• L’avventura: Cannes Statement

    By Michelangelo Antonioni

    115_053_current_large

    Director Michelangelo Antonioni made these famous remarks at the press conference following the May 1960 Cannes Film Festival premiere of L’avventura. They appear here in a translation published in the spring 1962 issue of the journal Film Culture.

    Today the world is endangered by an extremely serious split between a science that is totally and consciously projected into the future, and a rigid and stereotyped morality that all of us recognize as such and yet sustain out of cowardice and sheer laziness. Where is this split most evident? What are its most obvious, its most sensitive, let us even say its most painful, areas?

    Consider the Renaissance man, his sense of joy, his fullness, his multifarious activities. Those were men of great magnitude, technically able and at the same time artistically creative, capable of feeling their own sense of dignity, their own sense of importance as human beings, the Ptolemaic fullness of man. Then man discovered that his world was Copernican, an extremely limited world in an unknown universe.

    And today a new man is being born, fraught with all the fears and terrors and stammerings that are associated with a period of gestation. And what is even more serious, this new man immediately finds himself burdened with a heavy baggage of emotional traits that cannot exactly be called old and outmoded but rather unsuited and inadequate. They condition us without offering us any help; they create problems without suggesting any possible solutions. And yet it seems that man will not rid himself of this baggage. He reacts, he loves, he hates, he suffers under the sway of moral forces and myths that today, when we are at the threshold of reaching the moon, should not be the same as those that prevailed at the time of Homer, but nevertheless are.

    Man is quick to rid himself of his technological and scientific mistakes and misconceptions. Indeed, science has never been more humble and less dogmatic than it is today. Whereas our moral attitudes are governed by an absolute sense of stultification. In recent years, we have examined these moral attitudes very carefully, we have dissected them and analyzed them to the point of exhaustion. We have been capable of all this, but we have not been capable of finding new ones. We have not been capable of making any headway whatsoever toward a solution to this problem, of this ever-increasing split between moral man and scientific man, a split that is becoming more and more serious and more and more accentuated.

    Naturally, I don’t care to, nor can I, resolve it myself; I am not a moralist, and my film is neither a denunciation nor a sermon. It is a story told in images whereby, I hope, it may be possible to perceive not the birth of a mistaken attitude but the manner in which attitudes and feelings are misunderstood today. Because, I repeat, the present moral standards we live by, these myths, these conventions, are old and obsolete. And we all know they are, yet we honor them. Why? The conclusion reached by the protagonists in my film is not one of sentimentality. If anything, what they finally arrive at is a sense of pity for each other. You might say that this too is nothing new. But what else is left if we do not at least succeed in achieving this? Why do you think eroticism is so prevalent today in our literature, our theatrical shows, and elsewhere? It is a symptom of the emotional sickness of our time. But this preoccupation with the erotic would not become obsessive if Eros were healthy, that is, if it were kept within human proportions. But Eros is sick; man is uneasy, something is bothering him. And whenever something bothers him, man reacts, but he reacts badly, only on erotic impulse, and he is unhappy.

    The tragedy in L’avventura stems directly from an erotic impulse of this type: unhappy, miserable, futile. To be critically aware of the vulgarity and the futility of such an overwhelming erotic impulse, as is the case with the protagonist in L’avventura, is not enough or serves no purpose. And here we witness the crumbling of a myth that proclaims it is enough for us to know, to be critically conscious of ourselves, to analyze ourselves, in all our complexities and in every facet of our personality. The fact of the matter is that such an examination is not enough. It is only a preliminary step. Every day, every emotional encounter gives rise to a new adventure. For even though we know that the ancient codes of morality are decrepit and no longer tenable, we persist, with a sense of perversity that I would only ironically define as pathetic, in remaining loyal to them. Thus moral man, who has no fear of the scientific unknown, is today afraid of the moral unknown. Starting out from this point of fear and frustration, his adventure can only end in a stalemate.

4 comments

  • By Tim friday
    March 09, 2009
    12:21 AM

    I have always felt something in my soul that tell me that man should not be this way. it simply isn't working. thank you so much for this... I'm truly moved.
    Reply
  • By GEORGE
    August 29, 2009
    05:07 AM

    "He reacts, he loves, he hates, he suffers under the sway of moral forces and myths which today, when we are at the threshold of reaching the moon, should not be the same as those that prevailed in Homeric times, but nevertheless are." Why should they not? Does Antonioni presume to say the whole point of life is getting to the moon? Were man's traits not unsuited and inadequate the day he stood upright?
    Reply
    • By Remo S.
      November 25, 2014
      10:22 PM

      Antonioni is suggesting that (Western) society -- and its members -- should not fear the "moral unknown"; just as the scientific unknown no longer inspires fear and uncertainty but enthusiasm (When you think of possible medical breakthroughs in the future, do you feel a sense of dread or excited?), as was the case in the sixties when there was widespread public excitement over reaching the moon. Antonioni suggests that, compared with the scientific breakthroughs that have developed since the Bronze Age, we have not evolved sufficiently in our understanding of morality since those heady days of Hesiod and Homer (he's exaggerating slightly--but perhaps only slightly). For Antonioni, the reason for this stultification is fear--moral fear. We leave the big morals assumptions behind glass, on a pedestal, but new technologies like The Bomb (more than the space race) require that we take those moral taboos down from their pedestal and feel free to interrogate or move past them altogether (which, in scientific terms, is what Einstein did with Newton's Theory of Mechanics, I think).
  • By Dan Engelke
    August 11, 2010
    09:56 PM

    Simply amazing.
    Reply