“It can happen that a particular scene thought out at a desk doesn’t work when you drop it into that particular environment and it is necessary to transform it, modify it.” – Michelangelo Antonioni

This reading on Michelangelo Antonioni was really interesting, because I haven’t really seen many of his films and I wasn’t really aware of how much of an influence he had been in the craft of direction in film. It’s clear that he had a very important role in the way directing developed to execute creative visions.

Upon discussion and understanding of découpage, a plan of action in creating a film through segmentation, Antonioni had altered the relevance of this definition of the word. The quote above points out that he had an understanding that découpage of a film must, in segments, be initially constructed and reconstructed to work appropriately to the specific environment it it played-out within.

One of his actors, with very little acting experience, Mark Frechette, while shooting Zabriske Point (1970), noted that “working with a guy with his reputation and with what he knows about cinema” he “wanted to learn something. But he wasn’t teaching.” pp. 168 This frustrated Frechette. Antonioni’s approach to filmmaking was much more of a particular personal vision. He did not feel that the actors needed to understand why he made the creative choices he did because only he himself was aware of what the piece looked like as a whole – after all, it was his ideas that must be presented, under the title of ‘director.’ Frechette’s annoyance of the matter is totally understandable. Yet, these controlling traits of Antonioni have, more often than not, amounted to an end product of excellence – for he would not be so well-known and applauded, if his personal approach had been of a different nature.

Another mention from actor, Vanessa Redgrave, on the topic of shooting Blow-Up (1993), showed example where the actor and director saw eye-to-eye. “He was the first director who I’d worked with to whom it was a matter of absolute importance the shape one made as one sat, where the chair was, where anything was, and the movement or space between, above, below or transecting, that either a living object – a woman – or an inanimate object made.” pp. 176. Redgrave seemed to understand that he aimed to hold focus on what he was creating rather than having to cloud the vision by explaining himself. He drew meaning into everything he placed, positioned and moved within the frame. The shots in their entirety, were seen as a whole – “no one else could see but him.” pp.176.

It seems to me that there is a very obvious notion of potential personality clashes between a director and an actor which can hinder the quality in executing the director’s vision. This may be a reason many directors, such as Wes Anderson, often use the same cast members. They all understand one another and know who wants what.

Cited readings:
Forgacs, David, 2011, ‘Face, body, voice, movement: Antonioni and Actors [Excerpt]’ in Rhodes, John David (ed.) & Rascaroli, Laura (ed.), Antonioni : Centenary essays, Palgrave Macmillan, New York/Basingstoke, pp. 167-181.

Cited films:
Antonioni, Michelangelo. Blow-Up (1993)
Antonioni, Michelangelo. Zabriske Point (1970)