Red Desert : Critics rate 100% fresh - Emperor's new clothes?

Red Desert is rated 100% fresh by critics on rottentomatoes.com

All the reviews seem to be written decades after the film was made, and they're looking back on it knowing that it has become accepted as another masterpiece from Antonioni.

But if they saw it without knowing the film's reputation, would the critics really rate it so well? The "audience" rating is 68%, and I think that is a more honest reflection.

No matter how interesting the cinematography and sound design, Red Desert does not succeed in conveying its ideas or emotions to a very broad audience. For many viewers it is simply too slow and esoteric. So why are the critics too shy to say if they don't enjoy it? Surely they can't all love it.

Bright boy.



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

What's that supposed to mean?

That there is just so much wrong with what you've said, it would be a waste of time and effort to even try to explain.

Clear eyes, full hearts, can't lose.

You're right, me and the 32% of other people on rottentomatoes are all completely mindless because we don't love this movie. Thanks for informing us that we're so wrong about that. No need to explain further, you know best.

I don't think we can safely say the other 32% of people who didn't enjoy the film would necessarily agree with your contention that professional critics are pretending to like it in order to fit in.

"I don't think we can safely say the other 32% of people who didn't enjoy the film would necessarily agree with your contention that professional critics are pretending to like it in order to fit in."

My contention is only that some critics might be doing that. Maybe only 1% of them. I just find it difficult to believe that 100% of the critics reviewing this film really enjoyed it so much, given that so many other really excellent films get less than 100% approval rating.

So you're suddenly the ultimate authority on what constitutes "excellent films"? Kind of full of yourself, aren't you?

Clear eyes, full hearts, can't lose.

---

My contention is only that some critics might be doing that. Maybe only 1% of them. I just find it difficult to believe that 100% of the critics reviewing this film really enjoyed it so much, given that so many other really excellent films get less than 100% approval rating.

---

While I completely agree with your point that critics often do not have guts to rate an important film negatively (for example no single critic dares to give Citizen Kane negative review) mathematically speaking that not might be the case with this film since there are only 23 ratings at RT. For example if 5% of critics hate this film then this would mean that with 23 critics the odds of everyone rating it positively is still 31% AND that's when assuming random sample of critics - not the current sample who likely actively seek these kind of artistic films!

As for this film, it's very much possible all the 23 critics liked it, or at least saw it "fresh" rather than "rotten". The cinematography certainly is very very good, and imo has quite an impact. I would claim that Tarkovsky was influenced big time with this film when filming "Stalker".

My own rating for this film is "fresh" - barely - I rated it a 6/10. I can certainly see if people don't like this film. But I can also see if this film makes a big impact on the viewer I just finished it but I have the feeling that this is the kind of film that keeps lingering on your mind not so much the story but the images and atmosphere, perhaps even trying to grasp the meaning and metaphors used in it. I thought there was depicted a metaphor between Vitti's state of mind and environment - while the director himself says that the film is about adaptation, which is kind of a disappointment.

There's still a good chance that you are correct and some of those 23 critics actually disliked it but didn't rate it accordingly.

Bright. Boy.



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

This film is about as stimulating as watching paint dry. Is it out an DVD? I'd like to use it as a sleep aid, since my doctor won't prescribe Ambien.

When will people realize that movies aren't made for everyone? I love this film and I fully understand if someone else doesn't. Every person on this planet has got different life experiences therefor we all see different things in the films we watch.

Think about who the average movie critic is. Most (90%+?) of them are leftist progressives, thus in sympathy or outright in love with communism, something this director is famous for and which stains everything he ever made.

These critics love mental illness, something the left is ALSO famous for the left never fails to turn some emotion or condition into a mental illness if it helps them get off from being responsible for their own lives.

The film is from a classic era of Italian films, something most critics drool over, and it represents a 'first', namely this director's first use of color.

The film, as well, won a Golden Lion (Venice) and is a classic time capsule of that era.

Food additives are making you sick. Learn how to avoid them. http://maverickallergy.com

It is absurd to suggest or think that most movie critics are in love with communism. Where'd you get that from, Rush?

And Antonioni hardly loves mental illness. That is a clueless comment.

You are politically mentally ill. It's a plague.

~ Native Angeleno

Once you expand your pov, if you ever can, to grow out of a very narrow, supeficial, linear bandwidth, which accounts for about 95% of all films madejust not Antonioni's, who chose instead to delve into difficult subjects, graduate work, not your preferred elementary school moviesyou can then understand the differences between (1) what the audience is seeing, as tho it's directed to be seen for the audience and (2) that what the audience is confused about is precisely that which the main character is seeing, which confuses her to no end, which is the problem that is being depicted. You are being put in her frame of mind. It's irritating, no? Exactly as it is to her. She can't stop it, which is made pretty clear repeatedly. That's what you're seeing, what she sees, and feels, and it drives her into repeated frenzies, while your response is to dismiss it because you don't understand what you're seeing. Your reaction is about the level of a child's, who grows impatient with aspects of life he can't grasp, so he ends up just calling it "stupid". Which is itself, on your part, an adult without enough life experience, stupid. Maybe some day you will grow to the point where you don't flail out at things you don't yet get, if ever. Maybe you'll grow to where you can understand this brilliant film and Blow Up, L'Avventura, et al, Antonioni's genre of the point of view that comes with circumspectful life experience.

It seems slow because everyone's life seems slow to people not living it. It's when you TRY to put yourself in her shoes that you see the terrible mental state she's in that won't go away (unless, my prescription, she gets the hell out of that toxic human-made landscape, the plague of the planet).

BTW, critics who don't get this film or Antonioni in general don't pretend they like it. They respond like you, frustrated, angry, confused. That would be the more childish 32%.

Give it a few decades and maybe you'll see it.

~ Native Angeleno

I wasn't frustrated, angry or confused by Red Dessert. I just didn't like the film very much. Tastes vary and even people of equal intelligence and life experience do not always agree. A 100% consensus on any work of art is a little dubious in any circumstances, I'd say.

Some of my favourite films are early Haneke, but I'm well aware of the fact that many people don't "get" or enjoy those films. However, I don'tt reply to his detractors with the patronising attitudes I see here from Antonioni's fans.

That must be one of most pretentious and self-congratulatory posts I've ever seen. Disgusting.

Also you give far too much credit for the director. You should actually read what he said about the film himself

---

She can't stop it, which is made pretty clear repeatedly. That's what you're seeing, what she sees, and feels, and it drives her into repeated frenzies

---

While I agree that the imagery succeeded in creating the metaphor with her mind and environment - the dialogue and the story was not very successful in it. What happened in the film has lots of the time very little to do with meaning and conclusion of the film, so one can certainly argue that the film wasn't a success in respect of storytelling.

Your argument is basically that the story can be incoherent mess if the protagonist's mind is supposed to be one as well. No, not really - that just leads to entirely abstract film.

You want to see a TRUE gripping masterpiece on conflict of the mind? See Polanski's "Repulsion".

This is a fantastic thread to read. My sincere thanks to all the contributors for their time and effort.

_____________
Go Go Gojira!

Yes but I would guess you too have seen the film decades after it was released so your view isn't the view of a contemporary audience.

So you're saying Red Desert is a failure because it's too intelligent and not obvious enough to be appreciated by the average moviegoer who considers something like Transformers 4 to be a good movie? In order for it to be qualified as a success, its ideas have to be presented in such a way that the average couple going out to see The Hangover 3 can appreciate? If that's the measure of a film's effectiveness then I guess we can forget about subtle movies that require some thought from viewers being artistic successes.

So you're saying Red Desert is a failure because it's too intelligent


Where did you come up with THAT *beep* Other than the fact that you're a pathetic faux- film snob who instantly starts screeching about Transformers movies every time someone criticizes a movie that you haven't even seen, but are rather blindly defending because you've been told it was a msterpiece.

Are you some kind of retarded rage-a-holic? The original poster finds fault with the film because "its ideas aren't articulated in a way that can be appreciated by a broad audience" and cites its "68% audience freshness" on Rotten Tomatoes as evidence of his dubious claims, ergot I criticize him for bashing a movie on the grounds that anyone who claims to like it is lying and that it's not crafted with mass appeal in mind (i.e. Transformers, Batman, Avengers, etc.). I won't go on any longer, as I assume it's probably time for you to gobble down the battery of meds that keep you from raping family members and bashing your head against the wall repeatedly.

OP has a point. I don't think critics are much smarter than the general public so there's a good chance of at least some critic disliking the film but giving it "fresh" rating instead because of peer pressure.

"But if they saw it without knowing the film's reputation, would the critics really rate it so well?"

- You just pointed out the BS of the film critic/historian field. When these film snobs (AFI, Sight and Sound, etc) assemble their greatest films of all time collections, they hop on the bandwagon of the old standbys because they already have established reputations. If they do go with more recent films, its almost always the works of reputed directors (Lynch, Tarr ,etc). Much safer to stick on the bandwagon.

I think you have a point, though the 100% here could be because of the fact that no one could say it was really bad, not because everyone loved it; Guess, I could be wrong, only a binary response from a critic is considered for this.

That said, I am amazed by the attitude of some of the 'fans' of this movie..To understand everything better, I think we should hear from the man himself, the way he makes his movies etc. than to listen to some of these wannabes.

These from Ebert shed some light..http://www.rogerebert.com/interviews/interview-with-michelangelo-antonioni; http://www.rogerebert.com/interviews/michelangelo-antonioni-in-memory

Antonioni doesnt seem to think too much about his movies, he says he wont know what is he making sometimes until when the movie comes to the editing table; he approaches movies very differently from what we see with the hundreds of other movies, and I guess keeping that in mind before sitting in for an Antonioni movie would help to a large extent.

---

Antonioni doesnt seem to think too much about his movies, he says he wont know what is he making sometimes until when the movie comes to the editing table; he approaches movies very differently from what we see with the hundreds of other movies, and I guess keeping that in mind before sitting in for an Antonioni movie would help to a large extent.

---

Clearly he is more of a visual filmmaker than a storyteller.

Note: I visisted the board because I'm going to watch the film today but the question of the OP was not what one think's about the film. But I have to say that personally I'm excited to watch the film as I highly enjoyed the other Antonioni's I watched (Blow-Up and the trilogy)

First of all I have to say that what most other people did here is very wrong and ignorant. They didn't even reflect on the question but did just bash the OP for dislking Red Dessert. He never said he didn't get it. You can get a film and still dislike it.

I think the question from the OP is a very good question. Why is that? Well, let's look at some other ratings on Rottentomatoes: Do you know which ratings all those modern superhero movies have? About 90% alot of the time (Iron-Man, Guardians of the Galaxy, the dark Knight trilogy, Captain America II, Spider Man I & II, The Avengers, 3/4 X-Men movies) and they have much more reviews than Red Dessert. So I'm actually a big fan of Raimi's Spider-man trilogy and I haven't watched all of theese movies. But do you think that if people would look back to this time in 100 years, theese are the movies that will be remembered?

I don't think so and in general I have a very negative opinion of the general conseus of those RT critics. Why is that so? Compare the 90% of theese superhero movies to the 70% of Dogville, the 81% of Mulholland Dr., the 79% of Punch-Drunk Love, the 68% of Dancer in the Dark, the 73% of A.I. or the 84% of The Tree of Life. So I've actually read 3 negative reviews of Dogville and all 3 were complete and utter trash. Did those critics get the film? NO. One of them didn't even criticize the film, but Von Trier

And now we compare the RT consues to the largest critics list out there: the TSPDT list and since we are talking about modern films we'll choose the 21st century edition (look for yourself: http://www.theyshootpictures.com/21stcentury_films50-1.htm). Now if you believe the RT critics you would scroll through those pages and you'd be very surprised, "where are all the superhero films"? Now I did the searching for you and I counted 2: The Incredibles at #79 and The Dark Knight at #157. Huh? Suddenly the movies I mentioned above all crack the top 50 and no superhero film does? It's a mad world isn't it? One website tells you certain things and the next tells you different things. What are the differences: 1) I imagine that the TSDPT list might have a slightly better selection 2) The voting is different, not each critc will vote each film, but the critic gets a limited number of films to vote for (in other words: the list is based on other lists). Now this must mean that maybe the critics who wrote those stupid Dogville reviews didn't vote at all and alot of critics probably had Dogville in their top 10 while not even considering those superhero films (which they may still have give a thumbs up).

So I don't think the OP is wrong: Classics get slightly better ratings because some critics want to fit in.

But does that mean the the 22 Reviews of Red Dessert are dishonest? I don't think so. The ammout of reviews is very little and probably only people who are interested in the film would seek it out and write a review.



You see things; and you say Why? But I dream things that never were and I say Why not?

tobias,

Putting aside the response of others, I did have a very specific issue with the OP. Before referring to that I also had a problem with his observation regarding the all too usual difference in ratings by critics and the mass audience, that it was significantly about a supposed herd mentality among critics coupled with a "failure" on the director's part to make a film with "broad appeal."

If I was a film critic (as I suppose on some level we all are, but not in the sense the Op intends), I would make up my own mind and not care about mass appeal. And if I am part of those masses, and "don't like" the film the critics do, I am not sure why that would bother me, or that it should.

I probably agree with the critics more than not, but certainly not always. For example I think Boyhood is excellent, but Grand Budapest Hotel is pretty much pointless. So I do wonder about my reaction to GBH, but I am comfortable with it.

Anyway the thing the OP said in a later post was that he "just did not like the film." He really did not offer any explanation. It was JUST one of those things. The word "just" in such context is not only a shorthand way of saying I can't be bothered to explain something. It is also a likely indication the person in question doesn't have a defensible position, cannot articulate the basis for their conclusions and perceptions. Which is fine, but then why use that as a starting point to create an OP, which is precisely designed to initiate a discussion here.

It's like saying

"Let's talk about whether my view that so and so is X is either valid or not, but I won't tell you what my reasons are for saying so!"

It's rather obnoxious and pointless, isn't it?

Maybe the reason the critics felt differently than him is not because of some ridiculous conspiracy but because the critics actually thought about the film and could articulate some understanding of it, and having understood it they liked it more than someone who JUST didn't like it.

And let's also be honest that the herd mentality is not something wholly absent from mass psychology. Just look at political views, how people who share a basic political outlook will tend to agree on whether this or that fact is true, the "real" evidence be damned. I tend to think that sort of thing is in fact more common among the broad masses than among a group of people who in fact have at least some incentive, where it would be plausible, to distinguish themselves from others by disagreeing with them.

So there in fact is much wrong with the OP's efforts here.

I very much agree with the thing about the masses and crowd mentality, those 2 words basicly go hand in hand and in this case the critics' ratings are probably better informed (but then again I didn't read any of the reviews). Obviously there is the difference between critics and the mass audience that critics do have to articulate their thoughts while the mass audience doesn't have to do that. An opinion which is actually based on something is obviously more respectable, as you can actually see where it's comming from.

However I do not fully agree with your post.

The post was purely about the critical reception (on RT) and not about the movie itself. The last paragraph contains reasons why one would not like the film. He does not criticise the film and he does not talk about a "failure" on the director's part. He just assumes the film would not go well with a wide audience which too me (after having watched and very much liked it) seems valid. Based on that assumption it seems odd that all critics (who are an audience too and differ in taste) did actually like it as there are reasons one wouldn't. However in the end the OP is probably wrong here as Red Dessert is probably more accesible than he put it. So as you said it would have been more than helpfull if he would actually have articulated his thoughts further to found a better foundation too why others wouldn't like it.

In the end I'm quite sure all the critics did like it. But I'd say he had a point, it just wasn't backed up well enough. My point was that responses like this:

---

Once you expand your pov, if you ever can, to grow out of a very narrow, supeficial, linear bandwidth, which accounts for about 95% of all films madejust not Antonioni's, who chose instead to delve into difficult subjects, graduate work, not your preferred elementary school movies

---

which criticise him for not liking the movie (which was not the subject) are very dull and dumb replies. But as I scrolled through the thread I actually just found one of those replies so maybe I saw some which weren't actually there.




You see things; and you say Why? But I dream things that never were and I say Why not?

Tobias,

Sorry it took so long to get back to this, and perhaps I have lost your attention. But let me say a few things.

First of all about the OP it was not his first post here that I went off on his "just" not liking it take on the film. As I noted it was a later post, which I took to mean he gave up, in effect, on defending the observations he included in his OP. So let's assume he did not, or perhaps why he may have given up. Because yo are correct in his last paragraph he refers to resaons why "one" would not, meaning might not, like the film.

He said:

"No matter how interesting the cinematography and sound design, Red Desert does not succeed in conveying its ideas or emotions to a very broad audience. For many viewers it is simply too slow and esoteric. So why are the critics too shy to say if they don't enjoy it? Surely they can't all love it."

There is I think it clear a central problem with this argument, concerning as it does the putative disjunct between critical views and the mass audience. It is obvious to me that in fact there often is such a disjunct, and the RT scores he refers to are an indication that this is such a film where that has occurred.

The problem is why does the OP think the aspects of the film that MIGHT have led to less than universal love by a mass audience should affect the extent to which the critics "love it"? We are talkng about two different things, no? Two different audiences.

The other obvious thing is that assuming for the moment that some percentage of the mass audience finds Red Desert (and of course films "like" it - this being a subject of general applicatoin to a variety of films) too slow and esoteric, the implication is that critics, or some near equivalent percentage of them, also find it slow and esoteric, but are too, I am not sure here, dishonest? to say so.

Of course it should be obvious that an alternative explanation is that critics as a group uniformly did not see it as too slow and esoteric. In not even discussing this the OP is implicitly assuming that some significant percentage of the critics in effect HAD TO see the film the same way he thinks explains why there is the discrepancy on RT ratings with the mass audience.

Instead he reveals his own basic mindset by resorting to the conspiratorial. Now, we need not say there never are conspiracies. But it seems obvious as we look around us at contemporary culture that especially in socially reactionary elements the resort to conspiratorial explanations is much more common.

It goes something like this: I see something I don't like, but not only do not like but do not understand why others do. And rather than leave it at that, I want to attack the legitimacy of those whose views differ with mine. So rather than even consider whether they see something I do not, God forbid because they have better insight, are more intelligent, perhaps better trained to understand "it", there must instead be some insidious reason behind it.

And voila! We see the conspiracy explanation rear its reactionary head. THis is an obvious case of anti-intellectual reaction. The uninformed should not be made to feel uncomfortable for having uninformed views, but instead should attack those with whom they differ as illegitimate, even worse actively engaged in some conspiracy to mislead, to unsettle, those who are likeminded as those levelling hte charge of conspiracy.

The prevalence of this charge to be clear is not limited to being found among hte politically conservative and reactionary. You can find parallels in those in thrall to left wing political correctness as well. But it does seem rather more common among the politically reactionary.

Returning to the critics, I think they simply see more in this film, enough so to not find it too slow. As for esoteric, misuse of that, using it as an identifier of a negative attribute, is in turn revealing of a reactonary perspective, so let's put that aside. Rather we can say that the critics were probably more focused on the thematic than how quickly the narrative unfolded here, to the evident impatience of some.

It really is no more complex than that, conspiracy theories to the contrary.

I fully agree with you. But I think the 100% rating only exists because Red Dessert has been reviewed a mere 22 times. There are critics which go alog much more with the mass audience and which would easily give Red Dessert a thumb down. L'Avventura was initially booed at the Cannes film festival however it still won the jury price.



You see things; and you say Why? But I dream things that never were and I say Why not?

---

There is I think it clear a central problem with this argument, concerning as it does the putative disjunct between critical views and the mass audience. It is obvious to me that in fact there often is such a disjunct, and the RT scores he refers to are an indication that this is such a film where that has occurred.

---

This is true, the audiences are different. Still, I think you give too much credit for intelligence of RT critics and perhaps for intelligence of this film as well - its strength lies mostly in visual storytelling not dialogue, pacing or acting, imo. If general audience is divided on the film then it's likely that sincere critics are as well.

Of course, as already pointed out - a sample of 23 critics is rather small.

The problem with going by the Rotten Tomatoes score is- for older films- quite often there'll be less reviews than for a recent release. There are only 22 reviews counted for Red Desert on RT, as opposed to over a hundred for Cinderella or Chappie, etc. If there were more reviews counted the rating may not be a complete 100 %.

And I don't like when people use the term Emperor's New Cloths when talking about movies. For me it's it's similar to calling a movie overrated. It puts the person using these terms in the position of the good guy, the only one who sees the truth
-and the filmmaker as the emperor and the audience as foolish sheep. I feel there's a certain arrogance to using that term. The problem I have is that in the story the emperor literally didn't have any clothes. But in film I don't think there's a literal, objective truth. Everyone has their own personal reaction.

Louie, I think this the beginning of a beautiful friendship.

The film is very deliberate, the characters talk about their feelings against backgrounds that are more expressive than they are. I assume that like me the pace is too slow for many viewers and it lacks the mystery that gave inherent interest to BlowUp (was there a murder?)and L'Avventura (Anna's disappearance). I find Red Desert not to be worth the time I invested in it and found it ultimately pretentious. The theme of man and natures adjustment to the changing, largely man made environment was clear early on with the film becoming repetitious.