See Monica Vitti’s greatest Antonioni films at BAMPFA 99%

By G. Allen Johnson100%

7/23/2026, 1:00:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 14 faulty reasoning types, including Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, Optimism Bias, and Anecdotal, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 32.1% saturation with 67 hits. Analysis detected 580 faulty-reasoning hits from 209 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 98.1% and a BS Rank of 99% (408 of 21,175 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 98.10% of the article peer group.

DATEBOOK PICK 
Monica Vitti was as glamorous and huge a European star as any in the 1960s, and there was plenty of competition. 
While the paparazzi trained their lenses on beguiling personalities such as Moreau, Bardot, Lollobrigida and Loren, Vitti played it cool. 
Her icy, detached performance in Michelangelo Antonioni’s empty-souled “L’avventura” (1960) simultaneously shocked audiences and made her an instant celebrity. 
She became Antonioni’s disaffected muse as the pair completed what became known as “the alienation trilogy,” adding “La notte” (1961) and “L’eclisse” (1962)  and the last eight minutes of the latter are quite something. 
“If you could see only one Michelangelo Antonioni film, ‘L’eclisse’ is the one to choose, in that it contains everything that was great about this director, and at full strength,” wrote Chronicle film critic emeritus Mick LaSalle in 2018. 
The Berkeley Art Museum and Pacific Film Archive’s “Summer With Monica Vitti” series has been a fun ride but comes to a fitting conclusion with the trilogy, plus Antonioni’s underrated “Red Desert” (1964), the director’s first film in color, in which Vitti is the troubled wife of a factory owner who begins an affair with a businessman (Richard Harris). 
Nihilism has never looked so chic. 
Confirmation Bias
0%
Anchoring Bias
0%
Availability Heuristic
0%
Representativeness Heuristic
10%
Hindsight Bias
16.7%
Overconfidence Bias
0%
Framing Effect
32.1%
Loss Aversion
0%
Status Quo Bias
0%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
28.2%
Pessimism Bias
0%
Negativity Bias
21.5%
Self-Serving Bias
0%
Fundamental Attribution Error
0%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
0%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
10%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
18.7%
Primacy Effect
0%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
18.7%
False Dilemma
18.7%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
0%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
0%
Appeal to Emotion
12%
Begging the Question
0%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
0%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
0%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
28.2%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
0%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
0%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
18.7%
Quote-first Misdirection
0%
Biased Writer Voice
12%
Indoctrination
0%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
32.1%

209 words analyzed.

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.