Talk:Zabriskie Point (film)

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.

• The Architecture of Vision: Writings and Interviews on Cinema. University Of Chicago Press. 2007. ISBN 0226021149. (Three chapters: "Zabriskie Point: What This Land Says To Me", "A Conversation about Zabriskie Point", "Zabriskie Point")
• Gandy, Matthew (2006). "The Cinematic Void: Desert Iconographies in Michelangelo Antonioni's Zabriskie Point". In Lefebvre, Martin (ed.). Landscape and Film. Routledge. ISBN 0415975549.
• Gustafsson, Henrik (2007). "An image in place of an image: Empty land and the invention of origin in Easy Rider, Zabriskie Point, and The Last Movie". Out of Site: Landscape and Cultural Reflexivity in New Hollywood Cinema, 1969-1974. Stockholm Cinema Studies. Stockholm University. ISBN 9185445657.
• Kinder, Marsha (2008). "Zabriskie Point". In Cardullo, Bert (ed.). Michelangelo Antonioni: Interviews. University Press of Mississippi. ISBN 1934110663.
• King, Mike (2008). "Zabriskie Point". The American Cinema of Excess: Extremes of the National Mind on Film. McFarland. p. 170. ISBN 0786439882.
• Pomerance, Murray (2011). "Zabriskie Point". Michelangelo Red Antonioni Blue: Eight Reflections on Cinema. University of California Press. ISBN 0520258703.

Too strict

maybe this article is a bit too strict in judging this film, which has some nice parts, too. e.g., the final sequence is widely appreciated. what do u think? --achab 23:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I think so. It's an excellent movie, but what do I know, I don't base my opinion of films (or anything else) on CD cover notes.

There was a scene of a bus full of people, filmed from the exterior, that was shot at the police station in Santa Monica. I know because I was an extra on that scene. Brent Poirier.

Blade Runner

Can someone cite proof of the Blade Runner connection? I would be very surprised if this were true. I see no visual connection whatsoever between the explosion scene is ZP and the opening "fireballs" in BR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.111.125 (talk) 01:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

H Ford is in both. blink-&-you'll-miss-it in this, granted...

198.147.19.1 (talk) 01:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

the film is good

The film is good, but Wikipedia is not trying to say the truth, but to give a neutral point of view. Most reliable printed sources say the film is bad, so the article should stay as it is. Plus, I would be confused if the article would say that the film is good. I would never know what to understand from a Wikipedia article on a film. A better example is "It's All About Love", which is obviously a masterpiece, and it is simply dismissed on Wikipedia. So learn to read. Change yourself, don't try to change the world. Doru001 (talk) 17:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have no eye for film so you should have little to do with this topic. The fascinating aspect of this film is precisely that it was misunderstood when made but it has been vindicated mightily. It captures the items all around that were so crucial that no one ever noticed them. As someone brighter than I (Jung?) said, "Don't listen to what they say. Listen to what they don't say."83.28.68.151 (talk) 23:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Zabriskie Point (Film) edits

• Copy-pasted here from my talk page by User:CEHenderson. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Gwen,

You removed my edits to the plot section of Zabriskie Point (Film) and I would like you to reconsider. My edits were all factual (to the plot) and anyone familiar with the film will see their merit. Is this the proper way to address my request for reconsideration? Would you like me to send you a more lengthy annotated defense of my changes? You say (I believe)"too much original research by good faith IP." After repeated viewings and study of the film I believe all the edits can be authenticated by dialog transcripts and descriptions of individual camera shots.

Thanks in advance, CEHenderson CEHenderson (talk) 04:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Your edits had little to do with plot and shots, but much to do with your interpretation of things you believe underly the plot and character motivations, which are not put forth in the dialog or plot as such. Although a straightforward, clean plot summary can be sourced to the film (as can the credits), your edits were interpretive and hence can't be sourced to the film itself: Your own study of the film can't be cited in the article, that's original research. Also note that the only two even mildly interpretive bits of text in the plot section are cited to film critic Vincent Canby. Lastly, if the article were to carry sourced crit (interpretation) about the film, it might very likely be more helpful in a section other than that for the plot. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

My edits Gwen: Please show me in the first paragraph what you mean... I changed "direct political action" to "direct violent political action in response to racial inequality" -- that is absolutely what the student discussion is about (non interpretive - I can show you the dialog). I then quote Mark's statement "but not of boredom" because he says this and subsequently infuriates the group of radicals and indicates that he feels ready to actually confront police with violence (again non-interpretive). Then I say he and his roommate are "anxious to confront the police with arms" because that is why they buy the hand guns (again not interpretive). CEHenderson (talk) 07:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

You can quote dialog, you can describe straightforward action ("steals plane... paints graffiti... is shot by police") and cite the film, but that's about it. When they go to the gun shop, they don't tell each other or anyone else they're purchasing the guns because they're "anxious to confront the police with arms." That's your interpretation. It might not be too far off, but it might not be spot on, either. By the way, in movie production, the screenwriters may have had one interpretation, the director another, the actors others altogether. Interpretations must be sourced and verifiable, you're welcome to find and source published critical interpretations of the film. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Read this and then tell me if we can safely say that they're purchasing the guns because they're "anxious to confront the police with arms."

Marks drives friend to school to participate in demonstration. The two converse... here's the meat of their conversation:

…

Mark “Look man, the day you don't count on losing is the day I'll join the movement

Friend: “For lots of people it's a matter of survival”

Mark “That's what I mean”

Friend: “What?”

Mark: “It's serious, it's not a game.”

pause while driving down street

Mark: “I'm tired of it man. Kids rapping about violence and cops doing it. That chick at the meeting said people only act when they need to. But I need to sooner than that.”

…

Mark drops friend off at school amidst demonstrators.

Cut to new scene

Mark is now at the police station to see about the release of his friend who was arrested in the demonstration.

After being roughed up and arrested himself for asking about his friend, Mark and his friend together buy guns.

CEHenderson (talk) 06:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The dialog and action in the film through those scenes show that the motivations of Mark and his friend may not be 1:1 and that both may be shifting. The jail lock-up scene does not show that Mark was "arrested himself for asking about his friend," it shows only that he was arrested after he asked about his friend. He may have been arrested because of how he looked, or behaved, or because he wanted to be arrested, or because the cop was in a bad mood, or "identified" Mark with the arrestees, or something else, or all of the above, or some mix of that. Given how Antonioni directed films, along with the collaborative way films are put together and moreover how this one was written and produced, motivations in ZP if anything will be even sketchier to deal with, from any editorial outlook. Either way, whatever these character motivations (if any) may have been meant to be, our talking about them is original research unless an independent, reliable source is cited. Editors aren't here to write about (or publish) their own analysis of a film, they're here to write about what the sources say. That's what tertiary sources like encyclopedias are meant to do. All one can cite from the film itself are dialog and visible action. Only to help you understand, you can write a secondary source carrying your own analysis of ZP, please do if you like, but you can't do it here (I can't either, no editor can). Gwen Gale (talk) 08:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• Zabriskie Point (film) could indeed be helped by its own crit section, carrying published analysis of the film. The hitch there is, published, in-depth crit on ZP has been way light, seeing as how it bombed so bad with audiences and critics at the time (never mind things like the later aftermaths of the two leads' lives, which didn't stir up much heed from folks who publish such crit). Moreover, the movie's stalled production/release timing was awful as to the market and Jim Aubrey (with his own management outlook) showed up at MGM whislt post was still winding up (one of his inputs was the Orbison tune synched onto the end credit roll, some say jarringly so). As with most Antonioni films, ZP has aged beautifully, I glark meaningful published crit could begin showing up... someday. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

You understand many of the subtleties of ZP... and the need for credible published crit - thanks. Mark's suspect weightlifting accident in prison notwithstanding, Daria has lived under the wing of her mother and teaches dance through their Kentwood studio in Marin County, CA. The dismal box-office was more likely, in my opinion, a recoiling from the polished mirror Antonioni showed up to his American audience. Only now can we watch these frames and see how harpooned both hip and straight cultures were by his lens. Studying the film in detail has left me aghast at how even the basic understanding of the plot is malformed in the eyes of those who dare to critique. Yeah, Orbison's ballad not only distorted and deflected the real thrust of the film but it shows how even Roy didn't get it, didn't see that the radicalization of Daria with every American icon now destroyed in her young evolving consciousness was the take-away. I'm going to try to massage the plot one more time in the hopes that I can adhere to your stringent non-interpretive standard without burning down the house. CEHenderson (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Roy Orbison had nothing to do with the production and Antonioni had nothing to do with the song "So Young" being tacked onto the end of the movie, that was Aubrey, hoping to get some promotional leverage for both the movie and Orbison, who was on MGM's record label at the time, that's the only link. The song had been written by Orbison, Mike Curb and Roger Christian.

Your last edit still added your own original research to the article. Nothing in the film's dialog or action shows whether or not Mark's character shot the cop (this kind of "existential ambiquity," so very wonted of MA, could be one of the reasons US audiences at the time seem to have been left cold by the movie). Likewise, the meeting of stirred-up students in the film's opening shows them talking about their sundry opinions and outlooks and not in all that much agreement. I don't have time to watch that scene now but as I recall there are no straightforward calls for "violent" political action as such.

The sources I've read on the film's ending hark much to Daria's grief (the water running down the rocks, in which she soaks herself, as in tears) and anger over Mark's death (blowing the whole house up in her mind's eye). There are likely lots of "takeaways." The pith is, bringing up any of them in the article would need a source. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your illumination on the Orbison debacle.

You need to watch the film again (or ready my plot summary). Mark clearly does not shoot the cop. The film reveals this clearly and the subsequent dialog to Mark's roommate and Daria also. No ambiguity on the part of MA. The student discussion is all about taking up arms, about taking violence to the man.

I'd like to engage with you about these edits. Are you totally opposed to any edits? Do you have an opening in you mind that could possibly accommodate a change in the current plot summary? Would you be willing to watch the film again to resolve our disagreements re: the plot summary? Please bear in mind that I have studied this film in detail, it's open right now on my desktop and I can scrub to any frame in the film and review it. I have studied the original script, have spoken with the Halprins about the film, have Italian contacts that are co-researching the film with an eye to out-takes and other historical artifacts, have a list of film locations that are being visited and verified, and have studied the music score in detail. I would enjoy you being the editor of changes and additions I plan to make to this wiki-page. Can we work together?

CEHenderson (talk) 06:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Vincent Canby's 1970 NYT review is very straightforward: Mark (Mark Frechette), a young man who may or may not have shot a policeman during a strike in Los Angeles, steals a small plane and flies up to Death Valley... Keep in mind, student protests were often called "strikes" by writers back then because the protests often had to do with strikes against going to class, they would occupy campus buildings and so on (note that the inline link I gave may bring you to the password wall at NYT, but the article can easily be had without a password through a search engine).

I'll try to watch the opening scene later, sometime today.

The question "Are you totally opposed to any edits?" doesn't mean anything here. Any editor is welcome to edit an article, but in doing so the policies must be followed. Please read the policies.

As I've said, you can't put your own usourced outlook into the article, that's original research. You'll need to start citing sources.

If you have anything further to say about edits to the article, you should do this on the article talk page so that other editors can have input. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Canby may be very straightforward but he is also very wrong. Watch the film.

My most recent edits were all clearly straight reportage directly from the film - that's my source and it should be yours also.

CEHenderson (talk) 16:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Please read this very carefully. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Posts at Talk:Zabriskie Point (film) begin here

If we say that Mark has blond hair that would be false. Source: The film Zabriskie Point published in 1970.

If we were to say that Mark may or may not have shot the policeman that would be false. Source: The film Zabriskie Point published in 1970. The shot that kills the policeman goes off when Marks gun is still in his boot. Also, he tells Daria that he "never got off a shot" and empty's all the bullets from his pistol at the end of the outhouse scene at Zabriskie Point.

There is no more authoritative published source than the film itself... surely you agree with that, eh?

As you re-watch the film please note that the guy Mark buys the guns with is NOT his roommate and that they purchase two rifles on top of at least one handgun. CEHenderson (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Did you read WP:V? All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Please wait for input from other editors here on the article talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

As I said I would, I have carefully reviewed the dialog of the student meeting in the film's opening. There is only disagreement between white and black students as to some of the latter's rhetorical calls for a stronger stance against the police. There is some talk about "diversionary tactics." There is some taunting of a student as to whether or not he is willing to have his car used in the strike. A black student says, "If the man's language is with a gun, we talk to him with a gun." Mark says, "I'm willing to die too." A white girl asks, "Alone?" At least two (white) student leaders then criticize Mark. The meeting ends with a sarcastic exchange between a white student leader and a black student. The dialog carries zero hint of any consensus at all in the meeting for "violent" action. We do learn, however, that Mark is "willing to die" and this dialog can be quoted in the plot summary, but not interpreted in the article's narrative voice through original research. Truth be told, I don't think the dialog even supports saying the meeting calls for "direct" political action. The dialog mostly supports the notion that the students may have a consensus that they need to hold meetings. My own take on this is, that's spot on Antonioni, but that's my own original research and it can't be cited in the article as such. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Use of non-free images

The article uses five screenshots from the film, and four of them do not appear to be tied to critical commentary in the article. Non-free images need to be contextually significant. In particular, the frame or the contents of the frame should be relevant to critical commentary in the article. Changeling (film)#Closing sequence is an example. The screenshots in the "Plot" section are only accompanying a description of the film, and the screenshot in the "Cast" section only serve to show the actors, which is insufficient. I would also argue that the Richfield Tower screenshot is unnecessary because a free image from the tower's article can be used here. The screenshot in relation to the film's cinematography is sufficient for me. Is there any context that can be added so the other screenshots are more usable? Or perhaps replaced by others? Erik (talk | contribs) 21:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I researched the topic a little and added the references I found at the top of the talk page. It looks like if the article can expand with critical commentary from these references, then screenshots could be added to illustrate them. I would recommend removing the four screenshots, focusing on the commentary, and then determining what screenshots from the film would best suit the new commentary. It's not easy (and a bit forced) to try to find commentary to suit an existing image. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

special effects

The article should discuss how the special effects were done, specifically the various shots with the plane in flight, and the finale (presumably a miniature but if so it looked very real). Mathew5000 (talk) 06:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• Interesting that it says the mansion was built in replica. This would be extremely costly and tedious, and I wonder how credible the source is? In particular because I googled this question long ago (did not save link) and the answer I found stated that the mansion was scheduled for demolition already, that Antonioni was able to co-ordinate shooting so that he could film his material prior to demolition as well as configuring the many high-speed (slow motion) cameras needed to capture the explosion. Though this also sounds a little far-fetched, I think it is more credible than that this was a miniature or a replica. AFAIK the entire set was arranged and exploded and filmed all at once, which is virtually never done for this type of scene, and is why the effect seen in ZP is so fascinating to watch... basically an unparalleled experience. Any clues? I do not have time to research this myself further right now, I will just assume that as so often before, I am right and Wikipedia is wrong(TM). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.18.13.17 (talk) 14:55, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Distributors

The article lists as distributors Daria Halprin and Mark Frechette who are the stars.

Did they go around selling the film?

Montalban (talk) 09:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Censorship

I was asked to discuss this edit - fine. The source is seemingly untraceable, it's purportedly a primary source (meaning no secondary sources have apparently bothered to take note of the matter), it's essentially a quote from minutes of a committee meeting, it's chaotic and difficult to comprehend, it's basically irrelevant (again, per WP:PSTS), and even if evidence of secondary coverage should emerge, it goes into far too much detail over a relatively minor matter. Enough? - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Not really.

• Untraceable? By which you mean you havne;t been able to find it?
• Primary sources are acceptable for what primary sources say. They're not ideal, but they're allowed.
• Did you look for secondary seources, or are you assuming there are none?
• If it's chaotric and difficult to read, re-write it to be less so.
• I fail to see how potential censorship of the film could be "irrelevant".
• Too much detail? Trim it in accord with re-writing it.

It's always too darn easy to say "fuck it" and hit the delete button. How about doing some improvement of the encyclopedia instead? KMB (the kinder, more beneficent Beyond My Ken) (talk) 17:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Strangely enough, when there is censorship, there is often deliberate obfuscation of the process of censorship. Go figure. Same arseholes, same shit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.18.13.17 (talk) 09:58, 10 March 2018‎ (UTC)

Italian film

Zabriskie point was directed by Michelangelo Antonioni and produced by Carlo Ponti, hence it's an italian movie, not an american one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.31.139.64 (talk) 08:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

The nationality of a film is not determined by the nationality of the director or the producer, it's determined by what company produced it and where the financing came from. The production companies for Zabriskie Point were MGM and Trianon, both American companies, and it is listed in the AFI Catalog of American feature films. [1] Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:35, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Zabriskie Point (1970 Milton Glaser poster).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Plot Summary - the explosion

Well I just watched this again after 54 years. I thought then, and I still think, that the mansion *really* exploded. The Plot Summary says Daria is imagining it. This is the same trick as in 'Blow Up' where the force of belief creates a real tennis match from a mime. She causes the explosion with the intensity of her emotion. Its a real Hippie concept. I agree it is ambiguous, but this point of view is so obvious it ought to be stated. Wolstan Dixie (talk) 16:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)