The Conversation

[Mr. Arkadin]

Welcome to SSO KR. Nice to have you here.

While Blow up (1966) and The Conversation might share a theme (isolationism), I really don't find much else connecting the two works. I personally find Antonioni's movie has aged poorly (Mr. ChiO will have me on the ropes for this) and not of the same caliber as his earlier films, which opened the sixties. As for The Conversation, I see it as a Neo Noir and while isolation is one of its points, it's certainly not the only one. Common noir landmarks such as paranoia, flashback, fate, and a sense of claustrophobia pervade Harry's world. As in Hitchcock's Vertigo (1958), he is the man with a second chance who still finds failure because he loses objectivity.

Misogynistic? Personally, I find Hemming's view and treatment of women poorer than Harry's. Although both use the fairer sex as a salve for their empty lives, Harry's non-commitment is due to his past and fears of what the future might hold. Marc seems to be unaware of his place in the world until the closing frames of the film, so his abuse does not stem from fear, but a sense of entitlement. This complaint also seems to be at odds with the Femme Fatale comment, where in Film Noir most females who fit this title are portrayed as vampire-like hellions. While in a few cases, this role is shown in an empowering light, the majority of these performances are negative ones.


I do agree with your idea that these films are approached in different ways with Antonioni's imagery and Coppola's pessimistic ideals. You might say that one embraced optimism of the early sixties, while the other endorsed hard realism, which followed. Comparing this film with same year’s Chinatown offers more perspective on one's personal taste than their actual stature in the neo noir cannon. As in Blowup, Polanski's film is dominated by color whereas Conversation is muted, or in your words, intentionally “drab”. The Conversation is also filled with images, but it’s the internal ideas about human mentality behind those images that give the movie its compelling power. I like both films, but I can’t agree on Nicholson over Hackman. Nor could I call Chinatown its better. Both are great films that stand on their own merits and should be viewed accordingly.

[ChiO]

Welcome, kingrat!

A few scattered observations:

In terms of personal preference, it's THE CONVERSATION (I keep going back and forth as to whether it or THE GODFATHER is my favorite Coppola film -- usually it's the one viewed more recently), BLOW-UP, and then CHINATOWN (John Huston's performance is CHINATOWN) -- but I like each for its own considerable merits.

I personally find Antonioni's movie has aged poorly (Mr. ChiO will have me on the ropes for this) and not of the same caliber as his earlier films

Well, if you want someone to make the case that BLOW-UP is better than L'AVVENTURA, LA NOTTE, L'ECLISSE and DESERTO ROSSO, look elsewhere. But "aged poorly"? One must overcome a focus on hip swinging London (as one overcomes Monument Valley) and see that setting for what it is -- the setting. The underlying theme of the more one tries to find reality and the closer one looks at a reality that is thought to have been found, the less one actually sees, has no specific tie to time and place. So, it has aged well for me (more accurate phrasing: "It has not aged.").

THE CONVERSATION is remarkably misogynistic.

Misogynistic? Personally, I find Hemming's view and treatment of women poorer than Harry's.

While I can understand finding Hemmings' dealing with women to be poorer than Harry's, I don't find Hemmings to be misogynistic. His dealing with the models is that of a professional dealing with the tools of the trade. Verushka is part of a well-oiled machine; the other models aren't working as he wants. The model groupies: a fascinating game of gender relations. Redgrave: treated as equals where the balance of power keeps shifting.

I don't see anything in THE CONVERSATION that makes it misogynistic. And Harry isn't misogynistic...he's misanthropic. He's only comfortable with people when he's eavesdropping, not when personally confronting them. That is a typical position in movies that use voyeurism as a basis for the narrative, the seeming contradiction that the more one looks at (or listens to) someone, the less personal the gaze becomes. I don't care what they're talking about. All I want is a nice fat recording. And, I don't know anything about human nature. Is the conclusion that Life is "drab and sour." Arguably so, but I find THE CONVERSATION to be an exhilarating experience in getting to that conclusion.

[Ollie]

CONVERSATION stands as my favorite techno-phobe horror film, with an ending scene perfect to entertain my conspiracy theory aluminum-foil hat complexes. I always liked it because it has a relatively 'small timers' cast. Most of those folks had (and have) long careers but few have enjoyed A-list status, outside of Hackman.

NIGHT MOVES falls into this category as a movie stocked with character actors that deliver a film I've enjoyed over its lifespan.

So, no, I don't share your dislike for it, but I understand your criticisms to some degree. CONVERSATION is a film full of 'slow parts' for me that continuous re-watchings make obvious. But not painfully so. I'm not sure what emotional chords this film taps to keep me willing to be interested. I think your "unattractive" comment is one of my Plus points - this is not a film full of beautiful people, and that may be one reason I donate a willingness to watch the more ordinary "unattractive" folk going about their every-day, "Let's murder someone" business. yada yada...

I can't tell if I'm lucky that my wife pays more attention to Kathleen Turner schemings instead of these Cindy Williams' lessons.

[Mr. Arkadin]

(John Huston's performance is CHINATOWN)

Indeed!

I personally find Antonioni's movie has aged poorly (Mr. ChiO will have me on the ropes for this) and not of the same caliber as his earlier films

Well, if you want someone to make the case that BLOW-UP is better than L'AVVENTURA, LA NOTTE, L'ECLISSE and DESERTO ROSSO, look elsewhere. But "aged poorly"? One must overcome a focus on hip swinging London (as one overcomes Monument Valley) and see that setting for what it is -- the setting. The underlying theme of the more one tries to find reality and the closer one looks at a reality that is thought to have been found, the less one actually sees, has no specific tie to time and place. So, it has aged well for me (more accurate phrasing: "It has not aged.").

You never finished your class Professor! I've been waiting over a year for you to explain the wonders of Blowup. Care to do so here?

THE CONVERSATION is remarkably misogynistic.

Misogynistic? Personally, I find Hemming's view and treatment of women poorer than Harry's.

While I can understand finding Hemmings' dealing with women to be poorer than Harry's, I don't find Hemmings to be misogynistic. His dealing with the models is that of a professional dealing with the tools of the trade. Verushka is part of a well-oiled machine; the other models aren't working as he wants. The model groupies: a fascinating game of gender relations. Redgrave: treated as equals where the balance of power keeps shifting.

I was thinking of the tame orgy, but nevertheless, I really don't view either film from a misogynistic perspective. As for David Hemmings in an empowering female film, seek out Dario Argento's Deep Red (1975).

I don't see anything in THE CONVERSATION that makes it misogynistic. And Harry isn't misogynistic...he's misanthropic. He's only comfortable with people when he's eavesdropping, not when personally confronting them. That is a typical position in movies that use voyeurism as a basis for the narrative, the seeming contradiction that the more one looks at (or listens to) someone, the less personal the gaze becomes. I don't care what they're talking about. All I want is a nice fat recording. And, I don't know anything about human nature. Is the conclusion that Life is "drab and sour." Arguably so, but I find THE CONVERSATION to be an exhilarating experience in getting to that conclusion.

Harry is also like Harvey Keitel's character in Mean Streets (1973) as a man conflicted by morality. In both these films inner nature affects outward behavior. Blowup seems to be the reverse.

[Mr. Arkadin]

I think your "unattractive" comment is one of my Plus points - this is not a film full of beautiful people, and that may be one reason I donate a willingness to watch the more ordinary "unattractive" folk going about their every-day, "Let's murder someone" business. yada yada...

I agree. The fact that the characters are not beautiful and the shots, though extraordinary, are not flashy or glamorous, serve to bring this implausible idea into a realistic realm where believability is possible.

[ChiO]

There's nothing good or appealing about the women in either film.

It's been too long since I've watched APOCALYPSE NOW and, when I last saw it, the possibility of misogyny did not strike me, so I'll remain silent on that one.

I agree that there is nothing particularly good or appealing about the women as characters in THE CONVERSATION. There is also nothing particularly good or appealing about about the men as characters. They are all unattractive characters. That is why I view it as misanthropic (or: "Just another day in the Noir Universe.").

I'm not operating from "theory," here, merely from what's portrayed on the screen.

I am as well (I think), though it is possible that I am not fully understanding your point.

THE CONVERSATION could have been pitched as "BLOW-UP with sound." The plots are nearly identical.

The plots do have similarities; however, thematically, I view BLOW-UP as being more akin to PEEPING TOM.

[Mr. Arkadin]

The misogyny of THE CONVERSATION comes not from the Hackman character's treatment of women, but from the director's treatment of women in the film, which is completely consistent with Coppola's treatment of women in APOCALYPSE NOW. There's nothing good or appealing about the women in either film. I'm not operating from "theory," here, merely from what's portrayed on the screen. Very few films strike me as really misogynistic. THE CONVERSATION and APOCALYPSE NOW do.

So where does One From the Heart (1982) fit in? While I'm not a big Coppola fan, I think there's a difference between having a pure misogynistic viewpoint and a more general despair of humanity as ChiO suggests.

THE CONVERSATION could have been pitched as "BLOW-UP with sound." The plots are nearly identical. I don't think BLOW-UP is one of Antonioni's best films, and I don't like the mimes and tennis court ending of the film, but it's still interesting to watch. I agree with the comment that THE CONVERSATION drags in the middle. Coppola's films tend to be slow-paced.

As I said before, I find the plots and goals of each film extremely different. While both movies deal with voyeurism and perception, they point to different aspects of man's ability to relate and function in the world in which he lives. Therefore, I don't feel The Conversation is a copy of Blow up by any means.

P.S. I always hated Apocalypse Now.