"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIn his 1966 film \"Blow Up\", Antonioni had his hero question truth against a backdrop of British youth protesters. By setting such questions against a fabric of hippie youth movements, Antonioni questioned, intentionally or not, the effectiveness of these organisations. How can you fight for a cause when what you think is true may actually be a lie? On the flip side, the film said that we must fight and actively challenge what we see precisely because others may be deceiving us with false images and false truths. Though the hippie aspects were the most tacky parts of \"Blow Up\", they created a nice texture and gave the film more meaning than it might otherwise have had. It was a very cautionary and mature little film.
With \"Zabriskie Point\" Antonioni throws away all the ambiguities and subtleties of \"Blow Up\" and goes full blown hippie. The result is a film awash with bad metaphors, stupid ideas and heavy handed storytelling. How could somebody, who across his career displayed such restraint and intelligence, make something so silly?
The film opens with a nice series of close ups, as we watch a group of radicals discussing the meaning of revolution. Suddenly one man (Mark) gets up and leaves. He hates the rigid and ordered nature of revolution. He recognises that, though revolutionaries fight for freedom, to bind oneself to such a militant cause is to effectively give your freedom away. And so like Jack Nicholson in \"The Passenger\", Mark just wants to be free.
As such, Mark buys a gun and goes solo. He takes orders from no one. When police raid his university campus Mark shoots a guy and runs away. He then flees to a nearby airfield, steals a small private plane and flies out to the desert. Antonioni treats the desert as a peaceful utopia, and contrasts it with the ruthlessly capitalist cities, with their billboards and hollow modern appliances. He sees the desert as a sort of Garden of Eden.
In the desert, Mark meets Daria and quickly falls in love. Antonioni then gives us a ridiculous sex scene in which hundreds of hippies have sex in the sand. Free from the constraints of modern life, these tree-huggers and student radicals can now celebrate their individualism by humping in the sun.
The film ends with Mark dying and Daria fantasising about blowing up the mansions and stately homes of the rich capitalists who killed him. It's Antonioni's challenge to his audience. Pick up the guns, pickets and explosives, he says. Tear the walls down before they cage you in!
Of course the film had no effect on its audience. They recognised \"Zabriskie Point\" as being just another self centred commercial attempt at being radical. A sort of commodified radicalism. It felt untruthful and tame.
Thematically the film is pretty stupid. Antonioni basically says that if you are unhappy with the modern world, and the fat cats who exploit you, you should either flee to the desert (Mark) or actively fight the system (Daria). That's all well and good. But though artists constantly warn us of such dystopian nightmares, they're all mostly unable to show us how to effectively administer change. Like the end of \"Fight Club\", nihilism and violence achieve nothing. In the real world, social change tends to be instigated by humble inventors, spurred ahead by minor technological advancements. I mean, what liberated women more than contraceptives?
3/10 - A very bad film. The problem is, Antonioni does not really believe in rebellion. He is a quiet and contemplative man. An introvert who seems to have made an extroverted film simply to garner more adoration from the counterculture who embraced his earlier film, \"Blow Up\". As such, \"Zabrinskie Point\" comes across as a very pretentious and stupid film. It's essentially a 50 year old man say \"Look at me, I'm a daring rebel!\"
There are many films in which the audience is encouraged to fight \"the system\", but they all fall into one of four categories. In the first category you have films like \"Network\", \"Cool Hand Luke\", \"Cuckoo's Nest\" and \"Spartacus\". These all show that the lives of freedom fighters all end in failure, though in each case the \"spirit of revolution\" survives. The message is that you can not effect change, but by dying or failing, the optimistic notion of change survives through martyrdom. Essentially we must keep on failing rather than give up hope.
Then you have films like \"Fight Club\", \"Zabriskie Point\" and \"Falling Down\", which simply encourage you to explode. Tear it all down. Blow it all up. Everything is a lie, so you might as well go out guns blazing. These films are borne out of angry, reactionary feelings, rather than any sort of common sense.
Then you have the \"flight rather than fight\" category. Terrence Malick and Antonioni are the masters of this genre. Films like \"The Passenger\", \"Red Desert\" and \"Badlands\" show human beings running from worlds they do not like and forging islands or peaceful havens for themselves. Both directors are pessimists, in that Malick has his islands destroyed and Antonioni has his islands offering no sense of happiness or solution.
Then you have the fourth category. Films like Donnersmarck's \"The Lives of Others\", Ashby's \"Bound For Glory\" and Kubrick's \"A Clockwork Orange\", treat artists as a force of change and rebellion. In these dystopian worlds, in which everyone is content to be a slave to the state, it is the unbridled creativity and freedom of will of the artist/criminal who keeps the system in check. By simply existing outside of the herd, you create waves. Your comments, actions and critical eye, challenges the status quo. As such, Donnersmarck's film has novelists and artists undermining Nazi Germany, whilst Kubrick has Alex the artist/criminal fighting Nazi droogs, painting the town in blood and sperm.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"