In both Robert Kramer's "Ice" and Michelangelo Antonioni's "Zabriskie Point", the country they depict is the same (the US), the females are (mostly) depicted in a similar manner (as not being emotionally stable enough to be a revolutionary), and the time period is the same. So, with all this being said, one might ask "What's the difference between Zabriskie Point and Ice?". To try and answer, with the former, through RESEARCH, director Antonioni set about making a film about the contrast between "rebels and revolutionaries" of the late 60s and their demise, whereas with the latter, through EXPERIENCE, director Kramer set about making a fictional film with "a hazy semi-documentary style" (according to Pauline Kael) to put us in medias res within the world of the revolutionaries. Because of the Kramer's more radical approach to film and documentary making, it is obvious to see why when one views Kramer's Wikipedia page, it is practically blank, whereas Antonioni, who took a more "traditional" (for lack of a better term), has his page filled as well as the page for his film "Zabriskie Point".
It's interesting to note that "Zabriskie Point", coined by Arthur Schlesinger Jr. as the "counterversion of the Green Berets", was "Americanized" by trying to be the exact opposite of what its Counterpart was emulating (American pro-war propaganda films), whereas "Ice", which looks more similar to propaganda films, was not "Americanized" due to its bleak portrayal of America along with its intensely graphic scene of male genital mutilation.
Ultimately, both films can be seen as "failures" when looking at them through a financial and critical standpoint. Where the resonance of both films come in to play is through Antonioni's outsider perspective of the US, how 68 affected the US and how 68 affected students in the US. Kramer's resonance lies in his "face-saving sentimentality" in his depiction of a group that so closely mirrors his own Newsreel group. "Ice" and its bleakness painted a very specific picture of revolutionaries at the time that could only be painted by someone who had gone through similar experiences as the revolutionaries themselves.
So while both "Zabriskie Point" and "Ice" have many things in common (location, time period, "unflattering" portrayals of women and revolutionaries), they are ultimately different in their tone, mood, and remembrance in society and film's collective memory.
When you think about it, nothing really happens in Michelangelo Antonioni’s Zabriskie Point, but when does anything happen in his films? His films are less about the plot and more about the feelings (or lack thereof) that the modern world evokes in his characters and subsequently in the viewer as well. However, in his review of Zabriskie Point, Arthur Zchlesinger Jr writes that Antonioni’s “hatred of America has given him a vision without nuance or complexity and has thereby betrayed him as an artist” (175), which comes off as a misguided conclusion. Rather, I would argue the film is using irony and sarcasm against American culture (counterculture included) in such a high degree that it’s easy to misinterpret; which is not to say that this is anywhere close to Antonioni’s best work.
True, many of the films produced by Hollywood about the “hippie movement” exploited popular demand and focused more on the “crises of individual identity and male coming of age” rather than the real struggles of the social movements (Bodroghkozy, 42). However, I see Antonioni critiquing that method of film narrative by using a character, Mark, which embodies the attitude of individualistic action. Mark wants to fight the oppressors and is tired of talking, and all of his actions are done without any other support, except during the surreal orgy in the desert. In the end, his actions only get him killed without accomplishing any progress. After Mark leaves during the beginning scene at the student meeting, one of the students questions how anyone who refuses to work with others can be a revolutionary, a clear statement against the culture of individualism in revolutionary struggles; it’s a Hollywood ending (for the time), it’s a Hollywood film, and it’s criticizing all of Hollywood.
To be fair, Antonioni is basically attacking all forms of American culture and is arguing for its destruction, as shown by the final scene of exploding homes, clothes, and other consumables (it was originally supposed to end with an airplane writing “Fuck You, America” in the sky). The only time the film seems to be genuinely in favor of anything is during the beginning moments where the real Black Panthers confront students and their commitment to revolutionary ideals.
My impression of 'Ice' seems more or less in line with Pauline Kael's in that the film is fundamentally 'without explanations.' Its relationship to and dealing with information was incredibly peculiar. The characters pass around photographs that we aren't allowed to see. They drop newspapers on a streetcorner and scatter them, but not in a way that reveals anything to the film's viewers. When they call each other, they talk exclusively about nothing at all. In fact, I didn't note a single instance of diegetic ideology in the film, except for, maybe, the bookstore scene, which takes place in front of a section enthusiastically labelled 'CHINA.'
The film isn't quite barren of ideology, though; the disjointed narrative of the student group is occasionally broken by still images of political institutions and politicians and audio/video clips that explicitly endorse violent revolution. Of these, the anti-liberal scenes feel the most relevant, especially when viewed in the context of the Carmichael reading; whatever the film is for, we at least know it's against the 'false consciousness' of the liberal.
But, what could it possibly be for? Kael seems to think it's a film about and defined by blankness, but I'm not sure it's that simple. The film, though it contains little actual information, is constantly referencing the search for and the exchange of information. The characters are 'paying with details.' They're discussing things at the end of the meeting instead of on camera. They're presumably printing and distributing newsletters with words on them and making films with words in them. And, they're trading not blank pieces of paper, but photographs of people and things. None of the objects that could be blank, and would therefore define the film as about blankness, actually are blank. They just aren't available to us, the viewer.
Instead, we get disconnected revolutionary scenes that don't seem to mean much, juxtaposed with very direct, straightforward statements of ideology, two very different forms that, oddly, resonate with statements in the film. In one scene, the bearded man with the glasses runs around the room, shouting about ideas and movement and how the two are 'completely disconnected.' In the next, a woman, who we're told is a teacher, talks about how her students 'need structure in order to learn.' Taken together, these two statements seem to be an indictment of the film itself.
Though Michelangelo Antonioni comes from a different culture of filmmaking than the New American Cinema of the late 60s and 70s, it is interesting that his protagonist has many of the same features of the typical American protagonist. He’s the total package: rebellious, smart, and good looking. He individually stands up to the hypocrisy of imperialist, capitalist American society. As Arthur Schlesinger notes, his characterization as the perfect revolutionary is subverted at times by the absurdity of some of his qualities illustrated by the nonchalant way he steals a plane, “does Antonioni assume that all American boys know how to fly?” (174). If Mark is the ideal revolutionary, it would be difficult for just about anyone to match his unbelievable traits and skills. It seems “Zabriskie Point” believes Mark’s is the best form of revolutionary action in comparison to the collective’s shown at the film’s beginning. Though Mark may not have changed the world in a big way, he still manages to convince Daria that her simplistic and optimistic view of the world ignores the deep seated problems ingrained in society. Even if successful rebellion isn’t realized in the film, at least the idea of it is supplanted in Daria as seen in the film’s explosive finale.
Mark is much like the type of person Richard Jenkins’ character argues in favor of during his lecture in Robert Redford’s “The Company you Keep.” Instead of sitting around and discussing the best way to go about revolutionary action, he takes matters into his own hands and becomes a martyr for the revolution, brutally and wrongly murdered by a policeman upon his return of a plane which he has transformed into an image of psychedelic art, sexual liberation, and peace.
Antonioni’s protagonists have never been the type of characters portrayed in Hollywood cinema. They usually depict flawed and damaged individuals who feel isolated and alienated from the modern world. They are extensions of the modern world that Antonioni uses to critique it. Yet, with “Zabriskie Point,” Antonioni never seems to critique Mark’s behavior the same way he usually critiques his protagonists. Schlesinger argues that with “Zabriskie Point” Antonioni has been Americanized, and I think, at least in this way, he does succumb to the Hollywood model of the perfect leading man that the audience is supposed to be able to sympathize with and put their support behind.
Some things I should have brought up about Zabriskie Point but forgot....
1. The people playing Mark and Daria are non-actors and their actual first names are Mark and Daria. Antonioni "discovered" them and got them to be in his film. Mark was discovered after one of Antonioni's assistants saw him getting in a heated argument with someone in Boston and about five years later Mark died (for real) while he was serving time in prison for robbery. Daria later married Dennis Hopper for a year. She only starred in one other movie after Zabriskie Point. It goes to show that although Antonioni was critically attacked for the film (and his reputation was never the same after this film), it goes to show that he had a clear plan of what he wanted to do with this film. He could have cast anybody in these roles and it seems to me he was trying to find the "real thing" rather than actors If you watch the Dick Cavett interview of Mark and Daria on YouTube, it is an awkward piece of entertainment because they are not behaving the way "celebrities" do on these shows.
2. Antonioni included Mark stealing an airplane in the film because he read an article involving a young man stealing a plane. Again, as I said, Antonioni did a lot of research on the film, regardless of what it may seem.
I should have known by the music. The opening sequence with its hauntingly, soft whispered voices paired with an upbeat, nonchalant melody foreshadows the weirdness that follows, was a foreshadow of the weirdness to come. The first scene with its discussion between students, with almost a documentary feel, sets a straightforward, believable stand. The denunciation of fascism, police brutality, racial divisions, violence, and revolutionary struggle shimmers at the hope of a serious narrative to delineate the real problems of the 60’s in the USA.
The diversity of voice and opinions, combined with the painfully static audio quality of fragmented denunciations of bourgeoisie individualism and the representation of the people are all there, obtainable, and awaiting to be taken seriously. Nevertheless, with Mark’s departure, it also seems there is a departure of direct, revolutionary addressing. As mentioned today in the presentation, it wasn’t as if Antonioni didn’t have the resources to carry out that approach through the whole film. So why not follow through with the early promise of educating? I stand by my point in class though, despite Schlesingers observation that, “only the most devoted can regard the opening scene as an expression of serious revolutionary purpose rather than as a satire…” (174). That first scene to me, seems to show the real educational hint of the film. Even as it contradicts the essay’s approach, which points out the simplification and how it “ma[d]e an exceedingly simple-minded hymn of violence” (1975).
The quickly changing style, with piercing music, scattered advertisements, and unrealistic images is, I think, a foreigners view into the “struggle” of the US—and, as mentioned by Arthur Schlesinger Jr., Antonioni’s “vision of [how] America is of a land of nightmares.” (173). This angle, makes me firmly think that it isn’t the first scene that’s a farce. It is the full movie, with its overly simplistic metaphors, and direct attention to capitalistic motifs that creates a satire and a denunciation of the “struggle” of US in the ‘60s.
Like Benjamin, I also found myself mostly in line with Pauline Kael’s take on “Ice,” especially when she brings up the ambiguous self-consciousness that the film appears to sometimes show. The film is a particularly troublesome document because, as Kael mentions, “anything one can perceive in the film might have been put there deliberately or might have found its way in and been accepted as belonging there” (115). In other words, it is difficult to ascertain whether the film is genuinely problematic in its narrative structure and political stance due to some oblivious fault on the part of the filmmakers, or if it is a conscious effort to criticize the young revolutionaries that raise so many unanswered questions. Perhaps the film seems so disjointed and muddled because the filmmakers wanted to highlight the disjointed and muddled structure of US revolutionary groups that, to their mind, just weren’t cutting it. While scenes such as the one in which the older bookstore employee fruitlessly demands clarity from a group member and asks, “What kind of revolution are you involved in?” overtly call the young rebels into question, the more-or-less narrative impenetrability of the film forces the viewer to really concentrate on the film and come to their own critical realizations about the disjointed group. While a markedly different film, Antonioni’s “Zabriskie Point” is similar in its focus on the unfocused nature of America’s Youth. In his write up of the film, Arthur Schlesinger brings up an interesting quote from Antonioni that expresses his thoughts on the transformative period in which he made the film, a period of crisis that “comes from this spiritual confusion, from this confusion of conscience, of faith and of politics” (174). Actions such as Mark stealing a plane only to return it later after he knows the police are after him show a sort of inner conflict between being outraged at society and not knowing how to channel it productively. Despite the heavy handed symbolism and violence that Antonioni uses to make an overt political statement, the seemingly aimless wandering of both Mark and Daria are significant in their representation of youth struggling to find meaning.
Going off of what Dan said about Zabriskie Point, I think the film effectively portrays, as Dan mentioned, the struggle for youth at that time to find meaning. The audience is able to view the different sides of characters in the film, especially Mark, and see what he is really like. Antonioni represents this openness as an individual throughout the film, but especially when Mark paints the plane with “He-She-It” on the side. However, that is not how the rest of the characters perceive Mark. The cops view the students and Mark in only one way: as a threat. In their minds there is no other possibility and Antonioni shows this through the immediacy with which the police fire their weapons (something that we are still dealing with in the present day). In his article on the film, Arthur Schelsinger Jr. discusses these problems in the country as a whole, stating, “Everyone living is a victim or a monster. Even little children are so deformed by the corrupt society that, when nine-year-old kids encounter the heroine, their first thought is rape” (173). The society has failed these individuals and, when they search for alternative avenues of living or thinking that go against the status quo, they are immediately condemned as a criminal or traitor. Antonioni makes it clear that this is the case as he shows the police shooting their guns immediately at two different point in the film without ever waiting to learn more about the situation they are in and try to find a peaceful solution. In Ice, Robert Kramer presents revolutionaries in the US in a similar fashion, at least in my opinion, to the way Rainer Werner Fassbinder portrayed later generations of the RAF in The Third Generation. Specifically, towards the end of the film, the older man who was working in the bookstore goes to one of the apartments and proceeds to go on a rant against the "revolutionaries". The man continually asks "what..what are you doing?", directly questioning the beliefs and actions of the group. Pauline Kael discusses this in the film overall, stating, “This long, ambitious picture is passive and demoralized and mechanical; it’s as alienated as its characters. I don’t think Kramer has merely projected his own alienation onto them; I think he shares in their absence of goals, and that’s why his movie is so paralyzingly boring” (111). So, just like the film, there is really nothing there for these revolutionaries except for the IDEA of being revolutionary. As the man from the bookstore points out, these people who claim to be revolutionaries are essentially puppets (something we saw very clearly in The Third Generation) just like the public that they criticize of being puppets. The beliefs and views of the group are just as hollow as Kramer's film make them out to be.
Man, Zabriskie Point sure was a wacky experience. Out of all the film we've seen this semester, Zabriskie was probably the most ham-fisted out of all of them. Like it was pointed out today in class and in the Schleschinger article, the visual metaphors are all kind of tired and over used, but that doesn't mean what Antonioni's trying to say is diminished at all. What I got from the film is a pessimistic view on student protestors during the events of 1968 through the character of Mark by visually associating him with the rampant capitalism that was the center of criticism from students at the time. In itself, the film starts out with a discussion between white students and a panel of african americans (Black Panthers??), talking about the protests and demonstrations. Perhaps I'm coming to this conclusion on my own, but it seems like the white students were just trying to force themselves into the situation, only causing trouble for the black panelists who actually knew what was going on. Fast forward to Mark's scenes in the airplane, looking down upon the desert below. I think that there's a visual connection between his flight and the video from the Sunny Dunes development. He doesn't join anyone in the desert, to which we see actual poverty in the desert, he just chooses to fool about in his plane, buzzing Daria's car. I think that Mark is essentially one of the students in the beginning, doesn't really belong to this conflict, inserting himself as an outsider. I don't really agree with the point of view that some others have that Mark is a sort of romanticized late 1960's role model, I think it's a lot more critical than that. Perhaps I'm just pessimistic, but to me it seems like the film is as well.
More than any film so far dealing with militant groups, Ice appears to me to be most ambiguous, in terms of what its purpose is. A film like The Third Generation pointed out the weakness of the terrorist group and of the state and how those two factions interact. A film like La Chinoise excplicity, repeatedly shows with revolutionary spirit the ideologies of these middle-class revolutionaries. But where Ice is concerned, I am left with no conclusion, only skepticism.
The film alternates between cinema verité style filmmaking and non-diegetic ideological statements. One of the first of these statements proclaims that one of their efforts is to destroy "the false consciousness." The apologist part of the American identity that condones violence, doesn't take up arms, judges but doesn't act, speaks but doesn't listen, who subtlety supports the Establishment. If this is truly one of the groups ideologies, then one can compare members of the group to it. This is supposedly a group without a false consciousness, so, what then, has replaced it? A real consciousness? Apparently not. And as Kael says in his essay, "They have accepted their roles as cogs in the revolution, and, being devoid of strong personality, or flamboyant passions, they are alike...They have rationalized irrationality and they have domesticated their alienation in communal living." They have replaced their false consciousness with hardly a conscious at all, really. They are whole group of people sharing the same delusion. The non-diegetic statements also say that the group's goal is to incite a large scale mass rebellion by coordinating with other groups. And yet, they seem to really only coordinate with other well-off young white people. They stick to their kind and have the delusion of grandeur that they will be enough. But maybe I'm taking these non-diegetic statements with too many grains of salt. Maybe they are sincere statements that could work perfectly if another group of people carried it out. But it is hard for me to look at them and not see irony in every one.
Although the film seemed to be the most Hollywood-esque out of possibly all the films we watched this semester, from the first scene of the film, Zabriskie seems almost shoddily made. As I watched this with my mother she noted just within the first few moments that, “the sound is horrible, all the characters are talking at once, they are all no name actors, and the atmosphere is this cramped room with blank walls,” she was thoroughly uninterested for its continuation. Though the cinematography and scenery were fantastic (especially the desert scenes with the wide landscape and lavishly blue sky), I’m not sure exactly what else was the point of this film. When researching further it was obvious that this film wasn’t garnered very well by viewers, being a box-office bomb and being widely panned by critics, but I also read that it gained a cult following, and that although the film was called something like “the worst attempt in cinematic history” it wasn’t entirely unwatchable. It does call into question the artistic merit of films that are otherwise considered cinematic garbage, bringing to mind the early Birth of a Nation, with its innovative filmmaking techniques and horribly torturous 3 hour run time; whether or not these films deserve their recognition seems to be an arguable topic.
“[I]f Antonioni’s idea is to make a contrast between rebels and revolutionaries, the film hardly sustains this point. Only the most devoted can regard the opening scene as an expression of serious revolutionary purpose” (Shlesinger, 174). Michelangelo Antonioni’s Zabriskie takes a very cynical approach to depicting a revolution movement. In part two, two gentlemen are riding in a truck when one proclaims, “what if joining isn’t a matter of choice, and it’s about survival.” This theme is reflected in the opening scene when an African-American man is debating a Caucasian woman about what makes whites revolutionary. From the opening scene its made clear that African-Americans are revolutionaries fighting for equality and a higher standard of life but this is a representation of false consciousness. Robert Kramer’s “Ice” film presents some quotes that deal with the issue at hand directly. “False consciousness is peoples’ rationalization for the exploitation and oppression that they experience in their daily lives”, and I highly agree with this. The director intends to makes this connotation as blacks being oppressed by a fascist government, but is struggling to show why people who were benefiting by this were drawn in and what they are fighting for. The film only mentions “there are many whites out there who are dissatisfied and potential revolutionaries”. One comment that stood out was “there are whites outside fighting in the streets just like you do [blacks] in the ghetto everyday”. Excluding the beginning of this film, a direct concept of revolutionary movement is absent in the film. Only subtle references to false consciousness such as a “reality trip” are prevalent.
Zabriskie Point (1970) is a film that try to tell a story, as weird as that story may be, there are criticisms of police brutality and the evolution of the hippie movement that are clearly expressed through the magic of film narrative. However, what is one of the more fascinating elements that happens way before any of the story starts is the beginning of the film where a bunch of students are arguing over whether there needs to be a strike among the campus. The entire scene is shot in a documentary-like style only in black and white and spells out the problems existing in the film. One could ask why is this scene in the film, it is a clear anomaly to the rest of the picture and serves no narrative purpose for the rest of the film. This could be a easily cuttable scene, what purpose does this serve? I think this scene relates to a question that was asked during the Japan presentation about which film style do we prefer and which has a more powerful effect, documentaries that try to tell all the facts or narrative films that gives their own political agenda in a subdued way. The overwhelming choice was the latter for many reasons, more interesting, get to tell a richer story, etc. and I generally agree that narrative films are more interesting but I also think our class itself can be biased in our choices because we are well-informed about the struggles of that time period. We think Fassbinder’s The Third Generation is a much more influential film because Fassbinder is a great director but also because we know about the political ties surrounding it. But if I were to show this to someone who knew nothing about Germany in 1968, or even myself four months ago, I or probably anyone else would have no clue what is going on. A documentary may not be as radical but it will get across important information. That is why the first scene in Zabriskie is important because it is expressing it dilemma to the viewers. There is no need to separate yourself from the story because the fourth wall has already been broken for you.Whether you thinks that is a good decision is up to you, but Michelangelo Antonioni decided that informing the viewers was better than leaving them in the dust.
Michelangelo Antonioni’s Zabriskie Point (1970) begins right off the bat with a somewhat hectic, chaotic meeting of student radicals in Los Angeles planning a demonstration, discussing what it means to be a revolutionary and the different roles different people can play in the revolution. Unlike many of the other films we’ve seen in class, within the first ten minutes of the film, we are introduced to the many different elements at play in America in 1968, most importantly the element of race and race relations between the white liberal student revolutionaries and the black revolutionaries. As Andrew points out, the film paints an unflattering (but fair) portrait of the white revolutionaries, who only attempt to force themselves into the situation, speaking over the black panelists and trying in vain to compare the struggles of white Americans to black Americans (which is akin to comparing apples to oranges.) White people can only be so helpful in the revolution when they say things like, “there are whites outside fighting in the streets like you [black Americans] in the ghetto everyday,” as Mason points out.
But the film, overall, points out the inherently unfocused nature of the student movement in America. The filmmaking style reflects that, keeping Zabriskie Point in line with the idea of “revolutionary filmmaking vs conventional filmmaking” that we’ve discussed all semester long. And much like Zabriskie Point, Robert Kramer’s Ice (1970) is another example of an unfocused, hard-to-follow revolutionary film set in America around 1968. As Pauline Kael so aptly puts it, “As a piece of moviemaking, it is gray and grainy and painfully stagnant, and when you strain to make out the overlapping mumbled conversations you discover that nothing in particular is being communicated… It’s a film about political commitment that is made not only without commitment to film as an art form but without any enthusiasm for its own political commitment” (110.) Much like the so-called revolutionaries, it doesn’t feel as though Kramer is attempting to make much of a point with Ice. But perhaps that is the entire point.
I want to address the conflicting filming styles that are presented in "Zabriskie Point," and what they might contribute to the idea and dialogue of the film. In the first ten minutes of the film when the discussion regarding the participation of white students on campus takes place at the meeting, the camera flashes back and forth between members of the meeting. There are rough cuts with little continuity and difficulty in understanding the students because of the overlapping dialogue. It is shot like a documentary. After this scene, the style becomes much more conventional. Generally speaking, even if a film takes on a very strange format, it remains consistent throughout. This is not the case for "Zabriskie Point."
After Mark leaves the meeting claiming he's willing to die, but not of boredom, one of the leaders says, "That bourgeoisie individualism that he's indulging in is going to get him killed," and it ultimately does. It is after he leaves that the style changes and where the film becomes conventional. We see the billboards and the mannequins, the Wonderbread and the fancy clothes, all obviously representing America's obsession with consumerism and capitalism. While his call to revolution is painfully obvious through these blatant moments of symbolism, what is not clear is why he chose to film particular scenes the way he did. Unlike Godard or Kramer who use very revolutionary methods of communication, Antonioni uses a rather conventional one with a occasionally, but not always, unconventional plot. Is this a jab at Mark's individualism? Is it a way of critiquing America for its generally un-revolutionary, all-talk-no-action methods? Because of the sudden shift in format after our main character leaves the meeting, I don't believe that it is unintentional.
Robert Kramer’s Ice and Michelangelo Antonioni’s Zabriskie Point circle around similar issues with America in the late 1960s and early 1970s, but approach this examination and critique very differently. Both films as a whole, though, consider the actions of primarily white, “young, privileged, well-educated” revolutionaries, with a shared focus on sexuality, and bring to mind prescient and dystopic prophecy; Zabriskie Point was seen at the time of its release as depicting (or at least representing) “simultaneously yesterday's papers, present reality, [and] tomorrow's reality, an unattractive but increasingly possible alternative,” and that goes doubly true for Ice, with its setting in an even stauncher police state (Kael 112, and Lichtenberg via Bodroghkozy 45).
Kael asserts that Ice is memorable in its and its characters’ “absence of goals” (Kael 111). As with Zabriskie Point, the “characters” are portrayed woodenly by non-actors who seem to intentionally not emote and are written like children spewing manifestos and trying desperately to be taken seriously as adults and legitimate threats to authority; they are “blank” and without their own identity, compounded by the fact that they all sort of look alike (Kael 116). Their lack of efficiency and disorganization – and overall lack of organization – add to this sense of formlessness. Another absence that is strongly felt in the film is the lack of color, pointing to another lack: a lack of budget. The grainy black and white separates Ice from Antonioni’s film visually, but also in its message that everything about life in America is kind of a lumpy, indeterminate mess.
Zabriskie Point directly, visually, incorporates absence in its landscape, which Schlesinger calls a “sinister loveliness” (Schlesinger 173). The desert in and around Los Angeles is stark, alternately flat and mountainous, but certainly devoid of life; it is not, however, devoid of advertisements, quite the opposite – consumerism has replaced humanity. Iconography is another visual element that defines the film, with many close-ups on slogans and place names, such as the sign for Zabriskie Point itself. If Ice is partly defined by its lack of a character, then Zabriskie Point is at least partly defined by its presence of setting. The film could not occur in a different time nor different place without the feeling and plot becoming utterly dissimilar. I *highly* doubt this film (and Ice) could have been made or would have been able to be made in any other time or place. This pair of films reflect an America at a place in history where it can either freeze in its old ways or venture over the point into unknown valleys or mountains.
Michelangelo Antonioni’s film “Zabriskie Point” was very much an outsider’s perspective of both the United States and the movement in the US in 1968. This point is upheld by Arthur Schlesinger Jr. many times in his article on Zabriskie Point. As was pointed out in Arthur Schlesinger Jr’s article, & in the group presentation on Tuesday, the film’s use of metaphors is very simplistic and uncreative. Quoting from Schlesinger’s article: “His use of billboards to provide “ironic” underlining of the action is heavy handed. When the cops attack the students, Antonioni gives us a sign on a college building: ‘’Liberal Arts.’’ After the shooting, the hero sees a placard advertising a mortuary; when he is hungry, he is assailed by food billboards; when he is trying to escape, United Air Lines tells him, “Let’s get away from it all.” All of these metaphors contribute a great deal to the simple-mindedness that was pointed out by Schlesinger. If you look past this aspect of the film to find its true point or goal, I think it is to portray a very negative or cynical view of America. This is not the first film on America that we have seen that has been critical of it. In fact, I would argue that Robert Kramer’s film “Ice” was also critical of the movement taking place in America in 1968. Although the film was hard to follow at some points, I think Kramer was ultimately critical of the movement. This is evident towards the end of the film when you can tell the group is becoming somewhat disorganized, which ultimately results in some of the leading members of the group getting killed. The difference between Zabriskie and Ice is that the criticism is coming from an outsider looking in with Zabriskie, and in Ice the criticism is self-criticism.
Perhaps in no other film we have watched together this semester has a film so blatantly aped Godard than Ice. As Pauline Kael so lovingly remarked "Kramer throws in flaccid derivations from Godard--agitprop statements, revolutionary "theater", some war toys, a documentary montage." It is in these moments where the film is at its weakest. It so ungracefully pushes its politics in between the larger narrative of the revolutionaries that they appear as bastardizations of television commercials. It may be intended to be taken as parody or damning cultural criticism, but the tone is so matter of fact that the true intention is ambiguous. However, the film finds more success with the story of the revolutionaries. What it lacks in panache, it makes up for in its unflinching dedication to its cinema vérité style. It is here that the film paints a picture of a rather plausible, fictionalized revolutionary movement taking place in urban america. The facts presented give the sense that a larger movement is taking place, but the members we see are always isolated lending credibility to their guerrilla approach to combat. However, the characters are nearly interchangeable as their names are unclear and they look so similar to each other. While this does well to communicate the feeling of documentary, it unfortunately is the death of drama. Even at its most violent, the lack of agency of the individual revolutionaries renders the action inert. So it is unclear whether we are meant to sympathize with the characters or not. Regardless, I found the depiction of revolutionary lifestyle to be believable.
Zabriskie Point, on the other hand, has some style to speak of. The film exercises greater control over its tone than Ice as well. The movie seems to be communicating is the enticing nature of a lifestyle devoid of consumerism and other commercial luxuries. The death of Mark leaves Daria with the ability to see the falseness of the world around her. However, the movie seems less interested in convincing the audience of these things than it does Daria. The sex in the desert to the shooting of Mark, I am left with a sense of unintentional detachment.
In both Robert Kramer's "Ice" and Michelangelo Antonioni's "Zabriskie Point", the country they depict is the same (the US), the females are (mostly) depicted in a similar manner (as not being emotionally stable enough to be a revolutionary), and the time period is the same. So, with all this being said, one might ask "What's the difference between Zabriskie Point and Ice?". To try and answer, with the former, through RESEARCH, director Antonioni set about making a film about the contrast between "rebels and revolutionaries" of the late 60s and their demise, whereas with the latter, through EXPERIENCE, director Kramer set about making a fictional film with "a hazy semi-documentary style" (according to Pauline Kael) to put us in medias res within the world of the revolutionaries. Because of the Kramer's more radical approach to film and documentary making, it is obvious to see why when one views Kramer's Wikipedia page, it is practically blank, whereas Antonioni, who took a more "traditional" (for lack of a better term), has his page filled as well as the page for his film "Zabriskie Point".
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting to note that "Zabriskie Point", coined by Arthur Schlesinger Jr. as the "counterversion of the Green Berets", was "Americanized" by trying to be the exact opposite of what its Counterpart was emulating (American pro-war propaganda films), whereas "Ice", which looks more similar to propaganda films, was not "Americanized" due to its bleak portrayal of America along with its intensely graphic scene of male genital mutilation.
Ultimately, both films can be seen as "failures" when looking at them through a financial and critical standpoint. Where the resonance of both films come in to play is through Antonioni's outsider perspective of the US, how 68 affected the US and how 68 affected students in the US. Kramer's resonance lies in his "face-saving sentimentality" in his depiction of a group that so closely mirrors his own Newsreel group. "Ice" and its bleakness painted a very specific picture of revolutionaries at the time that could only be painted by someone who had gone through similar experiences as the revolutionaries themselves.
So while both "Zabriskie Point" and "Ice" have many things in common (location, time period, "unflattering" portrayals of women and revolutionaries), they are ultimately different in their tone, mood, and remembrance in society and film's collective memory.
When you think about it, nothing really happens in Michelangelo Antonioni’s Zabriskie Point, but when does anything happen in his films? His films are less about the plot and more about the feelings (or lack thereof) that the modern world evokes in his characters and subsequently in the viewer as well. However, in his review of Zabriskie Point, Arthur Zchlesinger Jr writes that Antonioni’s “hatred of America has given him a vision without nuance or complexity and has thereby betrayed him as an artist” (175), which comes off as a misguided conclusion. Rather, I would argue the film is using irony and sarcasm against American culture (counterculture included) in such a high degree that it’s easy to misinterpret; which is not to say that this is anywhere close to Antonioni’s best work.
ReplyDeleteTrue, many of the films produced by Hollywood about the “hippie movement” exploited popular demand and focused more on the “crises of individual identity and male coming of age” rather than the real struggles of the social movements (Bodroghkozy, 42). However, I see Antonioni critiquing that method of film narrative by using a character, Mark, which embodies the attitude of individualistic action. Mark wants to fight the oppressors and is tired of talking, and all of his actions are done without any other support, except during the surreal orgy in the desert. In the end, his actions only get him killed without accomplishing any progress. After Mark leaves during the beginning scene at the student meeting, one of the students questions how anyone who refuses to work with others can be a revolutionary, a clear statement against the culture of individualism in revolutionary struggles; it’s a Hollywood ending (for the time), it’s a Hollywood film, and it’s criticizing all of Hollywood.
To be fair, Antonioni is basically attacking all forms of American culture and is arguing for its destruction, as shown by the final scene of exploding homes, clothes, and other consumables (it was originally supposed to end with an airplane writing “Fuck You, America” in the sky). The only time the film seems to be genuinely in favor of anything is during the beginning moments where the real Black Panthers confront students and their commitment to revolutionary ideals.
My impression of 'Ice' seems more or less in line with Pauline Kael's in that the film is fundamentally 'without explanations.' Its relationship to and dealing with information was incredibly peculiar. The characters pass around photographs that we aren't allowed to see. They drop newspapers on a streetcorner and scatter them, but not in a way that reveals anything to the film's viewers. When they call each other, they talk exclusively about nothing at all. In fact, I didn't note a single instance of diegetic ideology in the film, except for, maybe, the bookstore scene, which takes place in front of a section enthusiastically labelled 'CHINA.'
ReplyDeleteThe film isn't quite barren of ideology, though; the disjointed narrative of the student group is occasionally broken by still images of political institutions and politicians and audio/video clips that explicitly endorse violent revolution. Of these, the anti-liberal scenes feel the most relevant, especially when viewed in the context of the Carmichael reading; whatever the film is for, we at least know it's against the 'false consciousness' of the liberal.
But, what could it possibly be for? Kael seems to think it's a film about and defined by blankness, but I'm not sure it's that simple. The film, though it contains little actual information, is constantly referencing the search for and the exchange of information. The characters are 'paying with details.' They're discussing things at the end of the meeting instead of on camera. They're presumably printing and distributing newsletters with words on them and making films with words in them. And, they're trading not blank pieces of paper, but photographs of people and things. None of the objects that could be blank, and would therefore define the film as about blankness, actually are blank. They just aren't available to us, the viewer.
Instead, we get disconnected revolutionary scenes that don't seem to mean much, juxtaposed with very direct, straightforward statements of ideology, two very different forms that, oddly, resonate with statements in the film. In one scene, the bearded man with the glasses runs around the room, shouting about ideas and movement and how the two are 'completely disconnected.' In the next, a woman, who we're told is a teacher, talks about how her students 'need structure in order to learn.' Taken together, these two statements seem to be an indictment of the film itself.
Though Michelangelo Antonioni comes from a different culture of filmmaking than the New American Cinema of the late 60s and 70s, it is interesting that his protagonist has many of the same features of the typical American protagonist. He’s the total package: rebellious, smart, and good looking. He individually stands up to the hypocrisy of imperialist, capitalist American society. As Arthur Schlesinger notes, his characterization as the perfect revolutionary is subverted at times by the absurdity of some of his qualities illustrated by the nonchalant way he steals a plane, “does Antonioni assume that all American boys know how to fly?” (174). If Mark is the ideal revolutionary, it would be difficult for just about anyone to match his unbelievable traits and skills. It seems “Zabriskie Point” believes Mark’s is the best form of revolutionary action in comparison to the collective’s shown at the film’s beginning. Though Mark may not have changed the world in a big way, he still manages to convince Daria that her simplistic and optimistic view of the world ignores the deep seated problems ingrained in society. Even if successful rebellion isn’t realized in the film, at least the idea of it is supplanted in Daria as seen in the film’s explosive finale.
ReplyDeleteMark is much like the type of person Richard Jenkins’ character argues in favor of during his lecture in Robert Redford’s “The Company you Keep.” Instead of sitting around and discussing the best way to go about revolutionary action, he takes matters into his own hands and becomes a martyr for the revolution, brutally and wrongly murdered by a policeman upon his return of a plane which he has transformed into an image of psychedelic art, sexual liberation, and peace.
Antonioni’s protagonists have never been the type of characters portrayed in Hollywood cinema. They usually depict flawed and damaged individuals who feel isolated and alienated from the modern world. They are extensions of the modern world that Antonioni uses to critique it. Yet, with “Zabriskie Point,” Antonioni never seems to critique Mark’s behavior the same way he usually critiques his protagonists. Schlesinger argues that with “Zabriskie Point” Antonioni has been Americanized, and I think, at least in this way, he does succumb to the Hollywood model of the perfect leading man that the audience is supposed to be able to sympathize with and put their support behind.
Some things I should have brought up about Zabriskie Point but forgot....
ReplyDelete1. The people playing Mark and Daria are non-actors and their actual first names are Mark and Daria. Antonioni "discovered" them and got them to be in his film. Mark was discovered after one of Antonioni's assistants saw him getting in a heated argument with someone in Boston and about five years later Mark died (for real) while he was serving time in prison for robbery. Daria later married Dennis Hopper for a year. She only starred in one other movie after Zabriskie Point. It goes to show that although Antonioni was critically attacked for the film (and his reputation was never the same after this film), it goes to show that he had a clear plan of what he wanted to do with this film. He could have cast anybody in these roles and it seems to me he was trying to find the "real thing" rather than actors If you watch the Dick Cavett interview of Mark and Daria on YouTube, it is an awkward piece of entertainment because they are not behaving the way "celebrities" do on these shows.
2. Antonioni included Mark stealing an airplane in the film because he read an article involving a young man stealing a plane. Again, as I said, Antonioni did a lot of research on the film, regardless of what it may seem.
I should have known by the music. The opening sequence with its hauntingly, soft whispered voices paired with an upbeat, nonchalant melody foreshadows the weirdness that follows, was a foreshadow of the weirdness to come. The first scene with its discussion between students, with almost a documentary feel, sets a straightforward, believable stand. The denunciation of fascism, police brutality, racial divisions, violence, and revolutionary struggle shimmers at the hope of a serious narrative to delineate the real problems of the 60’s in the USA.
ReplyDeleteThe diversity of voice and opinions, combined with the painfully static audio quality of fragmented denunciations of bourgeoisie individualism and the representation of the people are all there, obtainable, and awaiting to be taken seriously. Nevertheless, with Mark’s departure, it also seems there is a departure of direct, revolutionary addressing. As mentioned today in the presentation, it wasn’t as if Antonioni didn’t have the resources to carry out that approach through the whole film. So why not follow through with the early promise of educating?
I stand by my point in class though, despite Schlesingers observation that, “only the most devoted can regard the opening scene as an expression of serious revolutionary purpose rather than as a satire…” (174). That first scene to me, seems to show the real educational hint of the film. Even as it contradicts the essay’s approach, which points out the simplification and how it “ma[d]e an exceedingly simple-minded hymn of violence” (1975).
The quickly changing style, with piercing music, scattered advertisements, and unrealistic images is, I think, a foreigners view into the “struggle” of the US—and, as mentioned by Arthur Schlesinger Jr., Antonioni’s “vision of [how] America is of a land of nightmares.” (173). This angle, makes me firmly think that it isn’t the first scene that’s a farce. It is the full movie, with its overly simplistic metaphors, and direct attention to capitalistic motifs that creates a satire and a denunciation of the “struggle” of US in the ‘60s.
Like Benjamin, I also found myself mostly in line with Pauline Kael’s take on “Ice,” especially when she brings up the ambiguous self-consciousness that the film appears to sometimes show. The film is a particularly troublesome document because, as Kael mentions, “anything one can perceive in the film might have been put there deliberately or might have found its way in and been accepted as belonging there” (115). In other words, it is difficult to ascertain whether the film is genuinely problematic in its narrative structure and political stance due to some oblivious fault on the part of the filmmakers, or if it is a conscious effort to criticize the young revolutionaries that raise so many unanswered questions. Perhaps the film seems so disjointed and muddled because the filmmakers wanted to highlight the disjointed and muddled structure of US revolutionary groups that, to their mind, just weren’t cutting it. While scenes such as the one in which the older bookstore employee fruitlessly demands clarity from a group member and asks, “What kind of revolution are you involved in?” overtly call the young rebels into question, the more-or-less narrative impenetrability of the film forces the viewer to really concentrate on the film and come to their own critical realizations about the disjointed group.
ReplyDeleteWhile a markedly different film, Antonioni’s “Zabriskie Point” is similar in its focus on the unfocused nature of America’s Youth. In his write up of the film, Arthur Schlesinger brings up an interesting quote from Antonioni that expresses his thoughts on the transformative period in which he made the film, a period of crisis that “comes from this spiritual confusion, from this confusion of conscience, of faith and of politics” (174). Actions such as Mark stealing a plane only to return it later after he knows the police are after him show a sort of inner conflict between being outraged at society and not knowing how to channel it productively. Despite the heavy handed symbolism and violence that Antonioni uses to make an overt political statement, the seemingly aimless wandering of both Mark and Daria are significant in their representation of youth struggling to find meaning.
Going off of what Dan said about Zabriskie Point, I think the film effectively portrays, as Dan mentioned, the struggle for youth at that time to find meaning. The audience is able to view the different sides of characters in the film, especially Mark, and see what he is really like. Antonioni represents this openness as an individual throughout the film, but especially when Mark paints the plane with “He-She-It” on the side. However, that is not how the rest of the characters perceive Mark. The cops view the students and Mark in only one way: as a threat. In their minds there is no other possibility and Antonioni shows this through the immediacy with which the police fire their weapons (something that we are still dealing with in the present day).
DeleteIn his article on the film, Arthur Schelsinger Jr. discusses these problems in the country as a whole, stating, “Everyone living is a victim or a monster. Even little children are so deformed by the corrupt society that, when nine-year-old kids encounter the heroine, their first thought is rape” (173). The society has failed these individuals and, when they search for alternative avenues of living or thinking that go against the status quo, they are immediately condemned as a criminal or traitor. Antonioni makes it clear that this is the case as he shows the police shooting their guns immediately at two different point in the film without ever waiting to learn more about the situation they are in and try to find a peaceful solution.
In Ice, Robert Kramer presents revolutionaries in the US in a similar fashion, at least in my opinion, to the way Rainer Werner Fassbinder portrayed later generations of the RAF in The Third Generation. Specifically, towards the end of the film, the older man who was working in the bookstore goes to one of the apartments and proceeds to go on a rant against the "revolutionaries". The man continually asks "what..what are you doing?", directly questioning the beliefs and actions of the group. Pauline Kael discusses this in the film overall, stating, “This long, ambitious picture is passive and demoralized and mechanical; it’s as alienated as its characters. I don’t think Kramer has merely projected his own alienation onto them; I think he shares in their absence of goals, and that’s why his movie is so paralyzingly boring” (111). So, just like the film, there is really nothing there for these revolutionaries except for the IDEA of being revolutionary. As the man from the bookstore points out, these people who claim to be revolutionaries are essentially puppets (something we saw very clearly in The Third Generation) just like the public that they criticize of being puppets. The beliefs and views of the group are just as hollow as Kramer's film make them out to be.
Man, Zabriskie Point sure was a wacky experience. Out of all the film we've seen this semester, Zabriskie was probably the most ham-fisted out of all of them. Like it was pointed out today in class and in the Schleschinger article, the visual metaphors are all kind of tired and over used, but that doesn't mean what Antonioni's trying to say is diminished at all. What I got from the film is a pessimistic view on student protestors during the events of 1968 through the character of Mark by visually associating him with the rampant capitalism that was the center of criticism from students at the time.
ReplyDeleteIn itself, the film starts out with a discussion between white students and a panel of african americans (Black Panthers??), talking about the protests and demonstrations. Perhaps I'm coming to this conclusion on my own, but it seems like the white students were just trying to force themselves into the situation, only causing trouble for the black panelists who actually knew what was going on. Fast forward to Mark's scenes in the airplane, looking down upon the desert below. I think that there's a visual connection between his flight and the video from the Sunny Dunes development. He doesn't join anyone in the desert, to which we see actual poverty in the desert, he just chooses to fool about in his plane, buzzing Daria's car. I think that Mark is essentially one of the students in the beginning, doesn't really belong to this conflict, inserting himself as an outsider. I don't really agree with the point of view that some others have that Mark is a sort of romanticized late 1960's role model, I think it's a lot more critical than that. Perhaps I'm just pessimistic, but to me it seems like the film is as well.
More than any film so far dealing with militant groups, Ice appears to me to be most ambiguous, in terms of what its purpose is. A film like The Third Generation pointed out the weakness of the terrorist group and of the state and how those two factions interact. A film like La Chinoise excplicity, repeatedly shows with revolutionary spirit the ideologies of these middle-class revolutionaries. But where Ice is concerned, I am left with no conclusion, only skepticism.
ReplyDeleteThe film alternates between cinema verité style filmmaking and non-diegetic ideological statements. One of the first of these statements proclaims that one of their efforts is to destroy "the false consciousness." The apologist part of the American identity that condones violence, doesn't take up arms, judges but doesn't act, speaks but doesn't listen, who subtlety supports the Establishment. If this is truly one of the groups ideologies, then one can compare members of the group to it. This is supposedly a group without a false consciousness, so, what then, has replaced it? A real consciousness? Apparently not. And as Kael says in his essay, "They have accepted their roles as cogs in the revolution, and, being devoid of strong personality, or flamboyant passions, they are alike...They have rationalized irrationality and they have domesticated their alienation in communal living." They have replaced their false consciousness with hardly a conscious at all, really. They are whole group of people sharing the same delusion.
The non-diegetic statements also say that the group's goal is to incite a large scale mass rebellion by coordinating with other groups. And yet, they seem to really only coordinate with other well-off young white people. They stick to their kind and have the delusion of grandeur that they will be enough.
But maybe I'm taking these non-diegetic statements with too many grains of salt. Maybe they are sincere statements that could work perfectly if another group of people carried it out. But it is hard for me to look at them and not see irony in every one.
Although the film seemed to be the most Hollywood-esque out of possibly all the films we watched this semester, from the first scene of the film, Zabriskie seems almost shoddily made. As I watched this with my mother she noted just within the first few moments that, “the sound is horrible, all the characters are talking at once, they are all no name actors, and the atmosphere is this cramped room with blank walls,” she was thoroughly uninterested for its continuation. Though the cinematography and scenery were fantastic (especially the desert scenes with the wide landscape and lavishly blue sky), I’m not sure exactly what else was the point of this film. When researching further it was obvious that this film wasn’t garnered very well by viewers, being a box-office bomb and being widely panned by critics, but I also read that it gained a cult following, and that although the film was called something like “the worst attempt in cinematic history” it wasn’t entirely unwatchable. It does call into question the artistic merit of films that are otherwise considered cinematic garbage, bringing to mind the early Birth of a Nation, with its innovative filmmaking techniques and horribly torturous 3 hour run time; whether or not these films deserve their recognition seems to be an arguable topic.
ReplyDelete“[I]f Antonioni’s idea is to make a contrast between rebels and revolutionaries, the film hardly sustains this point. Only the most devoted can regard the opening scene as an expression of serious revolutionary purpose” (Shlesinger, 174). Michelangelo Antonioni’s Zabriskie takes a very cynical approach to depicting a revolution movement. In part two, two gentlemen are riding in a truck when one proclaims, “what if joining isn’t a matter of choice, and it’s about survival.” This theme is reflected in the opening scene when an African-American man is debating a Caucasian woman about what makes whites revolutionary. From the opening scene its made clear that African-Americans are revolutionaries fighting for equality and a higher standard of life but this is a representation of false consciousness. Robert Kramer’s “Ice” film presents some quotes that deal with the issue at hand directly. “False consciousness is peoples’ rationalization for the exploitation and oppression that they experience in their daily lives”, and I highly agree with this. The director intends to makes this connotation as blacks being oppressed by a fascist government, but is struggling to show why people who were benefiting by this were drawn in and what they are fighting for. The film only mentions “there are many whites out there who are dissatisfied and potential revolutionaries”. One comment that stood out was “there are whites outside fighting in the streets just like you do [blacks] in the ghetto everyday”. Excluding the beginning of this film, a direct concept of revolutionary movement is absent in the film. Only subtle references to false consciousness such as a “reality trip” are prevalent.
ReplyDeleteZabriskie Point (1970) is a film that try to tell a story, as weird as that story may be, there are criticisms of police brutality and the evolution of the hippie movement that are clearly expressed through the magic of film narrative. However, what is one of the more fascinating elements that happens way before any of the story starts is the beginning of the film where a bunch of students are arguing over whether there needs to be a strike among the campus. The entire scene is shot in a documentary-like style only in black and white and spells out the problems existing in the film.
ReplyDeleteOne could ask why is this scene in the film, it is a clear anomaly to the rest of the picture and serves no narrative purpose for the rest of the film. This could be a easily cuttable scene, what purpose does this serve? I think this scene relates to a question that was asked during the Japan presentation about which film style do we prefer and which has a more powerful effect, documentaries that try to tell all the facts or narrative films that gives their own political agenda in a subdued way. The overwhelming choice was the latter for many reasons, more interesting, get to tell a richer story, etc. and I generally agree that narrative films are more interesting but I also think our class itself can be biased in our choices because we are well-informed about the struggles of that time period.
We think Fassbinder’s The Third Generation is a much more influential film because Fassbinder is a great director but also because we know about the political ties surrounding it. But if I were to show this to someone who knew nothing about Germany in 1968, or even myself four months ago, I or probably anyone else would have no clue what is going on. A documentary may not be as radical but it will get across important information.
That is why the first scene in Zabriskie is important because it is expressing it dilemma to the viewers. There is no need to separate yourself from the story because the fourth wall has already been broken for you.Whether you thinks that is a good decision is up to you, but Michelangelo Antonioni decided that informing the viewers was better than leaving them in the dust.
Michelangelo Antonioni’s Zabriskie Point (1970) begins right off the bat with a somewhat hectic, chaotic meeting of student radicals in Los Angeles planning a demonstration, discussing what it means to be a revolutionary and the different roles different people can play in the revolution. Unlike many of the other films we’ve seen in class, within the first ten minutes of the film, we are introduced to the many different elements at play in America in 1968, most importantly the element of race and race relations between the white liberal student revolutionaries and the black revolutionaries. As Andrew points out, the film paints an unflattering (but fair) portrait of the white revolutionaries, who only attempt to force themselves into the situation, speaking over the black panelists and trying in vain to compare the struggles of white Americans to black Americans (which is akin to comparing apples to oranges.) White people can only be so helpful in the revolution when they say things like, “there are whites outside fighting in the streets like you [black Americans] in the ghetto everyday,” as Mason points out.
ReplyDeleteBut the film, overall, points out the inherently unfocused nature of the student movement in America. The filmmaking style reflects that, keeping Zabriskie Point in line with the idea of “revolutionary filmmaking vs conventional filmmaking” that we’ve discussed all semester long. And much like Zabriskie Point, Robert Kramer’s Ice (1970) is another example of an unfocused, hard-to-follow revolutionary film set in America around 1968. As Pauline Kael so aptly puts it, “As a piece of moviemaking, it is gray and grainy and painfully stagnant, and when you strain to make out the overlapping mumbled conversations you discover that nothing in particular is being communicated… It’s a film about political commitment that is made not only without commitment to film as an art form but without any enthusiasm for its own political commitment” (110.) Much like the so-called revolutionaries, it doesn’t feel as though Kramer is attempting to make much of a point with Ice. But perhaps that is the entire point.
I want to address the conflicting filming styles that are presented in "Zabriskie Point," and what they might contribute to the idea and dialogue of the film. In the first ten minutes of the film when the discussion regarding the participation of white students on campus takes place at the meeting, the camera flashes back and forth between members of the meeting. There are rough cuts with little continuity and difficulty in understanding the students because of the overlapping dialogue. It is shot like a documentary. After this scene, the style becomes much more conventional. Generally speaking, even if a film takes on a very strange format, it remains consistent throughout. This is not the case for "Zabriskie Point."
ReplyDeleteAfter Mark leaves the meeting claiming he's willing to die, but not of boredom, one of the leaders says, "That bourgeoisie individualism that he's indulging in is going to get him killed," and it ultimately does. It is after he leaves that the style changes and where the film becomes conventional. We see the billboards and the mannequins, the Wonderbread and the fancy clothes, all obviously representing America's obsession with consumerism and capitalism. While his call to revolution is painfully obvious through these blatant moments of symbolism, what is not clear is why he chose to film particular scenes the way he did. Unlike Godard or Kramer who use very revolutionary methods of communication, Antonioni uses a rather conventional one with a occasionally, but not always, unconventional plot. Is this a jab at Mark's individualism? Is it a way of critiquing America for its generally un-revolutionary, all-talk-no-action methods? Because of the sudden shift in format after our main character leaves the meeting, I don't believe that it is unintentional.
Robert Kramer’s Ice and Michelangelo Antonioni’s Zabriskie Point circle around similar issues with America in the late 1960s and early 1970s, but approach this examination and critique very differently. Both films as a whole, though, consider the actions of primarily white, “young, privileged, well-educated” revolutionaries, with a shared focus on sexuality, and bring to mind prescient and dystopic prophecy; Zabriskie Point was seen at the time of its release as depicting (or at least representing) “simultaneously yesterday's papers, present reality, [and] tomorrow's reality, an unattractive but increasingly possible alternative,” and that goes doubly true for Ice, with its setting in an even stauncher police state (Kael 112, and Lichtenberg via Bodroghkozy 45).
ReplyDeleteKael asserts that Ice is memorable in its and its characters’ “absence of goals” (Kael 111). As with Zabriskie Point, the “characters” are portrayed woodenly by non-actors who seem to intentionally not emote and are written like children spewing manifestos and trying desperately to be taken seriously as adults and legitimate threats to authority; they are “blank” and without their own identity, compounded by the fact that they all sort of look alike (Kael 116). Their lack of efficiency and disorganization – and overall lack of organization – add to this sense of formlessness. Another absence that is strongly felt in the film is the lack of color, pointing to another lack: a lack of budget. The grainy black and white separates Ice from Antonioni’s film visually, but also in its message that everything about life in America is kind of a lumpy, indeterminate mess.
Zabriskie Point directly, visually, incorporates absence in its landscape, which Schlesinger calls a “sinister loveliness” (Schlesinger 173). The desert in and around Los Angeles is stark, alternately flat and mountainous, but certainly devoid of life; it is not, however, devoid of advertisements, quite the opposite – consumerism has replaced humanity. Iconography is another visual element that defines the film, with many close-ups on slogans and place names, such as the sign for Zabriskie Point itself. If Ice is partly defined by its lack of a character, then Zabriskie Point is at least partly defined by its presence of setting. The film could not occur in a different time nor different place without the feeling and plot becoming utterly dissimilar. I *highly* doubt this film (and Ice) could have been made or would have been able to be made in any other time or place. This pair of films reflect an America at a place in history where it can either freeze in its old ways or venture over the point into unknown valleys or mountains.
Michelangelo Antonioni’s film “Zabriskie Point” was very much an outsider’s perspective of both the United States and the movement in the US in 1968. This point is upheld by Arthur Schlesinger Jr. many times in his article on Zabriskie Point. As was pointed out in Arthur Schlesinger Jr’s article, & in the group presentation on Tuesday, the film’s use of metaphors is very simplistic and uncreative. Quoting from Schlesinger’s article: “His use of billboards to provide “ironic” underlining of the action is heavy handed. When the cops attack the students, Antonioni gives us a sign on a college building: ‘’Liberal Arts.’’ After the shooting, the hero sees a placard advertising a mortuary; when he is hungry, he is assailed by food billboards; when he is trying to escape, United Air Lines tells him, “Let’s get away from it all.” All of these metaphors contribute a great deal to the simple-mindedness that was pointed out by Schlesinger. If you look past this aspect of the film to find its true point or goal, I think it is to portray a very negative or cynical view of America. This is not the first film on America that we have seen that has been critical of it. In fact, I would argue that Robert Kramer’s film “Ice” was also critical of the movement taking place in America in 1968. Although the film was hard to follow at some points, I think Kramer was ultimately critical of the movement. This is evident towards the end of the film when you can tell the group is becoming somewhat disorganized, which ultimately results in some of the leading members of the group getting killed. The difference between Zabriskie and Ice is that the criticism is coming from an outsider looking in with Zabriskie, and in Ice the criticism is self-criticism.
ReplyDeletePerhaps in no other film we have watched together this semester has a film so blatantly aped Godard than Ice. As Pauline Kael so lovingly remarked "Kramer throws in flaccid derivations from Godard--agitprop statements, revolutionary "theater", some war toys, a documentary montage." It is in these moments where the film is at its weakest. It so ungracefully pushes its politics in between the larger narrative of the revolutionaries that they appear as bastardizations of television commercials. It may be intended to be taken as parody or damning cultural criticism, but the tone is so matter of fact that the true intention is ambiguous. However, the film finds more success with the story of the revolutionaries. What it lacks in panache, it makes up for in its unflinching dedication to its cinema vérité style. It is here that the film paints a picture of a rather plausible, fictionalized revolutionary movement taking place in urban america. The facts presented give the sense that a larger movement is taking place, but the members we see are always isolated lending credibility to their guerrilla approach to combat. However, the characters are nearly interchangeable as their names are unclear and they look so similar to each other. While this does well to communicate the feeling of documentary, it unfortunately is the death of drama. Even at its most violent, the lack of agency of the individual revolutionaries renders the action inert. So it is unclear whether we are meant to sympathize with the characters or not. Regardless, I found the depiction of revolutionary lifestyle to be believable.
ReplyDeleteZabriskie Point, on the other hand, has some style to speak of. The film exercises greater control over its tone than Ice as well. The movie seems to be communicating is the enticing nature of a lifestyle devoid of consumerism and other commercial luxuries. The death of Mark leaves Daria with the ability to see the falseness of the world around her. However, the movie seems less interested in convincing the audience of these things than it does Daria. The sex in the desert to the shooting of Mark, I am left with a sense of unintentional detachment.