L'Avventura

Michelangelo Antonioni - 1960
Huge expectations, exceeded.
The editing of Antonioni's Italian films is, for me, about as good as it gets. Each cut produces a surprise, then you expect to be surprised, and it surprised you with something different. This is what seeing the world afresh means. One never quite gets the geography of the island, or indeed pretty much any space. It just isn't quite contiguous, somebody comes from the 'wrong' place, though I'm always unsure what the 'right' one could be.
This is carried on by the frequent motif of people talking 'to' each other, yet not looking at each other. This notion pretty much destroys the ideas of classical SRS (hence we usually have both at once; that's how I know this), classical montage just won't work in the modern age.
Has anyone written a study of Antonioni and Hitchcock? I slightly prefer the former, maybe. In him I find a slight essence of Hitchock, also on the eyeline matches; I do though feel he is less idealistic, his world is less controlled than the vision of one man. The world is bigger than Antonioni, an ethically superior positon, to my thinking.
This notion of constant surprises is also a little Hitcockian, and what i really mean is that there is simply an unusual level of thought and, ultimately here, brilliance, in the mis-en-scene. A head or body part pops into the frame unexpectedly, a camera moves reveal someone or something unexpected; that is directing, because it creates something new in us, we can't be complacent, constant learning, art. The camera moves aren't really very baroque (well, compared to Visconti), but are pretty active, moving around corners as we move from image to image at a leisurely but not self-regarding pace.
Let's talk about Antonioni's compositions. With the off-centered stuff I know, he frequently divides his frame. The last shot, stone and, to be reductive, the 'modern' on one side, the mountain, old Europe, on the other. Often there are big differences half to half, outside to inside, one kind of shape or lighting to another. There are generally more verticals than horizontals, often a play with them, a move being made to highlight a dialogue or conflict between the shapes.
The framing often hides, a face, a thing, a person. We see so much of the back of Vitti's head. And then she turns around; this film can be read as a series of Vitti turning her head around, beautiful, childish, playful, old, that word 'enigmatic', bored, superior, intelligent. Is the turn a development, of greatest interest, than a simple (Stewart- 'Vertigo') eyeline match.
Antonioni is the master of the environment and architecture, we are told; I entirely agree. What we have here is more people sticking out from the environment; a different shade, popping slghtly in often pretty deep compositions; uneasiness. One often hears about Antonionians sinking in, and this does happen, even to Vitti here, but apart from the party scene near the end I didn't see this as a motif; usually agianst the sky or wall there is a contrast. It is just too simple to talk about 'sinking in'. The sticking out usually gives a sense of outline, but this seems to come more from a lack of frontlighting than any particular focus on backlighting.
The architecture is stunning; each Antonioni location is just invested with a look I haven't seen before, a surprise, a new way of looking at the world. At once abstract, but with clear, modern signs ('..BAC'). We have the old town hall, the ruins, churches, huge doors and walls. There is usually looming over. Yet also, for example in the waiting room, something different can be achieved. The disorientation of a place, abstract yet dirty, not empty.
And that famous narrative. It surprises us; we don't notice Anna goes missing either. It teases with half a dozen little nods at suggestions, nothing too much formed, just ideas that float away... like the themes. It discusses our expectations as well, aware of the difficulty of telling a story. It surprises by moving on. How can it make Vitti (her acting, partly the answer) just sitting on a bed beyond fascinating? This idea of seeing anew; I was constantly asking myself, as a situation overtakes the characters (always); 'what the hell are they meant to do now'? The most powerful is perhaps the fight, then the church and boys that go past.
Oh and, and.. the slow moves with their boats going past, with impressions of time, time going past. The story moves slowly, they walk slowly, but that's not the point with movement... Every shot is so beautiful, so precisely composed yet not anal or idealistic, dark on light, looking out and not seeing the face, an evocation of an enviroment before a person, but so much in the person, not really a difference.
This film is really incredible, as they say, the talking, the text can't quite explain, yet we talk.... this connects with the great films of modern life in my mind at the moment, even 'Filme Socialisme'.... wow.