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 21,171 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. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%G. Allen Johnson: 5.6%San Francisco Chronicle: 2.8%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%G. Allen Johnson: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%G. Allen Johnson: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 3.0%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 10.0%G. Allen Johnson: 3.3%San Francisco Chronicle: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic10.0%This article: 16.7%G. Allen Johnson: 5.6%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.6%Hindsight Bias16.7%This article: 0.0%G. Allen Johnson: 6.2%San Francisco Chronicle: 1.5%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 32.1%G. Allen Johnson: 14.8%San Francisco Chronicle: 5.4%Framing Effect32.1%This article: 0.0%G. Allen Johnson: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%G. Allen Johnson: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 1.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%G. Allen Johnson: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 28.2%G. Allen Johnson: 9.4%San Francisco Chronicle: 3.0%Optimism Bias28.2%This article: 0.0%G. Allen Johnson: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 1.1%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 21.5%G. Allen Johnson: 8.1%San Francisco Chronicle: 6.7%Negativity Bias21.5%This article: 0.0%G. Allen Johnson: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%G. Allen Johnson: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%G. Allen Johnson: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%G. Allen Johnson: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%G. Allen Johnson: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 10.0%G. Allen Johnson: 22.3%San Francisco Chronicle: 1.9%Halo Effect10.0%This article: 0.0%G. Allen Johnson: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%G. Allen Johnson: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 18.7%G. Allen Johnson: 6.2%San Francisco Chronicle: 1.1%Recency Bias18.7%This article: 0.0%G. Allen Johnson: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%G. Allen Johnson: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%G. Allen Johnson: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%G. Allen Johnson: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 18.7%G. Allen Johnson: 18.7%San Francisco Chronicle: 4.3%Appeal to Authority18.7%This article: 18.7%G. Allen Johnson: 6.2%San Francisco Chronicle: 1.1%False Dilemma18.7%This article: 0.0%G. Allen Johnson: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%G. Allen Johnson: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%G. Allen Johnson: 3.3%San Francisco Chronicle: 4.0%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%G. Allen Johnson: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%G. Allen Johnson: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 12.0%G. Allen Johnson: 4.9%San Francisco Chronicle: 4.4%Appeal to Emotion12.0%This article: 0.0%G. Allen Johnson: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%G. Allen Johnson: 3.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%G. Allen Johnson: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%G. Allen Johnson: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%G. Allen Johnson: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%G. Allen Johnson: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 28.2%G. Allen Johnson: 9.4%San Francisco Chronicle: 3.2%Anecdotal28.2%This article: 0.0%G. Allen Johnson: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%G. Allen Johnson: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%G. Allen Johnson: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%G. Allen Johnson: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%G. Allen Johnson: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%G. Allen Johnson: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%G. Allen Johnson: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 18.7%G. Allen Johnson: 6.2%San Francisco Chronicle: 1.0%Unattributed Quote18.7%This article: 0.0%G. Allen Johnson: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 12.0%G. Allen Johnson: 38.6%San Francisco Chronicle: 4.2%Biased Writer Voice12.0%This article: 0.0%G. Allen Johnson: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 1.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%G. Allen Johnson: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%G. Allen Johnson: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 32.1%G. Allen Johnson: 30.8%San Francisco Chronicle: 1.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…32.1%

209 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker19%attributed speech170writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageMick LaSalle • 39 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 59 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Mick LaSalle

100%flagged-word coverage
39 attributed words100% of attributed speech99% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Mick LaSalle: 100.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -39.4 ptsWriter: 39.4%Mick LaSalle: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-14.7 ptsWriter: 14.7%Mick LaSalle: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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