar collaboration to his work with Wim Wenders. Once the films were completed, Almodovar dropped out without so much as a notice in the international film community and we ended up with a collage of works that don't really work off each other so much as depict unique works of distracted or otherwise contemplative cinema.

Aside from Antonioni's piece being announced as an extension of his earlier work and ending up in a very different kind of film, the finished anthology also holds the conceit that you're supposed to know who these filmmakers are. Each piece is preceeded by a title and director notification along with the paintings, just like the trailer. This is a very unique presentation from the kind of anthologies I'm familiar with, as it lacks either that interwoven narrative or the jump from one short to another. If there is another example of an anthology whose conception and arrangement is as convoluted as this one, I would be intrigued to hear about it. Otherwise, I'm kind of forced to treat this movie as a very special situation.

DrewReiber wrote:Has anyone actually deemed these sequences to be explicit?

In many of the reviews I read after it's festival premiere last year, yes. In fact, I'm finding some more of them now that it's running in the U.S. Our college newspaper even ran the "porno" line.

I'm aware of the production history of the film.

Essentially what your last post says is that Eros was originally intended to be a much more cohesive anthology, where the other two segments would share much more of a similarity to Antonioni's original sequence. At present you believe Eros is not as unified or interconnected as it was originally intended to be, due to the fact that the other two directors have chosen to create separate and unique pieces, that have little in common with Antonioni's sequence and his original intentions. That's fine. As you state:

DrewReiber wrote:Aside from Antonioni's piece being announced as an extension of his earlier work and ending up in a very different kind of film... Otherwise, I'm kind of forced to treat this movie as a very special situation.

So you're stating that Antonioni's portion is an extension of his earlier work. You then state that Eros as a finished film is very different from what it was originally intended to be.

Since the directors worked in isolation from one-another and Antonioni completed his segment beforehand, we can examine each segment individually, as well as view the complete film.

But here, I'm going to have to ask you to choose a distinction. Is Eros a collaboration between directors, or is it Antonioni's project in which he allows the other directors to dabble in. Are you comparing Eros to Antonioni's earlier work, or is the comparison between The Dangerous Thread of Things and the films that encompass Antonioni's body of work? When you examine Eros as a film, are you separating the segments, then asking how they relate to one another, and what the film says as a whole based upon the collaboration, or are you treating it as one singular statement by Antonioni? Is the perception of Antonioni's segment hurt because of the efforts of his chosen collaborators?

I ask, because you began by stating the following:

DrewReiber wrote:This short does not work on it's own terms.

This seems to convey that Antonioni's segment, when viewed alone, does not work based upon it's own intensions.

You then state...

DrewReiber wrote:It's clearly a disembodied satellite from Antonioni's earlier work, most likely Beyond the Clouds and/or the stories of his he adapted from.

... which seems to imply Antonioni's segment is very much influenced by his own recent works.

You continue by saying...

Drew Reiber wrote:If you come to this film with an understanding and appreciation of his themes and motifs, you can create a parallel to his visual and thematic storytelling in "The Dangerous Thread of Things".

... which implies that if the viewer is familiar with Antonioni's previous work and has a certain degree of appreciation and understanding as to what he has attempted to accomplish and convey in his previous works, he/she can appreciate and understand The Dangerous Thread of Things much better because of the segment relation to Antonioni's previous work.

In these statements The Dangerous Thread of Things is being examined on its own, as a separate creation with a separate auteur, apart from the other segments that make up Eros. You are not saying the viewer can better understand Eros if you have previous experience with Antonioni's career (I would assume we both believe this is true since Eros is a collaboration, and the parts are important to the whole), but rather saying that The Dangerous Thread of Things can be better appreciated if the viewer has experience with Antonioni's previous films.

Since you addressed Antonioni's The Dangerous Thread of Things as its own creation, I asked if these types of statements, regarding the relation between an undervalued project of an auteur director to the projects that encompass said director's entire career could not be applied to any auteur director. You stated that a better appreciation of Antonioni's segment could be achieved through understanding his career, and I am asking if we couldn't say this about any director. Couldn't we appreciate Eyes Wide Shut more, and further understand its relevance and importance to Kubrick, if we become more familiar with the themes and motifs Kubrick applied throughout his career? Couldn't we create a parallel to visual and thematic storytelling that allows us to appreciate Once Upon a Time in America more if we understand and appreciate the themes and motifs that Leone used throughout his career? Couldn't I say this about any director from Eisenstein to PT Anderson?

However, your second response is more concerned with what went wrong with Eros that lead to its fractured nature, rather than the question of comparison between an artist's single project and the work throughout his career. You begin by examining Antonioni's segment as its own work, but then decide to examine the entire collaboration as a whole. By scrutinizing Eros, when my original question addressed the individual Antonioni segment, which you yourself separated in your first comments, it appears as if you are blurring the lines considerably. There is no doubt that Eros is effected by each segment, but for the purposes of my original questions, I am only addressing the individual segment done by Antonioni.

DrewReiber wrote:

Andre Jurieu wrote:Has anyone actually deemed these sequences to be explicit?

In many of the reviews I read after it's festival premiere last year, yes.

Sorry, I thought you meant one of the forum members complained that the sequences were explicit.

Saw Eros at the Florida Film Festival last night.

The Hand is solid and as gorgeous as the best of Wong. A little masterpiece.

Equilibirum is surprisingly funny and smart. Very enjoyable and sublimely photographed. Much better than Soderburgh's previous features.

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.

Drew, did you watch Oldboy at midnight?

Andre Jurieu wrote:I'm aware of the production history of the film.

Andre, I really think this is more about you and I having different philosophies about critically analyzing films than anything I've said being confusing. It made it as simple as I could. I believe that "The Dangerous Thread of Things" is like a piece of another film that was either never completed or made years ago. It feels like someone cut off a limb from Beyond the Clouds or somewhere out in the unrealized imagination of Antonioni's mind there was more to where this short came from.

I have not read his original writings and I have no idea what he originally believed this short to be a part of once Eros was completed. But knowing just as much as you do about the history of this project and Antonioni, I simply can't treat this piece like I would any other work. As a short, it's brisk use of major thematic elements required contrasts and repetitions that would have been offered had it been a part of Beyond the Clouds or an anthology like it. Even viewed as a continuation of his ideas, it requires the length and attention of a feature film or other shorts like it to provide the parallels so people walking off the street might be clued in.

Without that, all I have to criticize is whatever techniques stuck out in my mind as a mistake (the music) and the overall failure of unity due to whoever produced this anthology. This has more to do with poor production choices than filmmaker ones, when I don't know who it was at Warner Independent that was making the call. If you want to view the piece as critically or equally to any other entity from an auteur, please do. But that's not what I'm going to do because I don't feel that direction is rational or fair. That's me, though.

Michael wrote: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.

I forgot about that. Yeah, it was really disconcerting at first but then we sort of stopped noticing. I think the actors were filmed speaking in English or another language other than Italian and they did a horrible job speaking. Language barrier or bad acting, I have no idea, but word was that it was laughably terrible. I guess after Antonioni recut the film after it's disasterous premiere, he dubbed it to try to make it better.

Drew, did you watch Oldboy at midnight?

No, unfortunately. I run the film club at the University of Central Florida and we didn't get funding this year. I ended up having to scrape together a little bit of emergency funds at the last minute, so we only ended up getting about 3 tickets a person. Risking a quick off topic question, how was it?

how was it?

Oldboy = a knockout! I definitely made a mistake watching this film at midnight. It left me so sparked, energized with its electricity of insane visuals that I lost sleep the entire night. The film is impossibly glorious and unforgettable in every department. All the twists are mind-bogglingly sick. I had so much fun! Oldboy is playing again tonight at 9:45. I'm going to watch it again. Drew, come by!

Michael wrote:Drew, come by!

Oh man, I absolutely would but I'm acting DP on one of my friend's film projects. We're making a 50's robot fantasy spoof and I'm locked in for the next two nights. Sorry!

Michael wrote: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.

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....

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

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.

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.