Fellini for Beginners

I haven't seen everything, but I’m reading my way through, and it’s helping me connect with stuff I probably wouldn't have even grasped otherwise. That’s exactly why I was looking for a solid review 🙂

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 🙂

It just hit me... In this case, Marcello is really just a conduit for the concepts and the sheer execution of La Dolce Vita; he isn't nearly as central to the soul of the thing as one might think, at least not to me. The movie probably feels unsettling because of its frantic, modernist style of storytelling. The whole point was to capture America during a period of massive economic growth clashing with a simultaneous moral decline. Everything feels rushed, ruthless, compressed, and superficial—which is perfectly reflected in all that heavy intellectual rambling from the "elite." Fellini comes across as much more pessimistic here than in his earlier work. The protagonist is essentially just a vessel for the director's need to channel those specific feelings about the state of the country back then into cinema. There isn't some deep, hidden philosophy at play here...

Joseph Lee3 said:It just hit me... In this case, Marcello is really just a conduit for the concepts and the sheer execution of La Dolce Vita; he isn't nearly as central to the soul of the thing as one might think, at least not to me. The movie probably feels unsettling because of its frantic, modernist style of storytelling. The whole point was to capture America during a period of massive economic growth clashing with a simultaneous moral decline. Everything feels rushed, ruthless, compressed, and superficial—which is perfectly reflected in all that heavy intellectual rambling from the "elite." Fellini comes across as much more pessimistic here than in his earlier work. The protagonist is essentially just a vessel for the director's need to channel those specific feelings about the state of the country back then into cinema. There isn't some deep, hidden philosophy at play here...

What exactly does the word 'ambiguity' imply in this context?

I’m genuinely curious about what kind of take we'll get on >. From what I gather, it's a comedy, and whenever it comes to those classic Italian comedies, I find myself hesitant to lean too heavily into my own expectations.

goldenhound32 said:What exactly does the word 'ambiguity' imply in this context?

I’m genuinely curious about what kind of take we'll get on >. From what I gather, it's a comedy, and whenever it comes to those classic Italian comedies, I find myself hesitant to lean too heavily into my own expectations.

Dubiosity is basically just a dilemma mixed with a sense of depth—at least that's how I take it, anyway! 😁

Don't expect 'The White Sheik' to be some slapstick riot that leaves you breathless; it's more of a surrealist journey, almost like a three-dimensional comic strip. It functions more as a comedy of ideas than a traditional gag-fest, filled with funny moments, but the whole thing feels wrapped in this fantastical, upbeat atmosphere.

Joseph Lee3 said:It just hit me... In this case, Marcello is really just a conduit for the concepts and the sheer execution of La Dolce Vita; he isn't nearly as central to the soul of the thing as one might think, at least not to me. The movie probably feels unsettling because of its frantic, modernist style of storytelling. The whole point was to capture America during a period of massive economic growth clashing with a simultaneous moral decline. Everything feels rushed, ruthless, compressed, and superficial—which is perfectly reflected in all that heavy intellectual rambling from the "elite." Fellini comes across as much more pessimistic here than in his earlier work. The protagonist is essentially just a vessel for the director's need to channel those specific feelings about the state of the country back then into cinema. There isn't some deep, hidden philosophy at play here...

That rushed, shallow, elemental, and confusing quality is exactly what defines Fellini. Every single character—every single one—bursts into the camera with something to say, and it all merges into this bizarre cacophony... all accompanied by that circus orchestra and that irritating music. I can't say I particularly enjoy that obsession of his.

So, I don't really think the point is to "depict America amidst intense economic growth and a simultaneous collapse of (moral) values." At least, that’s not what I gathered just from watching the movie.

To me, it feels more like a film about reflections on life—not some polished philosophical treatise, mind you. There isn't a rigid system designed to deliver a specific point; instead, it's just comments, musings, fears, and hopes...
It serves as both critique and self-critique, laced with self-irony—a bit of a mockery of oneself, because everything you attempt to present as an ultimate, final truth tends to twist into farce or emptiness. It is with this dual, ambivalent feeling that Fellini is driven, especially in this film: he wants to capture the Final film, the definitive work that would 'open people's eyes,' while simultaneously knowing full well that it’s an illusion, a trick, a wandering of the mind. That’s why that critic keeps constantly 'intellectualizing' and 'analyzing' meanings and symbols using empty phrases and platitudes.

If we look at 8 1/2 as an autobiographical film, I’d link it more to the core of Fanny and Alexander—as a mirror—rather than to Wild Strawberry. But, one always sees the distinction between the playful, Mediterranean Fellini and the cold, Northern Bergmanesque style. So, Fellini never quite reaches that level of pessimism expressed by Joseph Lee3: when Bergman depicts a bishop and the repression of a boy, it feels agonizing, heavy, even psychopathic; with Fellini, that same thing is flipped into satire, into a carnival, onto a sunny beach where a heavy-set woman dances...

Well, you could also connect the film to Antonioni's La Notte, or perhaps, viewed as self-irony regarding the excessive adoration of the public—with Bergman's All Those Women. That’s my favorite way to look at it. When the masses elevate you to the status of a deity, expecting signs and miracles, people looking for the Maestro to tell them what, how, and where—for the Teacher to show them the way... Mastroianni would probably drive all those intruders, those various sycophants and irritating parasites, straight into the gutter. On the other hand, that constant pressure tightens the noose, forcing the Maestro to seek an exit through regression into infantilism, hiding under a mother's skirt and turning into a classic Oedipus figure.

And so,
I actually enjoy 8 1/2; it’s a tolerable Fellini with his orchestras, clowns, and heavy-set women (unlike Satyricon, Casanova, or Clown, for example) and features some solid reflections. I'll give it an eight out of ten (8/10).

Joseph Lee3 said:Dubiosity is basically just a dilemma mixed with a sense of depth—at least that's how I take it, anyway! 😁

Don't expect 'The White Sheik' to be some slapstick riot that leaves you breathless; it's more of a surrealist journey, almost like a three-dimensional comic strip. It functions more as a comedy of ideas than a traditional gag-fest, filled with funny moments, but the whole thing feels wrapped in this fantastical, upbeat atmosphere.

That "at least for me" part is pretty telling. 🙂
You're off base here. There is absolutely no connection between the word "dubioza" and any kind of actual depth.

I think I'll give "Seika" a watch; it looks interesting enough.

I see this is the only thread about Fellini, so I'll stick to this one.
Honestly, I had to laugh again just glancing at how this topic opened. 🤣

So, here's the deal. I remember hearing somewhere that Peterlic once won an award for some newspaper essay about Godard or something similar, but I could never quite wrap my head around why that mattered.
Then today, by pure chance, I’m flipping through some old issues of Polet—the early stuff, from around '64 or '66—and I see all these heavy-hitting headlines with headache-inducing essays. Tadic is writing about Hitchcock, Kurelec is covering the Czechs (he really should have picked a different subject), and then there's good old Antis rambling on about Godard. I connected the dots and realized that was probably the exact essay.

Fast forward a few issues later—doesn't matter which ones—and they're handing out awards for the best essay. Mandic took second, Peterlic took first, which confirmed my hunch. Then comes the interview with the winner. It goes exactly how you'd expect: "Oh, I just love Wyler and Hawks, blah blah blah," but then the interviewer asks, "And who do you dislike?" And then comes the killer line:

"Fellini was always boring to me."

I was stunned, to say the least. First, I started laughing, and then I just rolled my eyes. Seriously, man? What a take. I had no clue Peterlic wasn't a fan of Fellini, and honestly, I don't get it. The White Sheik, Danguba, and the massive 8½ (which, maybe, hadn't even come out yet)—those movies are anything but boring.
Anyway, it would be interesting to see if he felt the same way about Fellini's later phases ten or fifteen years down the road.
But man, that really caught me off guard.

Alright, let's hear what you guys think 😁.

Unfortunately, the only Fellini film I’ve actually sat down with is "Amarcord"—and honestly, I think I just watched it for the fifth or sixth time yesterday. It’s because I can't seem to find any decent collections of his work, and from what I can tell, they aren't coming anytime soon. But, if his other movies are even half as brilliant as "Amarcord" (I swear, I laugh so hard my stomach actually hurts every single time), then I totally get where you're coming from 😉

"Beginners" might find it best to start their journey with Amarcord, followed by Giulietta of the Spirits, then moving into Nights of Cabiria, La Strada, Dolac Vita, Satyricon, and naturally, 8 1/2. This final sequence doesn't strictly require that specific order, but those films alone should provide a sufficiently thorough introduction to the Felliniesque body of work.

I’ve always felt that Peterlic leaned more toward an urban sensibility, the kind of director who would have naturally gravitated toward the sort of moody melodrama you see in an Antonioni film. Have you seen his Accidental Life? It’s his only directorial effort, and honestly, it’s a shame he didn't stick with filmmaking (though I don't think he failed us as a theorist). There's a certain grit to Accidental Life that feels reminiscent of the urban dramas by Aleksandar Petrovic, maybe even pulling from a Berkovichian "Rondo" or Mimičin's "Prometheus." Even in his early days, Fellini was already carving out his own lane, clearly moving away from the strictures of neorealism. He spent his career dancing along the edge of magical realism—sometimes leaning in, sometimes pulling back—and at points, especially after Satyricon, he seemed to lose his way entirely (not that I mean it negatively; look at a standout like Amarcord).

From what I can gather about Peterlic, he had much more respect for films that were a bit more depressive and intellectual.

Joseph Lee3 said:I’ve always felt that Peterlic leaned more toward an urban sensibility, the kind of director who would have naturally gravitated toward the sort of moody melodrama you see in an Antonioni film. Have you seen his Accidental Life? It’s his only directorial effort, and honestly, it’s a shame he didn't stick with filmmaking (though I don't think he failed us as a theorist). There's a certain grit to Accidental Life that feels reminiscent of the urban dramas by Aleksandar Petrovic, maybe even pulling from a Berkovichian "Rondo" or Mimičin's "Prometheus." Even in his early days, Fellini was already carving out his own lane, clearly moving away from the strictures of neorealism. He spent his career dancing along the edge of magical realism—sometimes leaning in, sometimes pulling back—and at points, especially after Satyricon, he seemed to lose his way entirely (not that I mean it negatively; look at a standout like Amarcord).

From what I can gather about Peterlic, he had much more respect for films that were a bit more depressive and intellectual.

Peterlic was a huge fan of De Sica. He found Fellini a bit too sugary—though he did appreciate "La Strada."

northerncrane4 said:Peterlic was a huge fan of De Sica. He found Fellini a bit too sugary—though he did appreciate "La Strada."

Well, which De Sica are we actually talking about here? The man’s filmography is all over the map, swinging wildly between extremes. You’ve got stuff like Miracle or Umberto D., which definitely echo those early Fellini vibes, but then you remember he also churned out movies like Caccia alla volpe... honestly, I can only imagine what Peterlic would make of that. He probably would have absolutely loathed it. 🙂

Joseph Lee3 said:Well, which De Sica are we actually talking about here? The man’s filmography is all over the map, swinging wildly between extremes. You’ve got stuff like Miracle or Umberto D., which definitely echo those early Fellini vibes, but then you remember he also churned out movies like Caccia alla volpe... honestly, I can only imagine what Peterlic would make of that. He probably would have absolutely loathed it. 🙂

Black and white. 😁

northerncrane4 said:Black and white. 😁

Oh, absolutely! 😁 That one is a personal favorite of mine too. It feels like De Sica hit this massive emotional nerve in that film; it’s the kind of raw realism that actually makes you feel something in your soul, whereas compared to that, even Fellini feels a bit like he's just performing surgery.

Joseph Lee3 said:Oh, absolutely! 😁 That one is a personal favorite of mine too. It feels like De Sica hit this massive emotional nerve in that film; it’s the kind of raw realism that actually makes you feel something in your soul, whereas compared to that, even Fellini feels a bit like he's just performing surgery.

I still get choked up every single time I watch "Umberto D."—it’s a lump in my throat and swollen eyes, every time.

And my other favorite Fellini? "Proba Orchestra." Go figure. 🤷

northerncrane4 said:I still get choked up every single time I watch "Umberto D."—it’s a lump in my throat and swollen eyes, every time.

And my other favorite Fellini? "Proba Orchestra." Go figure. 🤷

Totally! Umberto D. is just brutal—it hits you right in the gut. I’m usually not one for sentimental stuff, but this one... man, it gives you full-body chills. If I had to pick my favorites from Fellini, though, I'd go with his much earlier work, like I Vitelloni and The White Sheik.

Joseph Lee3 said:I’ve always felt that Peterlic leaned more toward an urban sensibility, the kind of director who would have naturally gravitated toward the sort of moody melodrama you see in an Antonioni film. Have you seen his Accidental Life? It’s his only directorial effort, and honestly, it’s a shame he didn't stick with filmmaking (though I don't think he failed us as a theorist). There's a certain grit to Accidental Life that feels reminiscent of the urban dramas by Aleksandar Petrovic, maybe even pulling from a Berkovichian "Rondo" or Mimičin's "Prometheus." Even in his early days, Fellini was already carving out his own lane, clearly moving away from the strictures of neorealism. He spent his career dancing along the edge of magical realism—sometimes leaning in, sometimes pulling back—and at points, especially after Satyricon, he seemed to lose his way entirely (not that I mean it negatively; look at a standout like Amarcord).

From what I can gather about Peterlic, he had much more respect for films that were a bit more depressive and intellectual.

If that was a comment on my post aimed at me, then yes, absolutely. (And it's funny how the guys from the local campus used to geek out over that movie, showing it around and debating it everywhere). It would have been great if he kept filming, but honestly, maybe it's better this way.

I get the whole "intellectual" thing—there was definitely a trend of valuing anything deemed highbrow—but since I never actually knew him or listened to him personally, and only heard about him through others, it felt really weird seeing the father of us all casually calling one of the greatest directors ever "boring."😁

Actually, my biggest fear is the influence of that specific taste. His students, like Kragic and Gillis, don't seem to push Fellini or anyone like him, yet they worship Hawks and Ford just like Peterlic did. To me, that just feels a bit off.

Joseph Lee3 said:Totally! Umberto D. is just brutal—it hits you right in the gut. I’m usually not one for sentimental stuff, but this one... man, it gives you full-body chills. If I had to pick my favorites from Fellini, though, I'd go with his much earlier work, like I Vitelloni and The White Sheik.

Regarding De Sica and his different "phases," I haven't dug through his whole filmography so I don't want to step on any toes here. But everything I have seen, including "Umberto D.," is nothing short of masterful. They're classics for a reason, and honestly, there isn't much left to say about their greatness.

As for Federico, I have to admit I love that specific era too, even though I value "8 1/2" and his later gems the most. Actually, "Dolce Vita" is the only one that didn't quite click for me—though maybe I should give it another spin sometime.
Speaking of his early work, I actually picked up some DVD editions of those early, semi-finished (or even less than finished!) Fellini pieces. Since they're pretty hard to find, if you don't have them, I'd be happy to burn them for you and send them over, especially since you were so willing to help with that burning job earlier:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0045504/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0042692/ (CC)

I'll hit you up once things settle down on my end.

Personally, I think Dolac Vita is definitely a bit overrated. If it were released today, it’d probably be some flashy project directed by Tarantino starring Pitt and Jolie in the leads—there's no way it wouldn't be massive, just because it's so "in." 😁

I've got "Svjetla pozornice," thanks. But I'm missing that first one, Love in the City. Looks like some kind of omnibus. Anyway, let's keep talking...

It truly warms my heart to see Umberto D. mentioned; it remains one of my absolute favorite films of all time. If I had to pick from the Fellini catalog, I’d go with La Strada and Amarcord, simply because they feel a bit more accessible than, say, 8 1/2.