Talk:Michelangelo Antonioni

Michelangelo's Positive Statements on Jud Süß
I was surprised that his journalist work is so briefly mentioned in the Early Life section, when his positive statements about the Nazi propaganda film Jud Süß are so widely covered as a historical event. Some examples:


 * "Widely distributed in Nazi-occupied Europe, with special screenings for SS units, “Jew Süss” was shown at the 1940 Venice Film Festival, where it was praised for its formal qualities by Michelangelo Antonioni, then a young journalist" - ‘Forbidden Films’ Exhumes Nazi Poison From the Movie Vaults
 * ""Jud Suss," telling the story of the rise and fall of an 18th-century "court Jew" in provincial Germany, can now be viewed on several Internet sites, where it receives notices as rapturous as those at the Venice Film Festival in 1940, when the young critic Michelangelo Antonioni gushed: "It is a powerful, incisive, extremely effective film."" - Bigotry at the Box Office
 * "Droolers included director Michelangelo Antonioni, then a young critic, who swooned over its "cinematic refinement"." - Jud Süss: the Nazis' inglorious blockbuster
 * "“We have no hesitation in saying that if this is propaganda, then we welcome propaganda.” That is how Michelangelo Antonioni, in his Venice Film Festival report, responded to Veit Harlan’s Jew Suss (Jud Süß, 1940), a film which went into production at the prompting of Joseph Goebbels, and has the reputation of being among the most antisemitic ever made." - I abject: the not-so-simple propaganda of Veit Harlan’s Jew Suss

And there's way more than that out there. A bunch of historical books covering his review and comments as well. So, what would be the best way to incorporate something about this into the Early Life section of the article? Silver seren C 17:27, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

On his early films
I thought it should also be noted that the way his beginning works in the Early film work section are portrayed is also questionable. It's written as if these are simply films about regular people with no other purpose behind them, then suddenly the section says the films were transferred to a fascist region with no explanation. When the well known reason is that these films were examples of Italian fascist propaganda and are extensively noted as such in historical retrospectives. Such as noted here:


 * "That’s where NYU historian Ruth Ben-Ghiat comes in. Her new book, Italian Fascism’s Empire Cinema, examines nine films made about Italy’s African and Balkan occupations during Mussolini’s dictatorship. Influenced by French and British colonial films of the time (as well as Hollywood Westerns!), the propaganda films, made between 1936 and 1943, celebrated the growth of Italy’s burgeoning colonial presence in exotic lands and advertised its modern military might to the world."


 * "The films featured the nation’s biggest stars alongside actual soldiers, who served as extras, and gave many who’d become leading lights of postwar Italian cinema—like Federico Fellini and Michelangelo Antonioni—their start. But the works became obsolete after Italy lost its colonies, and because of their fascist roots they remain relatively unknown today, “a skeleton in the closet,” as one critic put it, of the Italian film industry."
 * Italian Cinema's Skeleton in the Closet

And obviously that means that the book noted in that quote likely has a lot more information regarding Michelangelo's early film work and how it was a part of fascist propaganda. Should something about this also be added to the article section in question? I'm honestly surprised that the article as a whole seems to try and avoid discussing Michelangelo's long-standing involvement and support for the fascist regime in Italy at the time. Silver seren C 17:27, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Since you're the only editor to have made any significant contributions to this article that has edited at all in the past year, sad to say for the others, I thought I'd ping you to get your opinion and input on the above two sections. Silver  seren C 17:34, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words (I don't deserve them...) and pinging me about this important matter. In an interview, Ben-Ghiat states the following about Fellini's early film work in Africa:
 * Q- What should Fellini fans make of his early experiences working on these films?
 * A- Well, he was very young and this was one among several projects he was involved with at the start of his career. I imagine it was a big adventure to be going to Africa, and making a film sponsored by Mussolini’s son. It is hard to say if this means he was pro-Fascist, or just wanting to have this experience with a large-budget movie.
 * Fellini was never a willing Fascist (numerous Italian cinema experts including Andrea Minuz, Peter Bondanella, Aldo Tassone, and Tullio Kezich confirm this as fact) and only went to Africa to make a living in a film industry sponsored by Mussolini's son. Fellini famously went on to skewer Fascists in film work after the war. Antonioni's early enrollment in Fascist Youth is unsurprising given that it was obligatory for every Italian male of that generation including Fellini. One thing is certain: this has parallels with France and film directors working during the Nazi Occupation - some collaborated readily with the regime, others like Cocteau took the job to make a living but remained neutral or had ties to the Resistance. It's a slippery subject and requires a sensitive, thoughtful approach. While I can't imagine a youthful Antonioni praising Nazi propaganda, treating the subject will demand reflection and the careful gathering of sourced materials and discussion before any inclusion in the article can be made. That's only my opinion, of course. Historian Ben-Ghiat has documented this crucial aspect of Italian cinema and her arguments relating to Antonioni's early work under Fascism should be mentioned along with biographers and historians on the director's well-documented post-war anti-fascism.


 * It seems like the best way would be to include the information about Antonioni's statements on Jud Süß and the background of the propaganda films he made. Then use Ben-Ghiat's coverage of Antonioni to explain his involvement in such material. Though one thing I am confused about is that, even if the films he made were just unwillingly so and they were just focused on regular people anyways, I'm not sure how that jives with his enthusiastic support for Jud Süß in his review of it. Was he actually supportive of anti-semitic views originally and then something later changed his mind? Or was it that, while he was opposed to the actions of the fascist regimes, he did still actually dislike the Jewish people or believed the stereotypes about them? Silver  seren C 21:53, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

To your first point: Yes, I agree this would be the best approach. To your second point: I am not aware of any available biography on Antonioni (MA) that confirms he embraced Fascism and/or anti-Semitism in his youth either as a film critic or as a fledgling film director and that, after the war, he rejected those views. My point is simply to remind us that, as Wiki editors, it's imperative we maintain a neutral stance and avoid personal views, hunches or suspicions.

The controversy could be outlined in the section ‘Early life’ or a separate section by quoting from reliable sources online such as the informative BFI article by Brad Stevens on Jud Süß:


 * Antonioni’s favourable notice is usually regarded as at best a youthful indiscretion, at worst evidence of support for fascism.

Then follow that up with material from Ben-Ghiat's coverage of Antonioni’s film work during the war and how she considers MA’s stance on Fascism as ambiguous etc. Once again, these are only suggestions on my part. Jumbolino (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)