Fellini Considered for The Pantheon. Cast your votes.
Name with No Man
La traduzione italiana di questo alberino segue la versione inglese.
Federico Fellini is now being considered for a place in the Pantheon
Hall.
The great circus master AND clown of the Italian cinema, he presided
over its rise to glory in the 50s and 60s, both following and building
upon the great achievements of the neorealists. Fellini preserved the
compassionate aspect of Italian neorealism but also made film into a
more personal and imaginative art.
But he has also been accused of sentimentality, preteniousness,
indulgence, and whatnot, esp following what is often considered his
masterpiece 8.5.
Does he deserve to sit in the Pantheon?
http://www.angelfire.com/film/pantheon/
It's entirely up to you and me now.
To qualify, the director needs the following credentials(and all of
them!!)
1. Long distinguished career(at least 13 yrs)
as director, from early 50s to late 80s.
AND
2. Been profoundly original (substantially innovative in important
ways, not in MTV gimcracky way)
he truly invented the 'I' in cinema. he invited us into his life,
women, world, dreams, delusions, triumphs, and failures. this was
autovoyeurism(with a touch of megalomania)thru us, the audience, who
watched and marveled at his bravura imagination and artistry.
there had been countless personal directors before fellini but fellini
was perhaps the first to truly fuse cinema with self identity for
better or worse.
AND
3. made at least 3 masterpieces(sublimely great movies) or at least
one masterpiece and 5
stunners(great movies falling short of masterpiece status)
masterpieces: i vitelloni, 8 1/2, la strada
stunners: white sheik, il bidone, nights of cabiria, la dolce vita,
juliet of the spirits, toby dammit, satyricon, fellini roma, and the
ship sails on, ginger and fred
AND
4. have possessed a pair of balls.
yes.
AND
5. Been profoundly influential and/or inspirational.
fellini surely influenced others to make films as personal as his.
take 'diner' which owes something to i vitelloni. or think of all the
imitations of 8 1/2.
fellini had the touch of the magician and so with welles, inspired
many young directors to discover endlessly new ways to expand cinema's
frontiers, often by throwing all conventional means to the winds.
AND
6. respected critics have kissed his ass for over two or several
generations.
(necessary in order to deflect overly subjective pleas such as claims
that ed wood ranks with orson welles)
highly respected in 50s and 60s, suffered something of a backlash
since the 70s but most agree that his films, at least up to 8 1/2, sum
up a formidable career.
AND
7. last but not the least, I must say so.
fellini's offering is one i can't refuse. yes.
----------------
Federico Fellini ora sta considerando per un posto nel Pantheon
Corridoio. Il padrone del circus ED il clown grandi del cinematografo
italiano, ha presieduto il relativo aumento a glory nel 50s e nel 60s,
sia seguenti che costruenti sui successi grandi dei neorealists.
Fellini ha conservato la funzione compassionate del neorealism
italiano ma inoltre ha trasformato la pellicola un'arte più personale
e più immaginativa. Ma inoltre è stato accusato di sentimentality, del
preteniousness, dell'indulgenza e del whatnot, specialmente seguente
che cosa spesso è considerato il suo masterpiece 8,5. Si merita di
sedersi nel Pantheon? http://www.angelfire.com/film/pantheon/ Spetta
ora interamente voi e me. Per qualificarsi, il direttore ha bisogno di
seguente credentials(and tutti!!) 1. Career(at distinto lungo meno 13
anni) come direttore, da 50s iniziale a 80s ritardato. E 2. Stato
profondamente originale (sostanzialmente innovatore nei sensi
importanti, non nel senso gimcracky di MTV) allineare ha inventato 'la
I 'in cinematografo. li ha invitati nella suoi vita, donne, mondo,
sogni, delusions, trionfi e guasti. ciò era autovoyeurism(with un il
tocco di megalomania)thru noi, i pubblici, che hanno guardato e si
meravigliati della suoi immaginazione ed artistry di bravura. ci erano
stati direttori personali countless prima che il fellini ma il fellini
fosse forse il primo allineare per fondere il cinematografo con
l'identità di auto per migliore o più difettoso. E 3. ha fatto almeno
3 movies masterpieces(sublimely grandi) o almeno un masterpiece e 5
movies dello stunners(great che sono a corto di condizione di
masterpiece) masterpieces: i vitelloni, 8 1/2, strada della La
storditori: lo sceicco bianco, il bidone del il, le notti del cabiria,
il vita del dolce della La, il juliet degli alcoolici, il dammit toby,
il satyricon, il fellini Roma e le vele della nave sopra, lo zenzero e
fred E 4. hanno posseduto un accoppiamento delle sfere. sì. E 5. Stato
profondamente influente e/o inspirational. il fellini certamente ha
influenzato altri per rendere le pellicole personali quanto il suo
introito 'diner 'che deve qualcosa al vitelloni di i. o pensi a tutti
i d'imitazione di 8 1/2. il fellini ha avuto il tocco del mago ed in
modo da con i welles, ispirato molti direttori giovani per scoprire i
sensi infinito nuovi espandere le frontiere del cinematografo, spesso
gettando tutti i mezzi convenzionali ai venti. E 6. i critici
rispettati hanno baciato il suo asino per oltre due o parecchie
generazioni (necessarie per deviare eccessivamente le richieste
soggettive quali i reclami che il legno di ed allinea con i welles del
orson) altamente rispettato in 50s ed in 60s, sofferti qualcosa di un
gioco circolare poiché i 70s ma la maggior parte sono conforme che le
sue pellicole, almeno fino a 8 1/2, riassumono una carriera ardua. E
7. ultimo ma non i minimi, devo dire così. l'offerta dei fellini è uno
che non posso rifiutare sì.
steve
On 29-Jul-2002, ritaka...@hotmail.com (Name with No Man) wrote:
> But he has also been accused of sentimentality, preteniousness,
> indulgence, and whatnot, esp following what is often considered his
> masterpiece 8.5.
My exposure to Fellini is limited to Americord and 8.5. On that basis, I
cant find any reason to praise him. Though it pales in memory, I recall
hating his "masterpiece" as (just as you say) intolerably self indulgent.
Americord had a modicum of charm, but that seemed to be it's only appealing
quality and it failed to carry the film.
Fellini is one of those "great directors" who really doesnt seem to be all
that great.
steve
--
"It aint me, man, it's the system."
Charles Manson
Marcella_from_Italy
> Italian translation of this post follows the English version.
>
> La traduzione italiana di questo alberino segue la versione inglese.
AHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
did you use the babelfish translation service? Because your so called
italian version makes no sense. It's like a poem by Marcel Duchamp -
completely surrealistic!
well my opinions may sound just as surrealistic (my english is bad),
but of course Fellini belongs to the Pantheon. His unique style
inspired dozens of directors (from Woody Allen to Martin Scorsese, to
John Woo), and the flaws you mentioned are, in my opinion, part of his
originality. His unorthodox inventions, contradictions, and
self-indulgence were major steps towards a different kind of italian
cinema, no more subjected to the rules of neorealism.
Plus, his naive, chaplinesque, female characters, whose love and
idealism are destined to succumb, are beautiful, poetical creations.
His love for women was real, deep, and yet bizarre; I can't think of
many directors who put women at the centre of world.
Marcella
madkevin
"steve" <st...@steve.com> wrote in message news:ai3gp7$pgq$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
>
> On 29-Jul-2002, ritaka...@hotmail.com (Name with No Man) wrote:
>
> > But he has also been accused of sentimentality, preteniousness,
> > indulgence, and whatnot, esp following what is often considered his
> > masterpiece 8.5.
>
> My exposure to Fellini is limited to Americord and 8.5. On that basis, I
> cant find any reason to praise him. Though it pales in memory, I recall
> hating his "masterpiece" as (just as you say) intolerably self indulgent.
> Americord had a modicum of charm, but that seemed to be it's only appealing
> quality and it failed to carry the film.
While chances are high that if you didn't like "Amarcord" (one of my personal fave movies
of all time, by the way) or "8 1/2", then you won't like the rest of his films, you're
doing yourself a great disservice if you think that's all there is to Fellini.
He began as a neo-realist, creating at least one masterpiece of that style with "I,
Vitelloni". Slowly, his films began to move into more fanciful territory that pushed
against the boundaries of that form; starting with "La Strada", his movies start to become
more personal and fantastic. After his grand, popular swipe against the bourgiousie in "La
Dolce VIta", Fellini found himself at the height of his popularity, where he could make
any movie he wanted. Such freedom paradoxically caused a type of writer's block; out of
that struggle came "8 1/2" which spawned countless imitations that had not one whit of the
humour or cinematic intelligence of Fellini's movie.
"Self-indulgent" is a term often used in a derogatory sense, but in Fellini's case he
elevated indulgency to a high art. Fellini is the archetype of the visionary film-maker,
the spiritual forefather of film-makers like Terry Gilliam or Werner Herzog. Fellini was
one of the first directors to really understand that movies *are* memories: in his
"documentary" on Rome, he recreates entire sections of the Eternal City within the studio
rather than film the actual locations in Rome, because the real locations had nothing to
do with his perceptions of Rome.
Any art needs it's self-indulgent visionaries to push the form forward, to showcase the
limitations and drag the form into odd new directions. Fellini was the rarest of all
things: a completely unique artist. You may not like him, but there ain't never been
anybody like him.
> Fellini is one of those "great directors" who really doesnt seem to be all
> that great.
On the contrary: Fellini is one of those directors who seems to get better as time goes
on, like Peckinpah, Welles or Leone.
(Note to Gaza: This was written as a reply to Steve, and is not intended for use on your
"website".)
steve
On 29-Jul-2002, "madkevin" <madk...@golden.net> wrote:
> "Self-indulgent" is a term often used in a derogatory sense, but in
> Fellini's case he
> elevated indulgency to a high art. Fellini is the archetype of the
> visionary film-maker,
> the spiritual forefather of film-makers like Terry Gilliam or Werner
> Herzog. Fellini was
> one of the first directors to really understand that movies *are*
> memories: in his
> "documentary" on Rome, he recreates entire sections of the Eternal City
> within the studio
> rather than film the actual locations in Rome, because the real locations
> had nothing to
> do with his perceptions of Rome.
Hi Kevin:
"Self indulgent" is as difficult to define as any other artistic term (such
is art). In fact, I fully intended to type out a definition here and now,
but find that it may require some time to think it over. You seem to
interpret the term, at least in part, as a willingness to indulge fanciful
ideas and break new ground (do I have that right?). I see it as more of a
willingness to pointlessly elevate trivial personal feelings or to preach on
such feelings without concern for the artistic relevance of the result
(well, that's sort of a definition). If, for example, there was some larger
point in contrasting ones memory of a time or place with the reality (and
there certainly could be), then that might become a relevant statement. But
to presume that ones personal memory IS an artistic statement is the height
of self indulgence.
It is interesting, too, that you mention Gilliam, another director that I
dont particularly enjoy. Though self indulgence isnt the term I would use
to describe his films. His films are wildly imaginative, but with so little
discipline that I find them hard to respect. Only seen one of Herzogs films
(Aguirre: The Wrath of God ) and recall that I didnt enjoy it, but cant
recall exactly why. In any case, I take this as evidence of a different
definition of the term.
> Any art needs it's self-indulgent visionaries to push the form forward, to
> showcase the
> limitations and drag the form into odd new directions. Fellini was the
> rarest of all
> things: a completely unique artist. You may not like him, but there ain't
> never been
> anybody like him.
I'm convinced we use the term differently, because many directors push the
envelope, IMO, without self indulgence and sentimetality.
> While chances are high that if you didn't like "Amarcord" (one of my
> personal fave movies
> of all time, by the way) or "8 1/2", then you won't like the rest of his
> films, you're
> doing yourself a great disservice if you think that's all there is to
> Fellini.
>
> He began as a neo-realist, creating at least one masterpiece of that style
> with "I,
> Vitelloni". Slowly, his films began to move into more fanciful territory
> that pushed
> against the boundaries of that form;
Perhaps I'll look for one of the earlier films (I've heard this recommended
before, but failed to find an early film before I lost the train of
thought). Unfortunatly, the later films seem to be most common in the video
stores I frequent.
madkevin
"steve" <st...@steve.com> wrote in message news:ai3nts$l46$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
"Self-indulgent" is a term that often says more about the user than the usee, I find.
Fellini has plenty of the bad kind of self-indulgence - the inability to edit himself, the
disregard of narrative, the love of hammy non-actors, the extreme fantasy of set designs,
and his move towards a cinema that was only about himself without any attempt at relating
his inner world to an external reality.
But I contend that it is these very things that also allowed Fellini to conceive of images
that would beggar the imagination of almost any other film-maker who ever lived. By
elevating self-indulgence into an artistic form, Fellini was able to take chances in his
films that were unthinkable for other movies, like his parade of bridal gowns for corpses
in "Fellini's Roma", or his radical sexual reworking of Roman mythology in "Fellini's
Satyircon", or that remarkable dream sequence in "8 1/2" that inverts the the male fantasy
of a house full of women who dote on your every whim.
Self-indulgency is part-and-parcel of being a visionary. It's this strain of film-making
that shows us the possibilities inherent in the form. Without Fellini, we wouldn't know
the limits of cinema.
Fellini does presume that his personal memory is the basis for cinema. "Amacord"
translates as "I Remember", natch. But Fellini understood that *everybody's* memory works
the same way. His memories of, say, the Colessium in Rome have little to do with the
actual building itself, and everything to do with his perception of the building. It's the
opposite of neo-realism: the understanding that fantasy is as important to your soul as
reality. Fellini's cinema is purely subjective, not objective. In fact, Fellini's great
contribution to movies was the understanding that all cinema is subjective; Fellini was
just more honest about it than most.
> It is interesting, too, that you mention Gilliam, another director that I
> dont particularly enjoy. Though self indulgence isnt the term I would use
> to describe his films. His films are wildly imaginative, but with so little
> discipline that I find them hard to respect. Only seen one of Herzogs films
> (Aguirre: The Wrath of God ) and recall that I didnt enjoy it, but cant
> recall exactly why. In any case, I take this as evidence of a different
> definition of the term.
Herzog is a different kind of visionary than Fellini or Gilliam, but a visionary all the
same. In "Heart Of Glass", he instituted a practice of hypotizing the entire cast before
shooting a take in order to get a specific dreamlike texture to the acting. In "Aguirre",
he recreates the hunt for El Dorado by retracing the path the real Aguirre took, dragging
his actors through the actual jungles with an utter disregard for his, or their, safety.
In other words, a madman. But by utilizing these extreme techniques, Herzog is able to
capture on film things that no one else has ever seen before.
> > Any art needs it's self-indulgent visionaries to push the form forward, to
> > showcase the
> > limitations and drag the form into odd new directions. Fellini was the
> > rarest of all
> > things: a completely unique artist. You may not like him, but there ain't
> > never been
> > anybody like him.
>
> I'm convinced we use the term differently, because many directors push the
> envelope, IMO, without self indulgence and sentimetality.
True. Basically, we agree on the definition of "self-indulgent"; I merely contend that
self-indulgency, coupled with a stroke of genius, can sometimes lead to great art. In
other words, being self-indulgent is not a bad thing nessesarily for an artist. In some
ways, it's their job.
=================
"Cogliano: The Wrath Of God"
larry legallo
>
>On 29-Jul-2002, ritaka...@hotmail.com (Name with No Man) wrote:
>
>> But he has also been accused of sentimentality, preteniousness,
>> indulgence, and whatnot, esp following what is often considered his
>> masterpiece 8.5.
>
>My exposure to Fellini is limited to Americord and 8.5. On that basis, I
>cant find any reason to praise him. Though it pales in memory, I recall
>hating his "masterpiece" as (just as you say) intolerably self indulgent.
What I wouldn't give for a large sock of horse manure.
(Sorry Steve, couldn't resist)
Name with No Man
> ritaka...@hotmail.com (Name with No Man) wrote in message news:<1ae158c6.02072...@posting.google.com>...
> > Italian translation of this post follows the English version.
> >
> > La traduzione italiana di questo alberino segue la versione inglese.
> <snip>
>
> AHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
> did you use the babelfish translation service? Because your so called
> italian version makes no sense. It's like a poem by Marcel Duchamp -
> completely surrealistic!
yes, i used babelfish.
>
> well my opinions may sound just as surrealistic (my english is bad),
> but of course Fellini belongs to the Pantheon. His unique style
> inspired dozens of directors (from Woody Allen to Martin Scorsese, to
> John Woo), and the flaws you mentioned are, in my opinion, part of his
> originality. His unorthodox inventions, contradictions, and
> self-indulgence were major steps towards a different kind of italian
> cinema, no more subjected to the rules of neorealism.
>
> Plus, his naive, chaplinesque, female characters, whose love and
> idealism are destined to succumb, are beautiful, poetical creations.
> His love for women was real, deep, and yet bizarre; I can't think of
> many directors who put women at the centre of world.
>
> Marcella
very true.
steve
On 29-Jul-2002, lleg...@usa.net (larry legallo) wrote:
> >My exposure to Fellini is limited to Americord and 8.5. On that basis, I
> >cant find any reason to praise him. Though it pales in memory, I recall
> >hating his "masterpiece" as (just as you say) intolerably self indulgent.
>
> What I wouldn't give for a large sock of horse manure.
>
> (Sorry Steve, couldn't resist)
That's OK, Larry. I'm getting quite used to going against a significant
portion of the grain in this NG.
Been wondering if you have abandoned our other discussion. Have you?
larry legallo
>
>On 29-Jul-2002, lleg...@usa.net (larry legallo) wrote:
>
>> >My exposure to Fellini is limited to Americord and 8.5. On that basis, I
>> >cant find any reason to praise him. Though it pales in memory, I recall
>> >hating his "masterpiece" as (just as you say) intolerably self indulgent.
>>
>> What I wouldn't give for a large sock of horse manure.
>>
>> (Sorry Steve, couldn't resist)
>
>That's OK, Larry. I'm getting quite used to going against a significant
>portion of the grain in this NG.
That line was from Annie Hall. Said after a man in a movie line next
to Woody Allen keeps referring to Fellini as indulgent. I just
couldn't pass it up. Nothing against you personally, though.
Before you give up on Fellini, you should try watching La Strada.
Great film. Great in its use of negative energy more than anything
else...(ok, someone stop me)
>Been wondering if you have abandoned our other discussion. Have you?
I'm pacing myself on that one.