User reviews

I just finished viewing this on DVD and I kept thinking - can anyone imagine someone making a picture like this these days?

Of course, this film was a product of a time and a place and a sensibility that is now long gone. But be that as it may, this is an excellent film about a married couple who have fallen out of love. OK, no one will be viewing this looking for escapist entertainment. However if you are looking for what the Cinema can do without a blue-screen to enlighten, engross and even (dare I say it) entertain while at the same time shedding some light on human relationships - this film comes highly recommended. Excellent cast too!

With his refinement and cinematic artistry, Antonioni was definitely hitting on all cylinders during the early 60's doing stories that would probably raise a loud 'HUH?' at a Hollywood pitch session - then or now.

While I don't rate this at quite the same level as L'Aventura, this is up there with the best of his films (IMHO).

Challenging and emotionally muted on 1st viewing, I still found this largely a very interesting portrait of a bourgeois marriage crumbling, observed during one afternoon and night.

The couple visit a seemingly dying friend in the hospital, attend a book signing for the husband's new novel, stop at a nightclub where they barely even react to an erotic floor show, and then head to a party for a rich industrialist who is celebrating the first win by his new racehorse, Both Marcello Mastroianni and Jeanne Moreau do terrific work as the deadened and estranged couple. He no longer even identifies with his own writing, feeling it's just a product, like that made by the industrialist. He's even lost his sense of lust. She no longer feels love for him, and seems locked in loneliness and depression. It's a tough movie to take, grim, humorless, almost as dead feeling as its leads, but that would seem to be the point.

My only problem, as I've occasionally had with Antonioni, is that well before the end I felt I had gotten these themes clearly and powerfully, and there was, after that, a certain sense of hammering home ideas that had already been expressed beautifully with a lighter touch (there's a key reveal near the end that I saw coming a mile off). But the images (of course) are striking and memorable, as are the performances, and the sad gloom that hovers over this world of people who seem to have it all, and yet feel so little.

La Notte is very content to be a film seemingly about the mundane in the bourgeois world of an Italian couple. But what makes it worthwhile is that the time that Antonioni gives for the scenes and actors to breathe- ironically enough considering their social and intimate repression- allows for some curious moments to slip through (some of his best directed). The married couple here of the great Marcello Mastroianni and face-of-a-thousand-words Jeanne Moreau are not necessarily un-happy but unsatisfied with how their lives are at this point. The husband is a very successful and admired author, and they are well off. But the question still arises, underneath as the subtext in many scenes, what's it all really worth? Two of the main set-pieces/sequences in the film revolve around Moreau walking around aimlessly through the city while her husband is at a signing party, and at a rich party at night with a spacious amount of room for the guests.

All of these little, seemingly mundane moments are not all that the film is made up of, and it is in this existential (if it is relatively speaking) crisis for this couple that what real life that's out there and real pains strike up here and there. I loved the moment where Mastroianni is confronted by a seemingly crazy girl at the hospital; is she really crazy, or just desperate for someone's affection or attention (she is later beat into submission by the nurses)? Or when Moreau sees a fight break out with some young men in the less well-off section of town, the hesitation and surprise suddenly throws the fighters off. The party itself- where-in the 'Night' of the title is revealed- has moments of dialog that strike up the symbolic points Antonioni is making. But unlike the director's previous film, the visual-side of the cinematography has its moments but not necessarily as extraordinary in its overall make-up. Yet the initial peaks of interest- both in the actors (particularly Moreau who is always a treasure) and in the final, contemplative act with Monica Vitti, endures with better results.

Maybe the least in the 'trilogy' that Antonioni made between 1960 and 1962, which still makes it more watchable than the usual art-house bores of late. There is almost TOO much room for pondering about these characters, which makes for what could be seen as 'dull', but it really isn't. Detached, maybe, but not hard to connect with if open enough, this is a very good film if not one of the director's best.

Its better to wander into this film without knowing too much. The performances are all outstanding but the main credit must be handed to the artist behind it all Michelangelo Antonioni. It would have been quite beautiful to have seen this film when it came out, but even after all these years the themes still resonate as true.

I don't want to get into the plot too much, but this film is more about feeling. The friction and differences between husband and wife are explored.

Antonioni doesn't force anything, he allows a scene to play out in proper time. This film is full of symbolism and despair.

In the late 1950s and early 1960s, the Italian director Michelangelo Antonioni shot a series of films exploring the psychological torment of his bourgeois protagonists. In spite of the wealth and security they established, they had no idea what they wanted in life or what they were supposed to do. In spite of busy social lives, they found it impossible to truly connect with other people. LA NOTTE, from 1961, is one of these, and I think it's the very best of them.

As the film opens, one morning in Milano, married couple Giovanni (Marcello Mastroianni) and Lidia (Jeanne Moreau) visit their friend Tomasso (Bernhard Wicki) in the hospital as he lays dying. Lidia is clearly shaken by the experience and, after Giovanni leaves for an appearance to promote his new book, the camera tracks Lidia through a long, aimless walk around Milano as she processes her thoughts. Here Antonioni (anticipating his later film Il Deserto Rosso) shows the drastically changing face of Milano in the postwar construction boom, and the appearance of new tech gadgetry in everyday life, as just one more way people can feel they have nothing certain they can hold on to in this world.

Giovanni and Lidia, while never outright squabbling, have clearly grown cold towards each other. Gradually one begins to wonder if there is any life left in their marriage whatsoever. Things come to a head, however, when Giovanni and Lidia go that evening to a party at a rich industrialist's villa, and Antonioni's favourite actress Monica Vitti appears. Vitti's role as a foil to Giovanni and Lidia is powerful and moving, but I think its precise nature should be left unsaid here, as it's better audiences aren't spoiled first.

A mere description of the plot might seem like nothing happens in this film besides bored people talking and yet another mid-century European cinematic tale of adultery. But LA NOTTE is a film of incredible visual poetry, almost like the work of Andrei Tarkovsky. Even scenes that evoke the characters' boredom are shot as such beautiful tableaux that the viewer is enraptured. Antonioni often shoots his characters reflected in mirrors and the like, and there is some cinematic legerdemain here that just makes you go "wow".

Appearing in Antonioni's body of work between two similar films that are often considered a trilogy, LA NOTTE has often got less buzz than its predecessor L'AVVENTURA, with its daring plot twist, or its successor L'ECLISSE with its chic Monica Vitti-Alain Delon love affair. But I think that in terms of the picture-perfect visuals and elegant pacing, LA NOTTE deserves every bit as much praise as those other two classic films.

"Hush now, don't explain". That's the only thing missing in this wonderful picture of the Maestro: the eternal voice of Billie Holiday over some end-titles. Do not expect explanations, watch the actors carefully and all will be revealed. Neo-realistic ? Sure, look at the rugged camera-angles. A child cries her heart out and we never see her face fully. Of course Lidia walks up to her and strokes the little girls hair smilingly, only to loose interest immediately because of a broken down clock. Symbolism ? Just watch and feel these great actors.

A day in the life of an unfaithful married couple and their steadily deteriorating relationship.

Bosley Crowther had some kind words for the film, which also won a slew of awards: "Too sensitive and subtle for apt description are his pictorial fashionings of a social atmosphere, a rarefied intellectual climate, a psychologically stultifying milieu—and his haunting evocations within them of individual symbolisms and displays of mental and emotional aberrations. Even boredom is made interesting by him. There is, for instance, a sequence in which a sudden downpour turns a listless garden party into a riot of foolish revelry, exposing the lack of stimulation before nature takes a flagellating hand. Or there's a shot of the crumpled wife leaning against a glass wall looking out into the rain that tells in a flash of all her ennui, desolation and despair." To me, it all comes down to the cinematography. The casting of Jeanne Moreau and Monica Vitti was important, but the way we get that nice, stark and defined black and white is what I love to see. At a time the Americans had largely switched to color, some of the best in Europe were able to push black and white to the next level.

It took me some time to watch any film by Michaelangelo Antonioni, being interested in his films and with knowledge of his reputation but commitments and being behind on my watching and reviewing for a while now stopped me from watching any of his output until fairly recently. As of now have not seen all of his work but enough to judge. Antonioni is one of those "highly appreciate and recognise their influence in film-making" rather than "adore and becoming a favourite" directors and can understand why he won't work for some.

Antonioni is a very interesting and deservedly influential director with a lot of his output being well worth watching to masterpiece. Yet with a style that fascinates many, with exceptional use of imagery and photography and how he explored subjects in some of his best work was ground breaking, but alienates others who consider his style as detatched, ambiguous and self-indulgent. Personally very much lean towards the former. 'La Notte', made during Antonioni's best and richest period, is one of his best, in my top 3 of his films and my personal favourite of "trilogy of alienation", the others being 'L'avventura' and 'L'Eclisse'. Despite loving 'L'avventura', which was ground-breaking, exceptionally directed and some of the best cinematography of the decade (all three applying to 'La Notte'), 'La Notte' strikes me as the more accessible film, with the characterisation deeper and clearer in my view and connected with me more on an emotional level. Also loved the film first time whereas it took me a re-watch to re-assess 'L'avventura' to hold it in high regard.

'La Notte' again looks wonderful, the locations are strikingly atmospheric and on a cinematography level it is one of the best and most vivid films of the 60s. The stunning opening shot is unforgettable. Some of Antonioni's best and most accomplished directing can be seen here too, approaching the subject in a thought-provoking and brutally honest yet sincere manner that doesn't try too hard or come over as pompous.

You couldn't ask for better performances with Jeanne Moreau in particular giving one of her best ever performances, with the wandering around the streets scene being a telling piece of acting. Not once is it obvious that she apparently didn't care for the role. The characters came over as interesting, with a clear empathy for Lidia and Giovanni portrayed from Lidia's viewpoint is far more complex and nowhere near as shallow as he may appear to be for some, and the look into the various relationships is insightful and provokes a lot of thought in a way that one does not expect before watching, it has been criticised for ambiguity which isn't shared by me.

The script is both sympathetic and unforgiving in equal measure and the story made me think, approaches its subject with sophistication and complexity and connected with me emotionally. The pace is deliberate but never dull or troubling which is remarkable for a film with many silent passages.

All in all, a masterwork. 10/10 Bethany Cox

... as it beats you over the head with its premise that marriage (life?) is boring. While many reviewers here have used words like masterpiece to describe it, La Notte is a one-note song played over and over again for more than 2 hours by director Michelangelo Antonioni. The film could easily run 90 minutes (or less) and still make its point.

The first half features several long, largely dialogue-less scenes of the married couple (Marcello Mastroianni and Jeanne Moreau) meandering, separately or together, to show that they're obviously bored with each other and probably life in general. This transitions into "the night" which starts at a nightclub featuring an unusual 'acrobatic' performer, whose 'feats' with a wine glass are seemingly endless.

The rest takes place during a socialite party at the expansive estate of a wealthy capitalist. As a successful writer, Mastroianni's character is deemed an intellectual among the businessmen in attendance, and a catch among the women. Moreau is less social, more of a loner really, who resists the temptations of dalliances, unlike her husband.

After I watched this great movie for the second time I can say it is a true masterpiece. In comparison with "Le Mepris" by Godard. Lot of the credits should go to Tonino Guerra for the impeccable script. Images, script, actors, everything is superb...

I have say, I overlook my own prejudices when I view films by Italian filmmakers, at least in the golden era. Marcello and Jeanne are so dark, from the makeup used to accentuate the sadness in her eyes, to the bleakness of making it from one day to the next. Apparently, going to lavish parties with other depressed people isn't helping much. The illness and death of a friend brings things down further. Marcello seems to have the same presence in many films. He is on the surface a cad, but an artistic one. He is submerged in existential depths and enjoys nothing. Jeanne Moreau almost never smiles. She knows that to keep her husband, she has to go along with his games, and even then, he accepts her on his own terms. How can we really relate to these rich, selfish people who have nowhere to go. They make mundane seem desirable. The film is lavish and the cinematography stunning. The performances are just right and yet the characters they play are not very sympathetic.

LA NOTTE is a drama that focuses on a crisis and infidelity in a marriage.

A prominent writer and his beautiful wife visit their dying friend in a hospital in Milan. His new book has just been published, and their friend, despite his heavy pain, praises his work. Writer's wife, visibly shaken, leaves a hospital in tears. However, her husband, who has stayed a little longer with their friend, has found himself in a lewd game of a seduction with a young and mentally ill girl in the next room. Later, he sees his wife crying but does not comfort her. As they drive off, he tells her about his "unpleasant" encounter with the sick woman and is surprised when she dismisses the incident. Spouses are emotionally moving away from each other. However, they attend together a swanky party thrown by a millionaire businessman...

The story is based on alienation, lack of love and misunderstanding in the High Society. Mr. Antonioni has, in an explicit way, introduced a failed marriage. However, that "empty" game in the lives of wealthy people gradually becomes boring. That world, which is full of an elegance and styles, it is very tedious and lonely. The protagonists have condemned themselves to an excessive alienation. Each bright moment in their lives is actually an escape from the actual situation. However, they will have to face the truth.

This story is not overly exciting, but it is very suggestive. The main protagonists are constantly emphasize the emotional exhaustion, boredom and internal anxiety. Characterization is quite superficial.

Jeanne Moreau as Lidia is a woman who emotionally dying. Her mood goes from bad to worse. Her eyes understand and accuse at the same time. Marcello Mastroianni as Giovanni Pontano is a bit silly character as her husband. He is lost in his art and the emptiness of their marriage. His performance is very pale. Monica Vitti as Valentina Gherardini is a pleasant phenomenon in the latter part of the film. However, she is a dark and impersonal character, who did not bring a change in the rhythm.

The biggest flaw in this film is the absence of one character as a "relief valve" or perhaps some moderate catharsis at the end.

La notte is usually said to be the second of the so-called "existential tetralogy" together with L'Avventura, L'eclisse and The Red Desert.

Like L'Avventura, La Notte as well has a central theme a love story, but a story of a couple (wonderfully played by Mastroianni and Jeanne Moreau) going through a deep crisis, that has almost come to an end. From the emptiness of their house, we move to a likewise empty party. The night setting is what allows the characters in the film to move away from the borders of their personality and degenerate, do things that the night itself can hide and that keeps for itself.

In fact, when the sun rises, everything is much calmer and the light shows things in a different way, even the couple's relationship. Like Antonioni once said during an interview: "you don't need much to collapse, to surrender"… it's easy to forget about the things that surround us.

Antonioni always reminds us that talking isn't necessary, that silence is a big lesson we can learn from.

I think this should have been called ENNUI. It could not even be called ambivalence, because the main character is Moreau, who frequently states that she is ready to die.

At best, this is somewhat a treatise on that time in a woman's life when she really starts to think that all men ARE the same, and that it's all a pretty hopeless affair. This is, at least, what we are presented with both in Moreau's character, and Mastroianni's behavior.

Sunk in a mire of numb boredom and a moody self reflection that Moreau often specialized in, this film only comes alive when Vitti is on screen. She is luminous and really fascinating, even though her character is also disenchanted and bored.

This world of idle rich is often portrayed in films of this period, infantile sensation seeking out of a deep lack of individual creativity. All of these films suffer from a real difficulty of making these people interesting, identifiable and certainly difficult to make them likable.

The window we are given into Moreau's somnambulance is through Bernhard Wicki, and the "secret" of their relationship which is hinted at and finally unveiled in her last speeches.

This is a film about the disillusionment of maturity. For a fairly short film, it makes for viewing that feels long. Peggy Lee sang it all in much less time with, "Is that all there is."

In Millan, Italy, successful author Marcello Mastroianni (as Giovanni Pontano) and his likewise attractive wife Jeanne Moreau (as Lidia) drive past a bulldozer to visit their dying friend Bernhard Wicki (as Tommaso). If you don't sense writer-director Michelangelo Antonioni's death and desolation symbolism immediately, look for it in the faces of Mr. Mastroianni and Ms. Moreau. After ten years, their marriage is seriously on the rocks. The couple attend parties celebrating the publication of Mastroianni's new novel. Restless and bored, Moreau wanders around in the colorless city. Mastroianni follows suit. They give cinematographer Gianni Di Venanzo and Mr. Antonioni locations to beautifully capture on film. Mastroianni flirts with party girl Monica Vitti (as Valentina). Moreau parties with a young playboy. Finally, the drifting co-stars make an attempt to flirt with each other, by which time you likely won't care how the night ends. It sure looks nice, though.

****** La notte (1/24/61) Michelangelo Antonioni ~ Marcello Mastroianni, Jeanne Moreau, Monica Vitti, Bernhard Wicki

I've been catching up with some of the black and white masterpieces of French and Italian cinema from the Sixties and over and over again am grateful I didn't watch these at the time. God knows how it would have gone over decades ago to say, "This is a boring, aimless film about a privileged minority", but that's pretty much the deal here. This isn't just a film about First World problems; it's about the problems of a tiny slice of that world. Is the theme of a marriage crumbling universal? Sure. But I don't see even my old colleagues from the business world relating much to the specific problems of a well-known writer married to an independently wealthy woman (the fact that the film highlights that, but never really shows it as a consideration in his own ambivalence about ending the relationship is telling). There is one compelling sequence in a nightclub which depends more on the actual physical action than what it means to the couple (a point that could have been made in a much briefer sequence). There are pointless flirtations with pointless people. There is one semi-caricature of a rich industrialist who thinks - as we know such people often do - that his is the most noble mission and really the model for how to live; a tad hackneyed as a concept, but a welcome bit of clarity in all this out-of-focus wandering. The film also has flashes of dialogue that show the director could probably have made a great Woody Allen film, had he so chosen: "Every millionaire wants his own intellectual"; "Life would be bearable if not for its pleasures"; "It seems I'm too sensitive. Even my dentist says so"; "Who's that American writer? The one who hurts elephants?" "Hemingway". A bit more of this and all the ennui might actually have been fun. I should point out if I find so much of this tiresome, it is because I have had occasion to frequent people very like some of those seen at the party and find the general futility of the lives of people who carelessly squander amounts that could support whole families for a night of drinking champagne and puerile impulses only too true to Life. Which doesn't mean I want to watch their indecision and aimlessness on screen. Oh, and note that Umberto Eco appears here (long before he was anything but a professor of semiotics) in an uncredited role. Perhaps the most interesting thing about the whole film. Also, if you go to the kind of parties where a professor of semiotics is typical of the less affluent guests, you'll probably love this film. Conversely...