Whatever his personal politics, Antonioni was, at base, a weepy director with pretensions to seriousness. He got his start doing glossy romantic melodramas in the late 40's, and the only thing that really changed was that the films grew emptier and more attenuated as the years went on. L'Avventura and La Notte are essentially Ross Hunter mellers that run too long and somehow acquired subtitles.

As for Blow-Up, it is sometimes lovely to look at, has some great music by Herbie Hancock, and an incredibly appealing cast. It is also, with the exception of the sequence where David Hemmings discovers the dead body in the photos he took, empty dreary and absolutely numbing. Why bother to put The Yardbirds in your movie if all you're going to make them look dreary and unappealing? They were a great group, and for all his prima donna tendencies, Jeff Beck was, is a great guitarist. Why does the audience look so bummed out? (Hollywood square Otto Preminger made much better use of another great pop group, The Zombies, in his 1965 London-set film Bunny Lake is Missing). And don't get me started on the mimes . . .

The most pathetic thing I've seen in a long time: a superficial review of a lauded man's career accusing HIM(?) of superficiality. Form came easy to Antonioni, but the way he glued it to content (that's his thoughts and feelings, if you need the help) is more exciting and impressive than anybody else. Very tightly woven movies.

By the way, how in the living hell are Story of a Love Affair, Lady Without Camelias, Le amiche, and Il GRIDO! "glossy romantic melodramas?"

ARE YOU ALL INSANE ON THESE BOARDS? YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE LIVING HELL YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT! Why crap on Antonioni? Why not attack somebody who didn't give a damn about his movies? You can't even make a proper argument! I'd lose any dignity I had if I actually wrote such a provincial, dumb piece as you've given us! What crap, my son! What crap! I almost feel like clapping....

Antonioni's films were less reliant on drama and literature, but does that mean that they're the only meduims with depth? What about painting, photography, music, sculpture, dance? Are they superficial?

Antonioni minimized drama as time went on, true. That was a good thing. He was able explore how to get across ideas and emotions through images and sounds. Images and sounds....isn't that all a film is...hmmmm.....maybe......

What he proved was that the 19th century novel narrative style and theatrical performances are indulgences-not obligations. That was a revelation. His films were never hollow. They were the most passionate films i've seen. He was acclaimed by Jean Renoir, Fellini, Kurosawa, Godard, De Sica, Scorsese, Coppola, Lumet, Altman, Kubrick, Tarkovsky, Rohmer, Rivette, Andre Bazin, Pasolini, Satyajit Ray, Kazan, Wenders, Wong Kar-Wai, Alfred Htichcock, and many other masters because they were were moved by his films. They had no obligation to admire his movies!