If you like to hear movies reduced to a string of "phallic symbol" interepretations and such, this is for you. I, for one, find these tracks boring and frightfully depressing -- if the commentator's interepretation of this film is correct, then it's really quite awfully shallow and sophomoric. If you like the film, shy away, unless you're writing a paper on it, or something.

Brilliant film. Brilliant commentary. One of the best films ever made. A complete schooling in how to make a piece of art on film.

This is another one of those times when I know that this track is good, but I don’t really connect. The track is full of analysis of composition, the cutting, the movements of the character and the soundtrack. He also talks a little about the other films of Antonioni, but mostly just to again refer to this one, how this movie does something the other one doesn’t. Informative, but strictly on an academical level. 7/10

Solid commentary. Nevermind the short blurb about "phallic symbols" - this commentary isn't of that nature at all. The scholar even goes as far as pointing out moments that become caricatures instead of anything representing a "greater meaning" or anything of that nature. This is quite simply an informative and well researched track that points out the novelty of the cinematic language Antonioni has created with the film - in which images tell most of the story. Youngblood does a good job pointing what they stand for or how to read this language. To my understanding this film was groundbreaking because of this new form of language where reading into compositions, staging, or the environment actually meant something more than being a mere setting and look of a film. Definitely listen to this track, you'll learn a lot about Antonioni, the production of this film, and this visual language.