Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

The films of Michelangelo Antonioni

1999; Association of College and Research Libraries; Volume: 36; Issue: 08 Linguagem: Inglês

10.5860/choice.36-4389

1943-5975

Frank P. Tomasulo,

Italian Fascism and Post-war Society

Brunette, Peter. The Films of Michelangelo Antonioni. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge UP, 1998. 186 pp., $49.95 (cloth); $17.95 (paper). Whenever a career study of a much-written-about filmmaker is published, there is inevitably a Yogi Berra-like sense of deja-vu all over again. Initially, Peter Brunette's new monograph on Michelangelo most significant films provokes just such a been there, done response. With dozens of books and hundreds of scholarly essays devoted to director's oeuvre, what new contributions can be added to existing literature to justify yet another investigation of same films, same themes, same images? Although Brunette relies on overused examples, his approach is more contemporary and relevant than a casual reading would suggest. As stated in preface, Rather than emphasizing angst and alienation of characters, Brunette places films in context of director's ongoing social and political analysis of Italy of great postwar economic boom and demonstrates how they depend on painterly abstraction for their expressive effects. Although a handful of critics have attempted to situate work in its sociohistorical context, most notably P. Adams Sitney in his Vital Crises in Italian Cinema (Austin: U of Texas P, 1995), Brunette is right to point out that Antonioni's early interpreters saw his films primarily as an expression of `existential angst' or `alienation' (1). Brunette wants to move beyond these purely textual readings, yet he wisely critiques those scholars who apply crude metaphors of `reflection,' as in `this film reflects governmental crisis of 1960' (3). Instead, Brunette regards films as collections of signifiers that turn out to have ambiguous signifieds . . . even on level of shot (4). I also explored such textual ambiguity in my UCLA doctoral dissertation: polysemic cinematic articulations of a polysemic socioeconomic in flux. In emphasizing social class and gender, Brunette's contribution to ongoing debate is welcome. And while author acknowledges that mainly portrays the male way of being in world (9), he also points out instances in which female character is focal point or focalizer of narrative. Thus, Brunette shows how both exposes patriarchy and valorizes feminism. And, although director was thought to be an especially observant chronicler of postwar Italian boom years, it is still worthwhile (although a bit of an exaggeration) for Brunette to point out that often unnoticed social critique is held in tension with a rigorous formalism that was utterly new to mainstream cinema in 1960 (10). One can point to many precursors in film history that combined progressive social messages with innovative cinematic techniques-Potemkin, Citizen Kane, and Rules of Game being classic examples from before 1960. What has changed are critical climate and scholarly paradigms by which we analyze and appreciate such films. In a way, unique thematic ambiguity and poetic aesthetic anticipated deconstructionist movement, thereby justifying calling filmmaker the most postmodern of directors (14). 1 would argue that is actually a modernist director, in part because ambiguity and overall problematics of language are uniquely modern concerns. Still, Brunette makes a good case for his position. The author also makes a good case for idea that Antonioni was never a (18). Clearly, director's poetic expressiveness and concern with bourgeoisie from start of his career were antithetical to neorealist project; nevertheless, he attempted to get at interior lives of his characters primarily through exteriorization-a process pioneered by DeSica, Rossellini, and Visconti. Actually, Brunette does not go into much depth or detail with regard to any of early features or his more recent output. …