Geoffrey Nowell-Smith, "Shape and a Black Point"

Stephanie Nickerson

9/17/2008

 

In Shape and A Black Point, Nowell-Smith makes the argument that Antonioni�s films are focused around stories rather than functioning as representations of larger motifs applicable to the world as a whole. He suggests that the goal of Antonioni, rather than being to speak in specific terms of specific problems, is to portray the stories in an objective manner, allowing the viewer to make their own judgment, emphasizing the relation of a film viewer to a film as voyeuristic rather than sympathetic. We are not meant to understand and empathize with these characters, but  rather to observe them, as a scientist making an observation. The stories are more presented to us rather than being told.

He argues that the insecurity and indeterminacy that defines many of Antonioni’s characters’ lives is often understood as alienation, but that this is by no means the focus of the film. The film has positive and negative, the negative often consisting of abstract thoughts and ideas, whereas the positive consists of actions. Nowell-Smith stresses the theme of self-discovery and journey in Antonioni’s films, suggesting that it is more about the journey than the end result. Certainly this is the case in L’Eclisse, where the ending is not finite and does not even revolve around a familiar narrative. Analyzing L’Eclisse in particular, he goes on to suggest that self-awareness and self-discovery are often the cause of the alienation featured in many of Antonioni’s films as this process requires an ability to be detached from oneself and others, allowing one to stand outside themselves in a process also necessary to civilized life in general.

Nowell-Smith goes on to suggest that Antonioni is also not interested in symbols, avoiding them and using them rarely if at all. He points out Antonioni’s attention to surface and the unseen, suggesting that movements below the surface are not manifested through symbol, and therefore not expressed through symbols. This argument for the complexity of Antonioni’s films is continued with his suggestion that they are not produced for the masses, or for an audience, but for an individual involving himself privately in the film, experiencing it personally rather than communally.

Nowell-Smith’s chief example of this is the ellipsis between the arrival of Claudia and Sandro at the village and their following love-making scene, suggesting that the information partially is not given because even if we had it, what, if anything, would it tell us more than an aspect of the truth?

Is the function of the last minutes of L’Eclisse to remind us of the objectivity of the film-viewing experience? Or to remind us of the way we are being directed by the camera, in a role that is passively shown things rather than actively interacting? How does the objective nature of viewing a film figure in with the camera’s dominion over what we see?

How does the way we view this film vary from the way we view a different kind of film? Are our expectations different? Nowell-Smith suggests that we are passive observers in this type of film, do you feel as if you participate in other films? How? If Antonioni divorces viewer participation from the experience by showing characters with no clear objectives and desires, what does he intend the viewer to come away from the film with? Why do people watch these movies? Voyeuristic desire? Nowell-Smith claims L’Eclisse ends with a question mark, “was it worth it? Was your journey really necessary?”. In ending the film with minutes of shots from the same location, seemingly searching for the two lovers, is Antonioni asking us the same question? Why does Antonioni think people go to see films? How much is he considering his audience?

Nowell-Smith maintains that this kind of film demands “that the individual spectator should involve himself privately with what is going on”, suggesting that the director is not catering to an audience. Does this mean different people experience the film differently? If this film is not experienced by an audience but by individuals, then what does it mean to be watching and discussing it in a film class, is there a communal experience of other films that cannot be experienced in the watching of this film?