What I know going in
A gossip journalist sort of
descent into madness. Not really sure where this one is gonna take me.
Immediate Reaction
Any time I don’t have some type
of immediate, visceral reaction to one of these films, it becomes really hard
for me to start writing about it. I found La
Dolce Vita really difficult to engage with. I encountered a similar problem
with Gertrud. One similarity between
the two films is that they feature very dense dialogue that is often about very
heady topics such as love, the purpose of life, truth, and artistic merit. My
two favorite films of all time, Before
Sunrise and Before Sunset, also
cover similar topics and the dialogue in those movies is one of my favorite
aspects about them. Of course, those two movies are in English and it’s easy
for me to follow what the characters are saying, and it seems that when the
same topics are covered in a different language and I have to read subtitles it
is harder for me to follow along. It also creates a barrier between me and the
characters and prevents me from getting completely emotionally invested in what
is happening.
So that’s one caveat regarding
my opinion of the film. I found it very hard to engage with the film.
Everything just kind of happened and didn’t seem to have any dramatic stakes. I
personally wasn’t able to sympathize with any of the characters, even Marcello,
because I never felt that I learned enough about them to really care. The film
is structured as seven episodes, which takes place over the course of seven
days, which may or may not take place in a completely linear manner. While this
is an interesting structure, it would have been cool seeing how these random
events affect Marcello over a week, the events were just too random for me to
really build to anything. I guess Marcello gradually unravels near the end, he
tries to incite an orgy for instance, but it was hard for me to understand
where that anger came from as he is such a passive character. Even the
advertising of the film confused. Anita Ekberg is prominently displayed on the
poster. In fact, when she showed up, I thought the rest of the film would focus
on Marcello trying to woo her. However, her character just kind of disappears
after being onscreen for like 20ish minutes. Again, I found this very loose
structure hard to deal with.
The only theme I was really
able to decipher is the film’s indictment of the paparazzo culture. It shows
these photographers and journalists as just complete amoral animals. They view
the arrival of an American actress, a phony sighting of the Madonna, and double
murder suicide as only a chance to get some juicy pictures. I found all of the
paparazzo really annoying and would have loved to see them get some weird
karmic backlash at the end of the film. In that regard, I empathize with
Marcello’s desire to move out of the paparazzo business and create some type of
lasting impact through literature. The film also has a very heavy focus on
actresses, actors, models, aristocrats, and artists. A lot of these people are
not portrayed in a sympathetic light. For example, on the last day, Marcello
walks around a castle with a random posse he has come across. All of them act
just completely silly, stupid, seem really empty and disengaged with life. In
that sense, the film may also be a general critique of modern Italian society
at the time. Hopefully I will uncover more of that thread when I work though
some of the supplemental materials on the disc.
Further thoughts
Richard Shickel’s commentary
was useful in helping me get a better grasp on what exactly the film was going
for. As Americans, I think we have a tendency to view Europe in a simplified
manner. Most Americans when they think of Europe, see it as a place to escape
the drudgery and blandness of life in the USA. We imagine going to Europe will
allow us to have fun, sexy adventures in beautiful locales. France and Italy
probably suffer the most in our imagination and they are seen as a place of
romance and passion. I believe that La
Dolce Vita is a critique to that American viewpoint. On the surface,
Marcello’s life would seem exciting. He lives in Rome, has sexy sports car,
works for an entertainment newspapers, sleeps around, and gets to hang out with
celebrities. However, as the film progresses, it is revealed that Marcello
feels very empty and is unable to go beyond his surface desires. He can’t
commit to the various women he chases after and is unable to remove himself
from his paparazzi gig, despite expressing a desire to do so. The end of the
movie makes it clear that he will be forever lost in a sea of pettiness and
constant yearning. This is demonstrated by his inability to hear the teenage
waitress near the end of movie. Earlier in the movie Marcello had met this girl
in a restaurant and described her as angelic. She clearly represents a more
thoughtful way of living, one that Marcello is now unable to attain. Instead,
he walks away with a group of flighty individuals and the ending credits
sarcastically flash: “La Dolce Vita,” the sweet life.
There are also two key symbols
that are helpful in understanding the movie. One at the beginning and one at
the end. The beginning symbol is more overt. A plastic statue of Jesus is flown
past the ancient ruins of Rome. This is clearly a mockery of Roman Catholic
traditions and affront to the rich history of Rome. Fellini is clearly stating
that the new modern Rome may look appealing, but dig a little deeper and there’s
not a whole lot there. A similar symbol occurs at the end of the movie. A
leviathan-esque creature is drudged up from the sea. This ancient creature is
poked at and made fun of by Marcello and his gaggle of friends. Something old
and deserving of respect is mocked. Hint: substitute Rome for the creature!
Why is it on the list?
The film is a brutal, effective
takedown of the supposed modernity of then-current Italian society.
No comments:
Post a Comment