Cinema has always been drawn to landscapes. Mountains, seas, and cities are more than settings. They are forces that shape how characters move, speak, and desire. In most films, this role remains implicit. A backdrop is painted or scouted to provide atmosphere, then forgotten once the actors take over. Yet there are directors who grasped that place is not neutral. Michael Powell, working with Emeric Pressburger, and Michelangelo Antonioni, working in postwar Italy, understood that environment can determine psychology and even dismantle narrative itself.
In Black Narcissus (1947) the convent in the Himalayas is not a location but a pressure cooker that transforms repression into hysteria. In I Know Where I’m Going! (1945) the Hebridean winds dissolve certainty and redirect destiny. And in L’Avventura (1960) the Sicilian rocks do something more radical: they swallow a character whole, turning absence into the very subject of cinema. These films may differ in tone, from Powell’s Technicolor melodrama to Antonioni’s austere modernism, but they are linked by a conviction that landscape is destiny.
When Powell and Pressburger released Black Narcissus, critics hailed its use of Technicolor as an exotic escape from the austerity of postwar Britain. Yet the film is more than escapism. It stages a drama in which the convent itself becomes the protagonist. Built high on the cliffs of Mopu, the convent is carved into a former palace where harem women once lived. The air is thin, the views infinite, and the silence overwhelming. The convent is a psychological machine.
Psychoanalysis provides a key. Freud’s essay on “The Uncanny” describes the house as a metaphor for the mind, with basements symbolising repression and attics linked to dreams or madness. The convent maps neatly onto this structure. The bell tower, suspended above the valley, is the attic space where Sister Ruth’s desire and jealousy erupt. The dark courtyards and endless corridors function as the unconscious, pulling the nuns into rivalries they cannot articulate. The convent is a psyche built in stone.
Sister Ruth, played by Kathleen Byron, becomes the embodiment of hysteria. Her fixation on the local agent Mr Dean unravels her vows. The more she stares out from the balconies into the dizzying void, the more her own void threatens to consume her. The climactic struggle at the bell tower literalises Freud’s linkage of vertical space with psychic peril. Powell and Pressburger film the sequence not as a clash between two women but as an eruption of the building itself, the architecture insisting on release.
What makes this even more striking is that the Himalayas of Black Narcissus are not geographical at all. The film was shot at Pinewood Studios, with matte paintings and controlled sets creating an illusion of altitude. The landscape is fabricated and therefore doubly psychological. It is not about India but about the British unconscious projected outward. Landscape becomes projection screen, coloured by Technicolor excess, where repressed sexuality and religious fervour are displaced into weather, space, and stone.
Two years earlier Powell and Pressburger made a film that looks lighter on the surface yet carries the same conviction that landscape reshapes identity. I Know Where I’m Going! follows Joan Webster, played by Wendy Hiller, who travels from Manchester to the Hebrides determined to marry a wealthy industrialist. Her mantra is in the title. She insists she knows her destination, and she will stop at nothing to reach it.
Yet the weather intervenes. Storms trap her on the island of Mull. The wind howls, ferries are cancelled, and Joan is stranded with a naval officer, Torquil MacNeil, whose presence destabilises her certainty. The film becomes a romance, but what drives its psychology is not merely attraction. It is the elemental force of wind and sea. The gales externalise Joan’s inner turmoil. Her fixation on money and status is eroded not by rational argument but by exposure to an environment that refuses her plans.
Where Black Narcissus shows repression combusting in claustrophobic architecture, I Know Where I’m Going! uses weather as fate. Joan cannot overcome the storms with willpower. She must surrender. The turning point comes when she attempts to reach the neighbouring island despite warnings. The boat nearly founders, and she realises that mastery is impossible. Nature dictates destiny.
Here too psychoanalysis offers resonance. Freud wrote of the compulsion to repeat and the necessity of yielding to forces larger than the ego. Joan’s journey is structured around this yielding. She cannot bend the environment to her desire. Instead, the environment bends her into admitting another kind of desire altogether. The lesson is not repression but surrender, a romantic fate delivered by storm.
Thus in both Black Narcissus and I Know Where I’m Going! Powell shows that environment is more than scenery. The convent and the Hebrides do not frame the action. They are the action. Characters who insist on mastery are undone. Repression becomes hysteria. Certainty becomes drift.
Fifteen years later Antonioni extended this logic into modernist radicalism. L’Avventura begins as a story of a group of wealthy Italians on a yachting trip. Anna, restless in her relationship with Sandro, quarrels with him during a stop on a desolate Sicilian island. Then she vanishes. Search parties comb the island. The landscape is barren, rocky, indifferent. No trace of Anna is ever found.
The disappearance is never resolved. What remains is the aftermath, in which Anna’s friend Claudia grows close to Sandro, her absence haunting every encounter. The island has swallowed not only a character but the narrative itself. The film drifts into a study of alienation, desire, and guilt in modern Italy.
Antonioni forces the viewer to confront the landscape. The camera lingers on rocks, cliffs, and waves long after the characters have moved out of frame. Geological time eclipses human urgency. Claudia and Sandro’s affair plays out against this indifference. They are dwarfed, their desires rendered transient by stone that has endured for millennia.
Psychoanalysis again clarifies the structure. Lacan spoke of desire as structured around lack. Anna’s absence becomes that lack, an organising void that shapes Claudia and Sandro’s actions. But unlike the convent in Black Narcissus or the storm in I Know Where I’m Going!, the island does not symbolise repression or fate. It symbolises nothing. It is pure indifference. Antonioni uses this void to dismantle narrative certainty itself. The film ends not with resolution but with a tableau of Claudia forgiving Sandro’s betrayal, both framed against the emptiness of architecture that dwarfs them.
L’Avventura scandalised its Cannes audience in 1960. Viewers booed, confused by a film that refused to solve its own mystery. Yet it has since become a landmark of modernist cinema precisely because it recognised what Powell’s work hinted at. Place can erase character. Landscape can dismantle plot. Cinema can become geology.
It is tempting to separate Powell and Antonioni into different traditions, British Technicolor and Italian modernism. Yet their films speak to one another. Powell anticipates Antonioni’s strategies, even if his tone remains melodramatic rather than austere.
The bell tower of Black Narcissus anticipates the cliff faces of L’Avventura. Both are thresholds where desire becomes unsustainable and characters collapse. Joan Webster’s certainty that she knows her destination mirrors Sandro’s hollow confidence in modern progress. Both are dissolved by forces larger than themselves, whether storm or disappearance.
The shift is cultural as well as stylistic. Powell worked in the 1940s, when British cinema sought melodramatic release and wartime reassurance. His landscapes externalise repression and destiny but still allow for resolution: Sister Clodagh survives, Joan finds love. Antonioni worked in the aftermath of economic boom and cultural alienation. His landscapes generate not resolution but drift. Anna is never found, Claudia and Sandro remain in suspension. What Powell treats as melodramatic eruption Antonioni treats as permanent condition.
The lineage is clear. Both directors refuse the landscape as neutral backdrop. Instead, they make place the determinant of psychology. Powell’s convent and Hebridean storms show repression and fate. Antonioni’s island shows alienation and absence. In each case, cinema insists that landscape has the final word.
Film theory helps consolidate this connection. Freud’s uncanny house illuminates Black Narcissus, where convent architecture becomes a psyche externalised. Heidegger’s reflections on “dwelling” explain Joan’s transformation in I Know Where I’m Going!: to dwell is to be claimed by place, not to dominate it. Siegfried Kracauer, in Theory of Film, argued that landscape reveals the material world in cinema with unmatched clarity. Antonioni takes this insight to its limit, making landscape the very subject.
Laura Mulvey’s account of narrative disruption also applies. By refusing resolution, Antonioni shifts the spectator’s desire from plot to image, forcing attention to absence and surface. Powell prepares the ground by showing how environment interrupts character motivation.
Taken together, these films demonstrate that cinema’s true subject is not always human drama. It is the relationship between human will and the permanence of place.
To watch Black Narcissus, I Know Where I’m Going!, and L’Avventura together is to see a lineage of cinema that understands landscape as destiny. Powell and Pressburger show how architecture and weather undo repression and certainty. Antonioni shows how stone and sea erase narrative itself. The films remind us that characters may stride with confidence, but mountains, gales, and cliffs will always have the final word.
In a moment when much cinema treats place as mere background for spectacle, these films remain urgent. They teach us to see landscape not as decoration but as the unconscious of cinema itself.
References
Freud, S. (1919). The Uncanny.
Heidegger, M. (1971). Building Dwelling Thinking.
Kracauer, S. (1960). Theory of Film: The Redemption of Physical Reality.
Mulvey, L. (1975). “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema.” Screen, 16(3).
Rohdie, S. (1990). Antonioni. British Film Institute.
Spicer, A. (2002). Film Noir. Longman.
If this essay spoke to you, subscribe to Rialto 5:1 5. Each week we trace cinema’s psychological architecture, uncovering how overlooked films and misread performances reshape the canon. Share this piece with someone who still believes landscapes are only backdrops.
Leave a Reply