Fellini for Beginners

Finally caught this one at Central Park today.
I mean, this was my first foray into anything Felliniesque, and honestly? I expected something a bit more grounded. Turns out, his idea of "normal" is just a little bit off the rails.
I’ve had the DVD sitting around for ages, but since Professor Gillis in my film studies class insists that "you can only truly experience a movie in a theater," I figured I’d jump on this rare chance to finally watch it.

So—what’s the verdict?
The whole thing is a total mess. The narrative is non-existent. It feels like Fellini didn't even bother trying to patch up the gaps left by those missing pieces from the Petronian novel; he just filmed whatever scraps were left.
Visually, it looks great and has this weirdly magnetic pull (even if some parts are totally repulsive, which, hey, it is 1969), but overall? It just didn't hit the mark for me.
It actually reminded me a bit of that new Lynch flick from yesterday.

I’m starting to think Fellini had quite a few Lynchian streaks in him.

Alright, jokes aside, what did you guys think?

Amanda Nguyen5 said:Finally caught this one at Central Park today.
I mean, this was my first foray into anything Felliniesque, and honestly? I expected something a bit more grounded. Turns out, his idea of "normal" is just a little bit off the rails.
I’ve had the DVD sitting around for ages, but since Professor Gillis in my film studies class insists that "you can only truly experience a movie in a theater," I figured I’d jump on this rare chance to finally watch it.

So—what’s the verdict?
The whole thing is a total mess. The narrative is non-existent. It feels like Fellini didn't even bother trying to patch up the gaps left by those missing pieces from the Petronian novel; he just filmed whatever scraps were left.
Visually, it looks great and has this weirdly magnetic pull (even if some parts are totally repulsive, which, hey, it is 1969), but overall? It just didn't hit the mark for me.
It actually reminded me a bit of that new Lynch flick from yesterday.

I’m starting to think Fellini had quite a few Lynchian streaks in him.

Alright, jokes aside, what did you guys think?

Weak. You opened with the wrong Felliniesque vibe.

*Satyricon* marks that shift where Fellini enters his more abstract phase, moving toward a fragmented, surreal style where he starts "speaking" through visual subtext rather than direct plots. You might find more enjoyment revisiting his work that actually tells a story instead of just throwing visual footnotes at you; for instance, *Amarcord*, which aired on NBC Plus yesterday, belongs to this later period along with *Casanova*. If you want classic narrative structure, stick to the absolute gems: *La Strada*, *The White Sheik*, *I Vitelloni*, or *Nights of Cabiria*.

Fellini essentially evolved from traditional filmmaking into pure surrealism. The bridge between those two worlds can be seen in films like *Dolac Vita* and *8 1/2*, where his personal creative struggles start bleeding into the storytelling. Everything after that point is usually labeled by critics as a surrealist spectacle. Personally, I’m not a fan—once he hit *Juliet of the Spirits* around the mid-60s, I pretty much lost interest.

If you're curious about that specific transition into his second phase, there's a documentary called *Fellini: To Be a Great Liar* that dives right into it.

Joseph Lee3 said:*Satyricon* marks that shift where Fellini enters his more abstract phase, moving toward a fragmented, surreal style where he starts "speaking" through visual subtext rather than direct plots. You might find more enjoyment revisiting his work that actually tells a story instead of just throwing visual footnotes at you; for instance, *Amarcord*, which aired on NBC Plus yesterday, belongs to this later period along with *Casanova*. If you want classic narrative structure, stick to the absolute gems: *La Strada*, *The White Sheik*, *I Vitelloni*, or *Nights of Cabiria*.

Fellini essentially evolved from traditional filmmaking into pure surrealism. The bridge between those two worlds can be seen in films like *Dolac Vita* and *8 1/2*, where his personal creative struggles start bleeding into the storytelling. Everything after that point is usually labeled by critics as a surrealist spectacle. Personally, I’m not a fan—once he hit *Juliet of the Spirits* around the mid-60s, I pretty much lost interest.

If you're curious about that specific transition into his second phase, there's a documentary called *Fellini: To Be a Great Liar* that dives right into it.

Thanks for the write-up! I've got all of that on my radar, but man, I don't own those movies (except maybe Amarcord, I think it's lying around somewhere, and maybe some version of La Strada without subtitles—I could be wrong, but that's about it). I don't use the streaming services, and as for the documentary (which I definitely want to see), I sent you a DM.

northerncrane4 said:Weak. You opened with the wrong Felliniesque vibe.

I walked out of the theater feeling that exact same way. But honestly? I think it was a once-in-a-lifetime chance to see Fellini on the big screen. Any kind of Fellini works for me.

Look, I know this is basically (okay, maybe not totally) spam, but I honestly don't know where else to ask. I searched for a thread about Dolac Vita or anything on Fellini in general and came up empty. I don't feel qualified enough to start my own topic either since I haven't actually seen the movie yet, and I definitely haven't seen enough Fellini to carry a discussion. I wouldn't even know what to say... So, what's the deal? I just started watching Dolac Vita and for some reason, I just can't stomach it. I quit after only thirty minutes. Maybe it’s just my mood right now, or maybe I’m just not ready for it, who knows... But I definitely want to read something about the film before I give it another shot, just so I don't make a snap judgment based on a total misunderstanding. I skimmed Wikipedia, but that stuff is way too formal. Long story short, can anyone drop a link to a decent review? 🙂

northerncrane4, this Satyricon isn't exactly a crowd-pleaser anyway 😁

*Satyricon* is one of those massive cinematic trips—it’s meant to be experienced rather than just watched. Honestly, it only shares about 45 minutes of actual connection with *Petronius*. Truth be told, it isn't exactly the best entry point if you're looking to dive into this brilliant Italian director's work; starting with something like *La Strada* or *Amarcord* would be much more advisable. I've seen almost everything of his—well, maybe not every single thing, but close enough—and he is simply a *Maestro*. For me, it sits right up there among my top five or six "holy grails" of cinema.

What an opening... Professor Gillis... 😂😂...absolute madness
What else can you say, mladoturk?

By the way, Jerry Martin19, I’m posting this here, but we really need to move this to its own dedicated "Dolac Vita" thread. For some reason, you didn't start one, but I'm sure a mod will open it soon enough.

Honestly? It was incredibly boring. Sure, it’s beautiful, directed perfectly, and that Bergmanesque vibe is just sexy—everything about it is great—but man, it is tedious. Easily the most boring Felliniesque film I've ever seen, even though I've only sat through it once.

As for deep dives, I’ve read Bondanelli and Kezich, and there isn't a ton of stuff online either. The Wikipedia entry is actually top-tier (unlike most movies), covering everything from production to all the juicy details. Still, I went on a bit of a hunting spree online and uploaded a more serious—and maybe slightly tougher—PDF for you in the "Fellini" folder.😉

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...401010336/1023
http://brattleblog.brattlefilm.org/?p=42
http://bronze.ucok.edu/passport/ital...ger/dolce.html
http://www.rufuspollock.org/nonficti...olce_vita.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2008/...es.worldcinema

+

http://rapidshare.com/files/15641231...iardi.pdf.html

Hope this helps you out.

Why didn't I start this thread myself? Because honestly, if you’re gonna kick off a discussion about a movie or a filmmaker, you should actually say something meaningful in the opening post instead of just asking "Have you seen La Dolce Vita? Let me know what you think." Especially when we're talking about movies that aren't even out yet—that's one thing. But when it comes to stuff that's already been released, particularly classics like this, they deserve way more than a couple of lazy sentences to get things moving...

Thanks for the links. I was already familiar with The Guardian and Roger Ebert, but these others will definitely come in handy. 🙂

Jerry Martin19 said:Why didn't I start this thread myself? Because honestly, if you’re gonna kick off a discussion about a movie or a filmmaker, you should actually say something meaningful in the opening post instead of just asking "Have you seen La Dolce Vita? Let me know what you think." Especially when we're talking about movies that aren't even out yet—that's one thing. But when it comes to stuff that's already been released, particularly classics like this, they deserve way more than a couple of lazy sentences to get things moving...

Thanks for the links. I was already familiar with The Guardian and Roger Ebert, but these others will definitely come in handy. 🙂

Just keep typing away. But honestly, the absolute best stuff is in that PDF text—I just need a little more time to get through it.

Look, I'm telling you again—most of the good stuff is still in the books. If you’re actually serious about getting into Fellini, you really ought to go hunting for those.

People claim that with Dolac Viti Fellini, he officially closed the chapter on the first phase of his creative journey. After 8 1/2, he definitely starts untangling himself from those early works. With Dolac Viti, you start seeing the flip side of the coin, though personally, I’ve always found that first era much more appealing to me.

I’m personally much more fond of early Fellini. Out of his later stuff, I thought *Intervista* was decent enough.
Bringing up *Satyricon* is just getting repetitive at this point—it's practically negligible. Generally speaking, I feel like Fellini’s work has declined since he started leaning so heavily into that surrealist satire—for me, that "life is a carnival" style is just irritating. It feels like you look at the lavish costumes and... well, that’s mostly all there is to it. And honestly, I don't share his fetish for plus-sized women.

All in all, I think Fellini is overrated (though, I suppose I’ll sit down with *8 1/2* sometime soon to see what the actual fuss is about).
I’ve almost found myself gravitating toward Pasolini lately (even if I still can't quite wrap my head around why some people insist that *Salò masterpiece* is actually a work of genius).

Gerald Perez5 said:I’m personally much more fond of early Fellini. Out of his later stuff, I thought *Intervista* was decent enough.
Bringing up *Satyricon* is just getting repetitive at this point—it's practically negligible. Generally speaking, I feel like Fellini’s work has declined since he started leaning so heavily into that surrealist satire—for me, that "life is a carnival" style is just irritating. It feels like you look at the lavish costumes and... well, that’s mostly all there is to it. And honestly, I don't share his fetish for plus-sized women.

All in all, I think Fellini is overrated (though, I suppose I’ll sit down with *8 1/2* sometime soon to see what the actual fuss is about).
I’ve almost found myself gravitating toward Pasolini lately (even if I still can't quite wrap my head around why some people insist that *Salò masterpiece* is actually a work of genius).

Not me. 🤷
Aside from that, I only managed to watch *Decameron*, and it’s actually quite good—regardless of whether you've actually sat down and read the book or not. It definitely delivers on the dark humor.

As for Fellini... I started watching Dolce Vita, but I couldn't bring myself to finish it. Nights of Cabiria was the same story. Just couldn't get through.
While *Amarcord* is perfectly fine, my personal favorite remains *8½*. It’s a dense, complex piece—certainly not an easy watch—but there is a profound beauty to it that the others just don't quite reach.

I don't particularly care for Fellini, though my assessment remains somewhat unformed given that I haven't sat through much of his filmography.

His lesser-known work, *Proba Orchestra*, remains an intriguing study. Over the course of seventy minutes, we are essentially observers of a rehearsal, watching the chaotic machinery of an orchestra unfold. It serves as a sharp examination of the various tribulations faced by musicians—and, perhaps more pointedly, by those tasked with managing the massive egos inherent in the profession: the conductors. At times, the piece leans into the humorous, yet it maintains a consistently intelligent, cerebral edge throughout.

goldenhound32 said:Not me. 🤷
Aside from that, I only managed to watch *Decameron*, and it’s actually quite good—regardless of whether you've actually sat down and read the book or not. It definitely delivers on the dark humor.

As for Fellini... I started watching Dolce Vita, but I couldn't bring myself to finish it. Nights of Cabiria was the same story. Just couldn't get through.
While *Amarcord* is perfectly fine, my personal favorite remains *8½*. It’s a dense, complex piece—certainly not an easy watch—but there is a profound beauty to it that the others just don't quite reach.

I don't particularly care for Fellini, though my assessment remains somewhat unformed given that I haven't sat through much of his filmography.

His lesser-known work, *Proba Orchestra*, remains an intriguing study. Over the course of seventy minutes, we are essentially observers of a rehearsal, watching the chaotic machinery of an orchestra unfold. It serves as a sharp examination of the various tribulations faced by musicians—and, perhaps more pointedly, by those tasked with managing the massive egos inherent in the profession: the conductors. At times, the piece leans into the humorous, yet it maintains a consistently intelligent, cerebral edge throughout.

An excellent film. A perfect allegory for how totalitarian systems are born. Back in the day, I watched it every single time it aired at the KIC.

goldenhound32 said:Not me. 🤷
Aside from that, I only managed to watch *Decameron*, and it’s actually quite good—regardless of whether you've actually sat down and read the book or not. It definitely delivers on the dark humor.

As for Fellini... I started watching Dolce Vita, but I couldn't bring myself to finish it. Nights of Cabiria was the same story. Just couldn't get through.
While *Amarcord* is perfectly fine, my personal favorite remains *8½*. It’s a dense, complex piece—certainly not an easy watch—but there is a profound beauty to it that the others just don't quite reach.

I don't particularly care for Fellini, though my assessment remains somewhat unformed given that I haven't sat through much of his filmography.

His lesser-known work, *Proba Orchestra*, remains an intriguing study. Over the course of seventy minutes, we are essentially observers of a rehearsal, watching the chaotic machinery of an orchestra unfold. It serves as a sharp examination of the various tribulations faced by musicians—and, perhaps more pointedly, by those tasked with managing the massive egos inherent in the profession: the conductors. At times, the piece leans into the humorous, yet it maintains a consistently intelligent, cerebral edge throughout.

8½ just didn't click for me. That whole setup about a director hitting a wall where his craft and his passion aren't lining up... it’s too heavy. Almost unwatchable at times. He nails the claustrophobia, the paranoia, and that desperate hunt for inspiration—especially in that opening dream sequence—but it feels like Fellini trapped himself in those vibes so hard that he drags the audience down with him. You aren't just uncomfortable; you're stuck in there, desperately looking for light at the end of a dark tunnel. Maybe that was the point, though. Maybe he wanted us to feel exactly what he was going through (8½ is largely autobiographical) to really drive home his experience. Still, I think Bergman handled this kind of thing better in Wild Strawberry. Okay, that's not strictly autobiographical either, but I see a parallel in how the protagonists "drift" through the narrative. What I liked about Bergman was that gentler, smoother way of storytelling; he’d step out of the structure to let us peek at the character's traumas and nightmares. With Fellini, it’s constant nervous energy and unsettling visions, leaving the viewer without any objective ground to stand on. If that was the goal, he pulled it off masterfully, but personally, it’s just not my speed... whether it's the film's temperament or something else, I can't say. One thing's for sure: 8½ is a respected work for a reason.

By the way, I actually dug La Strada. 🙂

p.s. This thread is supposed to be about Fellini 😁

Jesus God Smoogje 🤣

it’s pretty obvious we're such amateurs, right? 🙂

You’ve made a really sharp connection there regarding the autobiographical thread stretching from Wild Strawberry to 8 1/2; in Wild Strawberry, the way Isak Borg is portrayed feels like a reflection of how one might have viewed Bergman during that era—cold, hollow, and somewhat brutal. That character functions as the author's alter ego, much like Guido Felliniesque, though certainly through a different lens.

It’s actually quite interesting how much Bergman admired Fellini, often making trips to visit him in Italy. He wasn't exactly known for venturing far from his chilly Swedish roots, yet Fellini was one of those rare figures he could truly draw inspiration from. He seemed drawn to that Mediterranean playfulness and sense of optimism. Fellini, on the other hand, would play it cool; Bergman could be a bit intense to deal with, so eventually, the hospitality started to wear thin. 🤣

As for Fellini, my personal favorites have to be I Vitelloni and The White Sheik.

Jerry Martin19 said:Jesus God Smoogje 🤣

it’s pretty obvious we're such amateurs, right? 🙂

Not at all—it’s done out of affection. 😍

Aside from that, if I'm not mistaken, the consensus among the few of you running this thread is that you're just starting your journey with Fellini. Which is perfectly fine.

Joseph Lee3 said:You’ve made a really sharp connection there regarding the autobiographical thread stretching from Wild Strawberry to 8 1/2; in Wild Strawberry, the way Isak Borg is portrayed feels like a reflection of how one might have viewed Bergman during that era—cold, hollow, and somewhat brutal. That character functions as the author's alter ego, much like Guido Felliniesque, though certainly through a different lens.

It’s actually quite interesting how much Bergman admired Fellini, often making trips to visit him in Italy. He wasn't exactly known for venturing far from his chilly Swedish roots, yet Fellini was one of those rare figures he could truly draw inspiration from. He seemed drawn to that Mediterranean playfulness and sense of optimism. Fellini, on the other hand, would play it cool; Bergman could be a bit intense to deal with, so eventually, the hospitality started to wear thin. 🤣

As for Fellini, my personal favorites have to be I Vitelloni and The White Sheik.

Well, looks like I accidentally hit on that autobiographical connection with Bergman. What I meant was more about how the characters experience their adventures. You can view a Bergman character from multiple perspectives, whereas with a Fellini character, you're pretty much stuck seeing everything through the lens of the character himself...

It’s interesting because Bergman absolutely loved Fellini and used to visit him in Italy quite often. He wasn't exactly big on anything outside of his cold Sweden, but Fellini was one of those rare guys he could truly feed off of. He resonated with that Mediterranean playfulness and optimism. Fellini, on the other hand, used to get a bit fed up since Bergman could be pretty intense, eventually leading to him being told to stay away for a while... 🤣

Three days per guest is plenty 😁

offtopic: I was just about to reply to your DM, but I think I'll make you wait a bit 😬

edit:

northerncrane4 said:Not at all—it’s done out of affection. 😍

Aside from that, if I'm not mistaken, the consensus among the few of you running this thread is that you're just starting your journey with Fellini. Which is perfectly fine.

That's what I was thinking—I was just messing around a bit, with us, with myself 😁

I have to admit, I'm actually enjoying this tutorial 🙂

Jerry Martin19 said:Well, looks like I accidentally hit on that autobiographical connection with Bergman. What I meant was more about how the characters experience their adventures. You can view a Bergman character from multiple perspectives, whereas with a Fellini character, you're pretty much stuck seeing everything through the lens of the character himself...

It’s interesting because Bergman absolutely loved Fellini and used to visit him in Italy quite often. He wasn't exactly big on anything outside of his cold Sweden, but Fellini was one of those rare guys he could truly feed off of. He resonated with that Mediterranean playfulness and optimism. Fellini, on the other hand, used to get a bit fed up since Bergman could be pretty intense, eventually leading to him being told to stay away for a while... 🤣

Three days per guest is plenty 😁

offtopic: I was just about to reply to your DM, but I think I'll make you wait a bit 😬

edit:

That's what I was thinking—I was just messing around a bit, with us, with myself 😁

I have to admit, I'm actually enjoying this tutorial 🙂

You can never have too many tutorials, especially when you're just starting out. Seriously, they're lifesavers.

Look, I’ve basically mastered Fellini thanks to Central Park, Kezich, and Bondanelli. So, if you ever hit a wall, just reach out to me. Honestly, I can help you out—and I'm not alone. Joseph Lee3 and northerncrane4 are more than happy to jump in too.

Hey, did you actually get a chance to read that PDF?