"La Strada"
steve
Fellini is now a dismal 0 for 3 on my scorecard. I'm going to wait for LDV
on DVD before I watch another by this director. I am, however, already 15
minutes into the La Strada commentary. I really want to know why Fellini is
held in such high regard. So far, the commentary isnt helping. Ditto for
the Scorsese introduction.
I see the bit of a cool, neo-realist look in the film, but the film is light
years from realism. And lets get it straight up front that I understand
that realism is not the intention.
The two main characters are cardboard cutouts. Gelsomina has some enigmatic
qualities, but, when taken together with her simplistic (rather than
child-like) persona they fail to flesh her out. Zampano is not sub human so
much as inhuman. He displays no element of human capacity, rather he is
merely a brutal clown. Clearly they are not intended to be credible
portrayals of a realistic human beings, so I must assume they are
representative in some other way.
But if they are not real flesh and blood, how can they invoke sympathy or
empathy? How can they be representative of the human condition? Is this
film intended as an intellectual exercize, or is it intended to convey some
truth on an emotional level? And isnt the latter what seperates art from
advocacy?
steve
--
"A man was severely injured today in the Knutsford area."
Benny Hill
BUB 209
but dosen't translate much beyond it.
Was bowled over by his movies in the
'60s as a teenager and now I don't
understand why.
>"A man was severely injured today in the Knutsford area.">
Was it after spending the previous night
with a hooker in Rutland?
Grand Inquisitor
8 1/2
Juliette of the Spirits
Ginger and Fred
And the Ship Sails On
--
"Don't ask me, I'm just a girl!"
--Hilary Clinton
Grand Inquisitor
http://www.dvdprofiler.com/mycollection.asp?alias=Oost
angel
"steve" <st...@steve.com> wrote in message
news:40a00fec$0$3056$61fe...@news.rcn.com...
> OK, aside from the hour or so of "Dolce Vita" that really blew my hair
back,
> Fellini is now a dismal 0 for 3 on my scorecard. I'm going to wait for
LDV
> on DVD before I watch another by this director. I am, however, already 15
> minutes into the La Strada commentary. I really want to know why Fellini
is
> held in such high regard. So far, the commentary isnt helping. Ditto for
> the Scorsese introduction.
>
> I see the bit of a cool, neo-realist look in the film, but the film is
light
> years from realism. And lets get it straight up front that I understand
> that realism is not the intention.
It was, I believe, one of the criticisms it had in its day especially from
the Left who called it a betrayal of Neo Realism (whatever that is). In
fact, its release prompted one commentator to write about the "crisis of Neo
Realism" and how films such as "La Strada" signalled is death knell.
> The two main characters are cardboard cutouts. Gelsomina has some
enigmatic
> qualities, but, when taken together with her simplistic (rather than
> child-like) persona they fail to flesh her out. Zampano is not sub human
so
> much as inhuman. He displays no element of human capacity, rather he is
> merely a brutal clown.
Except at the end of course.
Clearly they are not intended to be credible
> portrayals of a realistic human beings, so I must assume they are
> representative in some other way.
Actually, I never found a problem with the credibility of the characters,
certainly not the card board cut-outs you felt they were. Zampano was
inhuman, that I believe was the intention , (masterfully played by Quinn
imo), but his inhumanity only heightened the snatches of real humanity and
pathos that did come through as his relationship with Gelsomina developed
and changed throughout the movie; especially after he inadvertently killed
Basehart's "Fool". It was his association with Gelsomina that finally and
inextricably brought Zampano to face up to his own humanity. That his life,
like the circus trickery he peddled, was nothing more than mere deception
and self delusion and it was he and not Gelsomina that was the real animal,
even though he treated her as one.
> But if they are not real flesh and blood, how can they invoke sympathy or
> empathy? How can they be representative of the human condition? Is this
> film intended as an intellectual exercize, or is it intended to convey
some
> truth on an emotional level?
I never saw it as an either/or -- both can apply imo. Fellini, like Bergman
(although I believe Bergman does it better) has the skill to be able to
comfortably work on both an emotional and intellectual level. With Fellini,
man's purpose in life seems to be an abiding theme that permeates a lot of
his work (although it would be a dangerous game to nail precisely any kind
of definitive meaning into his work -- he is far too wily for that) and
through this discovery (or lack of) is where true happiness or fulfilment
lies. Gelsominia was transformed from the mere *innocent* in the begining
of the film into something more when she felt she had discovered her true
purpose which was to "save" Zampano.
And isnt the latter what seperates art from
> advocacy?
I suspect your question would please him . He always felt his films were
there to pose more questions than provide answers and in that regard "La
Strada" is quintessential Fellini.
far out right
> Fellini is now a dismal 0 for 3 on my scorecard.
you shouldn't treat art like sporting events.
> I'm going to wait for LDV
> on DVD before I watch another by this director. I am, however, already 15
> minutes into the La Strada commentary. I really want to know why Fellini is
> held in such high regard. So far, the commentary isnt helping. Ditto for
> the Scorsese introduction.
for starters, never listen to commentaries. read articles or reviews.
dvd commentaries mess up the image with incessant talk. it's a
disrespectful form of MSTing no matter how highminded the intention.
scorsese is a movie scholar in his own right but his nonstop chatter
is often trivia and distracts us from the movie. however, i can see
why he was attracted to la strada and how it inspired some ideas for
raging bull. indeed, the music that scorsese chose for the opening of
raging bull--from some opera--sounds similar to the music at the start
of la strada. both are about beastly man, brutal and animalistic. and
neither has the brains to figure out what went wrong, but as the quote
in raging bull testifies from the Good Book, what they can't
understand they sure as hell can feel.
seriously, do not listen to commentaries. maybe...only if you've
completely acquainted yourself with the work or have formed your own
opinions. otherwise, you're letting others watch for you and what
they see is different than what you see which is different than what i
see. or rather, we see the same thing but we feel differently. so, at
least in that regard, we are like zampano and lamotta. we don't know
exactly why we like or don't like it, but deep down inside we know.
is fellini held in high regard? yes and no. he used to held in MUCH
higher regard but the newer generation of critics tend to see him as
an important director who was, however, overpraised for his humanism
and restrained sentimentality, and then later for his highfalutin
artsiness. critics like dave kehr pretty much despise everything
fellini's done except for 8 1/2. his colleagues generally like nights
of cabiria, i vitelloni, etc. but see little in fellini that was
original or groundbreaking.
fellini was much more popular with older critics who distinguished Art
from Movie. you have remember the 50s was a time when there was a
dearth of true auteurs, and the french auteurists hadn't yet
championed the hollywood masters as genuine artists. and antonioni
hadn't appeared on the scene. in this climate when film's reputation
as art was growing cinema was hungry for a bona fide personal
filmmaker. fellini, like bergman and kurosawa, was their man.
these old guard critics generally prefered his films before la dolce
vita for their directness and honesty, for they kept within fellini's
limitations as a dramatist, cinemagician, and thinker. they liked
early fellini in a somewhat condescending way, for his small town
rustic charm as well as for his estimable artistry. but, no one
regarded fellini as a true original, deep, or revolutionary director
in the manner of bergman or kurosawa, or resnais, godard, and
antonioni would were to come later. i think fellini wanted that kind
of stature, and starting with 8 1/2 aimed for revolutionary Art,
concluding simultaneously that, yes, he was a genuine cutting edge
artist and no, he's just a simple smalltown circus clown.
it's somewhat different among directors, many of whom revere fellini
but then largely because of 8 1/2, which both illustrated the
difficulty of creative process and romanticized it as the coolest
thing. opinions of moviemakers tend to be more personal and
subjective than critical and penetrating, so i tend to agree more with
critics.
however, i have no problem admiring fellini because the magical
chemistry of exuberance, humor, mischief, soulfulness, dignity, and
poetry of the tragi-comic was rare in cinema and especially rare
today.
while i rarely rewatch fellini films, upon first viewings most of them
affected me deeply. however, unlike movies by some more innovative
and/or intellectual directors--bergman, kurosawa, tarkovsky,
kubrick--repeated viewings of most fellini movies yield diminishing
returns. still, who says a movie has to be meant to be seen over and
over? first impression counts most. ones i wouldn't mind seeing again
are white sheik and i vitelloni. i loved some of his other films but
found myself often restless on the subsequent viewings of la dolce
vita, 8 1/2, etc. his later films tend to spill over and sprawl
acorss everywhere like revelers at a drunken party. first viewing, the
spontaneity carries you along. in subsequent viewings, some of the
extended scenes grow stale, even seem pointless.
>
> I see the bit of a cool, neo-realist look in the film, but the film is light
> years from realism. And lets get it straight up front that I understand
> that realism is not the intention.
fellini's art grew from and has ties to neo-realism, but whereas
neorealists focused on man's relation to social reality, fellini--and,
later pasolini--concentrated on man's inner soul. so, we have a more
subjective reality than in early films of desica or rossellini.
in a movie like bicycle thieves or open city, man lives for, against,
with society with little room for individuality or personal life. life
is too desperate, what with dog-eat-dog poverty and/or war. but,
fellini believed man, no matter how poor or hardpressed, had an
imaginative and magical side to his character that was the true poetry
of existence, that lightened the burden of daily life, and what really
gave us meaning in the world, as opposed to identity or awareness
based primarily on social reality understood thru ideological
constructions.
but, this is a simplification. umberto d is much more than a simple
neorealist film. and miracle in milan, one of the all time greats, not
only anticipated but surpassed--before fellini even become a major
director--anything fellini did later.
>
> The two main characters are cardboard cutouts. Gelsomina has some enigmatic
> qualities, but, when taken together with her simplistic (rather than
> child-like) persona they fail to flesh her out. Zampano is not sub human so
> much as inhuman. He displays no element of human capacity, rather he is
> merely a brutal clown. Clearly they are not intended to be credible
> portrayals of a realistic human beings, so I must assume they are
> representative in some other way.
i don't think they are cardboard. there's too much pain, anguish,
sorrow. zampano the boor is all too real. he's not your stock monster
or villain but a true lout of the homo sapien species. we believe in
his inhumanity. when he rapes gelsomina, it's ugly but stuff of flesh
and blood. when gelsomina, childlike, thinks zampano is playing during
her rehearsal and gets beaten, it goes ruthlessly from innocent to
ugly; it's not some cookiecutter cardboard circus but a real trade
earned with blood, sweat, and tears.
however, when the third main character enters the story, the
characterizations do become overly schematic and even preciously
symbolic. that's when their individuality diminishes and we can't help
but to see them as cosmic archetypes. however, thanks to fellini's
grounding in neo-realism, he keeps it grubby and earthy enough to
prevent his characters from becoming nothing but symbols. it's a
shaky balancing act but i think fellini succeeds because when the
comedian dies by getting smashed in the head, his vulnerability and
mortality is stripped naked. we lose our illusions along with
gelsomina. and, the comedian's soothing advice, which gelsomina had
taken to heart, dissolves in a pool tears by an helplessly whimpering
gelsomina; in a pathetic sort of way, an angel too becomes an animal,
a mangled dog. the comedian, once light as air, becomes a dead mound
of flesh, ground into dirt. fellini seems to say symbols are
ultimately illusions. that all theories, even the most beautiful, are
nothing against the harsh fate of man. ultimately, insofar as we are
all mortal and prey to brutality, we are all beasts of misfortune and
malice.
but, fellini goes a step further. just as the comedian and gelsomina
are reduced to mangled, heartbroken, defeated beast, zampano feels
something rise within him that is beyond animal, something of remorse,
redemption which inches toward gelsomina, toward inner beauty.
so, in a way fellini's simple schemata isn't so simple at all.
gelsomina is more than an innocent waif and ultimately zampano is more
than a beast. though it took brutality, tragedy, and despair we are
shown a glimpse of a cosmic circle that goes beyond the reality of
flesh and blood, that exists within the spirit. though fellini was
hardly religious in the orthodox sense, la strada is rooted in
christian ethos; it takes a lifetime of sweat, pain, and tears to earn
just that little bit of grace.
>
> But if they are not real flesh and blood, how can they invoke sympathy or
> empathy? How can they be representative of the human condition? Is this
> film intended as an intellectual exercize, or is it intended to convey some
> truth on an emotional level? And isnt the latter what seperates art from
> advocacy?
>
see it to the end if you but
1. see it alone.
2. lose yourself and believe and accept the world before your eyes.
3. know that everyone lives in his personal universe and experiencing
art is about sharing other people's perspectives, not projecting yours
onto theirs.
the movie starts with three basic human personalities/basic drama.
then it posits a theory on the nature of the interplay among
personalities/wishful comedy.
then, the theory is bludgeoned into oblivion, gelsomina loses what
gave her existence meaning/tragedy.
finally, zampano is overcome by the birthing pain of the seed planted
within his heart by gelsomina/transcendance.
i'm not sure it's fellini's best. and i think masina overplays her
character a bit too much. but, the movie's lively and colorful, funny
and sad. and, it's also an invaluable document of the conditions and
values of italians in the backwaters, povertystricken but scratching
out a meager existence and if the heart permits, reaching for a little
slice of the divine.
far out right
> Try:
>
> 8 1/2
> Juliette of the Spirits
> Ginger and Fred
> And the Ship Sails On
a great doublefeature would be i vitelloni/diner.
or white sheik/purple rose of cairo.
or 8.5 and all that jazz.
Heynony
> first viewings most of [Fellini's films]
> affected me deeply. however ... repeated viewings of most fellini movies yield diminishing
> returns
A cutting observation (Fellini is a favorite of mine) with a lot of
uncomfortable truth to it. I enjoyed your little essay very much.
Some good advice too, about not "keeping score," and about respecting
the material. My compliments.
Your commentary is very much a throwback to the style of this newsgroup
4-5 years or ago or so. Thanks for the memories.
Heynony
> My compliments.
Well, OK, perhaps I've been had. But I found it good reading. I didn't
recognize the style (the cummings thing is done all over and I tend to
ignore it, and certainly didn't connect it with any individual). I
react to the words and thoughts at hand, and I'm not really thinking
about other things the individual may have written. Doesn't matter; I
responded to this particular message and I still feel the same way
about that.
John Harkness
>
> 8 1/2
> Juliette of the Spirits
> Ginger and Fred
> And the Ship Sails On
Oh, lordy.
Three of Fellini's four worst films in one nasty candy colored package.
Try I Vittelloni and The White Sheik
John Harkness
steve
On 11-May-2004, "angel" <peeny07n...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Don't feel duped. Gaza, when he feels like it, can write intelligently.
>
> It's just a pity he doesn't do it more often.
Agree on both counts.
steve
On 10-May-2004, "angel" <peeny07n...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> > I see the bit of a cool, neo-realist look in the film, but the film is
> light
> > years from realism. And lets get it straight up front that I understand
> > that realism is not the intention.
>
> It was, I believe, one of the criticisms it had in its day especially
> from
> the Left who called it a betrayal of Neo Realism (whatever that is). In
> fact, its release prompted one commentator to write about the "crisis of
> Neo
> Realism" and how films such as "La Strada" signalled is death knell.
I find such reactions somewhat quite comical. A new use of a style doesnt
invalidate or preclude the original. Critics with too much time?
> > The two main characters are cardboard cutouts. Gelsomina has some
> enigmatic
> > qualities, but, when taken together with her simplistic (rather than
> > child-like) persona they fail to flesh her out. Zampano is not sub
> > human
> so
> > much as inhuman. He displays no element of human capacity, rather he is
> > merely a brutal clown.
>
> Except at the end of course.
True enough, and maybe that isnt the small matter I took it to be. I also
dismissed his possible remorse over the acrobat as merely self serving. "I
only hit him twice. Why should I go to prison for a couple punches?"
> Actually, I never found a problem with the credibility of the characters,
> certainly not the card board cut-outs you felt they were. Zampano was
> inhuman, that I believe was the intention , (masterfully played by Quinn
> imo), but his inhumanity only heightened the snatches of real humanity and
> pathos that did come through as his relationship with Gelsomina developed
> and changed throughout the movie; especially after he inadvertently killed
> Basehart's "Fool". It was his association with Gelsomina that finally and
> inextricably brought Zampano to face up to his own humanity. That his
> life,
> like the circus trickery he peddled, was nothing more than mere deception
> and self delusion and it was he and not Gelsomina that was the real
> animal,
> even though he treated her as one.
This is where I find significant disagreement (with the commentary as well).
When I say Zampano is inhuman, I mean specifically that he chooses to act
with pointless cruelty, and we are not given any window into the cause and
we see no evidence more complexity. In my mind, this makes him clownish,
and his actions carry little or no weight. When he killed the acrobat I
felt nothing for any of the characters. The acrobat was shrill in two
dimensions, Zampano is crule in 2D, and gelsomina is a meaningless
collection of inconsistent and pointless quirks. None are human. Live or
die...cardboard figure stands or falls over. With that lack of foundation,
how can we experience (and I feel it must be experienced rather than deduced
for the art to succeed) Zampanos conversion?
> I never saw it as an either/or -- both can apply imo. Fellini, like
> Bergman
> (although I believe Bergman does it better) has the skill to be able to
> comfortably work on both an emotional and intellectual level.
Bergman works well for me on an emotional level, even though...no...make
that *because*...his characters display probing (though troubled) intellect.
OK, sometimes they seem to over intellectualize their own baseless fears,
but their pain generally touches me. The Priests crisis in "Winter Light",
for example, is very real. His troubled spirit is evident before he speaks
of it, somehow. When he observes the soldiers suicide with what appears to
be inhuman detachment, it (perhaps ironically) conveys his loss of faith and
the real torment that the loss entails. I love that scene by the river
where they view the corpse....the snow falling and the river rushing by give
a sense of coldness mixed with energy. Perhaps that is the human condition
as Bergman sees it. And that is way cool, IMO.
steve
LOL! Not because you were duped (you werent) but because you are seemingly
incapable of evaluating statements on their own merit. Instead of
re-evaluating Gaza (he's clearly no idiot, though Ive been taken to task for
saying so) you retreated to safety. I am truly convinced you are an
intellectual coward.
steve
On 11-May-2004, farou...@hotmail.com (far out right) wrote:
> > OK, aside from the hour or so of "Dolce Vita" that really blew my hair
> > back,
> > Fellini is now a dismal 0 for 3 on my scorecard.
>
> you shouldn't treat art like sporting events.
Hi Tony.
Just looking for great films to watch. Fellini is reputed to be great so I
am giving his films a look. If it werent for that bit of LDV, I'd be ready
to conclude his films are of no value to me. Time is a valuable commodity
and I dont intend to squander it on shitty films, so yes, I will keep score
in oder to help me to pick the best films for my time and money. If I dont
like LDV when I see the whole film, Felinni will probably be on my shit list
forever.
> for starters, never listen to commentaries. read articles or reviews.
> dvd commentaries mess up the image with incessant talk. it's a
> disrespectful form of MSTing no matter how highminded the intention.
"MSTing"?
> scorsese is a movie scholar in his own right but his nonstop chatter
> is often trivia and distracts us from the movie.
Are you under the misimpression that I listend to the commentary before
actually watching the movie properly?
> > The two main characters are cardboard cutouts. Gelsomina has some
> > enigmatic
> > qualities, but, when taken together with her simplistic (rather than
> > child-like) persona they fail to flesh her out. Zampano is not sub
> > human so
> > much as inhuman. He displays no element of human capacity, rather he is
> > merely a brutal clown. Clearly they are not intended to be credible
> > portrayals of a realistic human beings, so I must assume they are
> > representative in some other way.
>
> i don't think they are cardboard. there's too much pain, anguish,
> sorrow. zampano the boor is all too real. he's not your stock monster
> or villain but a true lout of the homo sapien species. we believe in
> his inhumanity. when he rapes gelsomina, it's ugly but stuff of flesh
> and blood. when gelsomina, childlike, thinks zampano is playing during
> her rehearsal and gets beaten, it goes ruthlessly from innocent to
> ugly; it's not some cookiecutter cardboard circus but a real trade
> earned with blood, sweat, and tears.
But how can their be "pain, anguish and sorrow" if the characters arent
sufficiently real? Gelsomina is about as emotionally evocative as harpo
marx. Shes sad, so we get a big frown. Shes happy, so a big smile crawls
onto her face. This is simplistic and, consequently, ineffective.
As for the "rape"...I really take issue with that interpretation. We see
Zampano insist that Gel get into the wagon, and then we see him asleep and
Gel making her sad and happy faces. How are we to conclude that she was
raped? How do we know the had sex at all, consensual or otherwise? It's
not even implied, yet that seems to be the conclusion everyone reaches (yes,
the commentary talks of rape as well). The scene simply doesnt work that
way, even if we know that is the directors intention from other sources (do
we?). It's not ugly, it's soft and fluffy.
> however, when the third main character enters the story, the
> characterizations do become overly schematic and even preciously
> symbolic. that's when their individuality diminishes and we can't help
> but to see them as cosmic archetypes. however, thanks to fellini's
> grounding in neo-realism, he keeps it grubby and earthy enough to
> prevent his characters from becoming nothing but symbols.
We disagree. The landscape is grubby, the characters are nothing.
And, BTW, I meant to mention the use of sound in this film. The dubbed
voices are as two dimansional as the characters. In reality, voices sound
quite different depending upon the surroundings (a stone church vs and open
field, for example), yet the dubbed voices (to be clear, we watched the
subtitled version, but the voices are obviously recorded in post production)
always sound as if they are recorded in the same room. This little detail
simply decreases the films depth by another order of magnitude.
> it's a
> shaky balancing act but i think fellini succeeds because when the
> comedian dies by getting smashed in the head, his vulnerability and
> mortality is stripped naked. we lose our illusions along with
> gelsomina
What illusions? Hes a shrill talking piece of cardboard. The cardboard
cutout fell over.
> and, the comedian's soothing advice, which gelsomina had
> taken to heart, dissolves in a pool tears by an helplessly whimpering
> gelsomina; in a pathetic sort of way, an angel too becomes an animal,
> a mangled dog. the comedian, once light as air, becomes a dead mound
> of flesh, ground into dirt. fellini seems to say symbols are
> ultimately illusions. that all theories, even the most beautiful, are
> nothing against the harsh fate of man. ultimately, insofar as we are
> all mortal and prey to brutality, we are all beasts of misfortune and
> malice.
Tony, I simply cant relate to the depth you find in these occurrences. It
seems to me that they may be the directors intention (?) but they require a
lot of faith and effort on the part of the viewer to ascribe such high
artistic merit to so little on screen. I often wonder if it is the artistic
types...perhaps I shoud say "artsy fartsy types"...and...sorry, dude...that
is how I see you...have thier own language. Maybe it's even shorthand. In
any case, I dont speak it.
> >
> > But if they are not real flesh and blood, how can they invoke sympathy
> > or
> > empathy? How can they be representative of the human condition? Is
> > this
> > film intended as an intellectual exercize, or is it intended to convey
> > some
> > truth on an emotional level? And isnt the latter what seperates art
> > from
> > advocacy?
> >
>
> see it to the end if you but
>
> 1. see it alone.
>
> 2. lose yourself and believe and accept the world before your eyes.
>
> 3. know that everyone lives in his personal universe and experiencing
> art is about sharing other people's perspectives, not projecting yours
> onto theirs.
I watched the entire film...almost twice if you include the commentary. And
I do surrender myself to film in that I am always ready to believe and
hopeful to enjoy (why else would I have loved LDV when I expected to hate
it?)...but I dont shut down my brain. If Gel seems simplistic, it isnt a
detached intellectual judgment, it is how I experience her character...it's
how I see the world. You could have tossed her in a wood chipper and I
wouldnt feel a thing. Step on a bug and see if I cry.
dobe...@dropsocal.rr.com
>Try I Vittelloni and The White Sheik
Like you & Tony-Baloney, I think those two are Fellini's most
delightfully appealing films.
Tony Spadaro
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"steve" <st...@steve.com> wrote in message
news:40a00fec$0$3056$61fe...@news.rcn.com...
W. Lydecker
Gelsomina may be a bit more rare, but does occasionally appear. She even
shows up in newsgroups. Different strokes for...! Viva Federico!
steve
On 11-May-2004, "Tony Spadaro" <tspa...@ncmaps.rr.com> wrote:
> I suggest you return to Adam Sandler and Ahnold movies.
As if. You know I dont watch that stuff.
steve
On 11-May-2004, janu...@webtv.net (W. Lydecker) wrote:
> There are guys like Zampano; he's not some comic book creation.
Yes and no. There are guys with many of his characteristics, but is he
sufficiently fleshed out? I dont think so.
far out right
worse than casanova or city of women, which i haven't seen but heard were bad?
i love and the ship sails for sentimental reasons. and, ginger and fred is touching.
far out right
> On 11-May-2004, farou...@hotmail.com (far out right) wrote:
>
> > > OK, aside from the hour or so of "Dolce Vita" that really blew my hair
> > > back,
> > > Fellini is now a dismal 0 for 3 on my scorecard.
> >
> > you shouldn't treat art like sporting events.
>
> Hi Tony.
>
> Just looking for great films to watch. Fellini is reputed to be great so I
> am giving his films a look. If it werent for that bit of LDV, I'd be ready
> to conclude his films are of no value to me. Time is a valuable commodity
> and I dont intend to squander it on shitty films, so yes, I will keep score
> in oder to help me to pick the best films for my time and money. If I dont
> like LDV when I see the whole film, Felinni will probably be on my shit list
> forever.
sometimes it takes awhile to appreciate greatness. as children, we
couldn't appreciate music, movies, books we can now. we never totally
grow up, never entirely grow wise. as mature adults, what we can do is
be more patient, openminded, and try to see other angles. while we
can help but to ultimately judge, we can make the process more
meaningfully digestive by being attuned to its less obvious flavors.
and, yes, time is a precious commodity. but the best art shouldn't be
treated like a commodity. much of great art will strike those with
limited tastes, short attention spans, and/or expectations of
immediate gratification as too dull, dense, or slow.
also, everyone needs some degree of humility with art. while we
shouldn't be slavish to conventional wisdom or critical consensus, we
should quiet our minds, settle down, and try to at least understand
why a certain work has stood the test of time, why it appeals to so
many. i generally dismiss any consensus centered around political
fashions(piano), admiration of empty brilliance(pulp fiction),
intellectual conceit(jeanne dielmann), or self-congratulatory
moralistic grandstanding(grand illusion, a great movie, however given
more credit than it deserves for its muppetoid sentimentality).
otherwise, it's like what reynolds says in deliverance. i paraphrase
but we gotta lose ourselves to find ourselves. we are entering into a
new universe when as the artist bares his soul. we have to absorb and
be absorbed before letting our minds fidget and judge hastily.
>
> > for starters, never listen to commentaries. read articles or reviews.
> > dvd commentaries mess up the image with incessant talk. it's a
> > disrespectful form of MSTing no matter how highminded the intention.
>
> "MSTing"?
mystery science theatre. never watched it but ng people refer to any
running commentary as MSTing.
>
> > scorsese is a movie scholar in his own right but his nonstop chatter
> > is often trivia and distracts us from the movie.
>
> Are you under the misimpression that I listend to the commentary before
> actually watching the movie properly?
with your post on la strada, i did get that impression. you said you
couldn't stand it so i assumed you stopped watching. then you said you
listened to scorsese to understand the movie so i guessed when you
grow tired with a movie, you turn on the commentary to know what's up.
in my case, every movie i care about has been diminished by running
commentary. there's nothing with what the commentator is saying. it
just sounds wrong along with the image, the purity and integrity of
which are lessened by even the most respectful praise by the
commentator. worse, it gives us alot of meaningful gossipy trivia
which belongs in a biography.
>
> > > The two main characters are cardboard cutouts. Gelsomina has some
> > > enigmatic
> > > qualities, but, when taken together with her simplistic (rather than
> > > child-like) persona they fail to flesh her out. Zampano is not sub
> > > human so
> > > much as inhuman. He displays no element of human capacity, rather he is
> > > merely a brutal clown. Clearly they are not intended to be credible
> > > portrayals of a realistic human beings, so I must assume they are
> > > representative in some other way.
> >
> > i don't think they are cardboard. there's too much pain, anguish,
> > sorrow. zampano the boor is all too real. he's not your stock monster
> > or villain but a true lout of the homo sapien species. we believe in
> > his inhumanity. when he rapes gelsomina, it's ugly but stuff of flesh
> > and blood. when gelsomina, childlike, thinks zampano is playing during
> > her rehearsal and gets beaten, it goes ruthlessly from innocent to
> > ugly; it's not some cookiecutter cardboard circus but a real trade
> > earned with blood, sweat, and tears.
>
> But how can their be "pain, anguish and sorrow" if the characters arent
> sufficiently real? Gelsomina is about as emotionally evocative as harpo
> marx. Shes sad, so we get a big frown. Shes happy, so a big smile crawls
> onto her face. This is simplistic and, consequently, ineffective.
they are sufficiently real. zampano is a dime-a-dozen clunkhead. he
likes to drink, womanize, and has few qualms about how he makes his
money. he thinks himself clever with his strongman schtick among the
desperately poor in need of amusement or gullible enough to impressed.
the pathetic irony of his existence makes him all too true.
gelsomina's character is somewhat problematic. she's supposed to be a
child-like woman with a pure heart, like that of a trusting dog. she's
not exactly dumb, but she's certainly not intelligent. in some ways,
she borders on autistic. it's her nature to be of use to others. she's
shy, good-natured. she's interesting because while, on the one hand,
endearing and sociable, what keeps her going is an intensely private
sense of whimsy which is either ignored by zampano or conveyed thru
others in the generic form of mime; they see only the smile, not the
exploitation, loneliness, and private tears behind it.
perhaps under better circumstances--as a modern american teen--she
would have been just a flake; or maybe a cyndi lauper. but, with
zampano and in a poverty stricken and ignoramous italy her nature is
put to a test where she can't be a simple child-woman. ultimately
inesapably human, she's forced to poonder the meaning of her life,
her relation to zampano.
also, harpo marx was emotionally rich, one of the most expressive and
profound comedians ever. but lucky for him, he lived in an absurd
universe where he could get away with anything, especially since he
was often mischievous and bordered on sadistic. gelsomina is closer
to charlie chaplin, another highly, if elementally, expressive
comedian, who was caught between luck and misfortune. alas, even
chaplin lived in a comic universe. the tragedy of gelsomina is she's
a silent comic character in a real world, like chance in being there,
though cushioned by satirical contrivances. like amelie, pretending
the world is one big toyhouse. like harold and maude. in a way, the
real world has no place for these people because they are attuned to
their private whimsies and enclosed dreams. but, it's much worse for
gelsomina because she's virtually a slave in a world that's
semi-feudalistic.
so the richness of her character isn't really about the nature of her
smile but what that smile means in relation to the real unsmiling
world. she's a dog with a wolf. i guess that makes the comedian a fox
or jackal.
>
> As for the "rape"...I really take issue with that interpretation. We see
> Zampano insist that Gel get into the wagon, and then we see him asleep and
> Gel making her sad and happy faces. How are we to conclude that she was
> raped? How do we know the had sex at all, consensual or otherwise? It's
> not even implied, yet that seems to be the conclusion everyone reaches (yes,
> the commentary talks of rape as well). The scene simply doesnt work that
> way, even if we know that is the directors intention from other sources (do
> we?). It's not ugly, it's soft and fluffy.
it's effective because it's so matter-of-fact. there is no buildup, no
brouhaha. in today's movies, rape is shown as a big thing, and of
course it is. but, in the world of la strada, someone like gelsomina
is at mercy of brutes like zampano. it's sad because there's no one
make a fuss over it, no one to lend a ear, no one tell gelsomina that
she'd been terribly violated(as opposed in 'oleanna' where a woman is
convinced she was the victim of the most evil crime over nothing). for
gelsomina, there's no feminist friend, no policeman, no social
activist, no phil donahue. besides, if others knew, they'd probably
think oh well, shrug it off, and say it's about time she became a
woman. and catholicism preferred women as sacrificing and suffering
saints than as liberated women. la strada's world is still locked in
old world mentality.
in two women by desica, there is a harrowing rape scene. it's powerful
but ulitmately less horrific because it engages our outrage so
completely. we feel the humiliation, the anger. we are in complete
sympathy with sophia loren and her daughter. in la strada, gelsomina
just has to take it. this is her fate. zampano doesn't even prepare
her the sex, nor does he care afterward. it's as though he taught a
dog a new trick. it's sadder for not being obviously ugly by implying
brutality is the norm in this world. rape is not something in
zampano's vocabulary, no more than animalrights is to the mexican
dogfighter promoter in amores perros.
>
> > however, when the third main character enters the story, the
> > characterizations do become overly schematic and even preciously
> > symbolic. that's when their individuality diminishes and we can't help
> > but to see them as cosmic archetypes. however, thanks to fellini's
> > grounding in neo-realism, he keeps it grubby and earthy enough to
> > prevent his characters from becoming nothing but symbols.
>
> We disagree. The landscape is grubby, the characters are nothing.
it's a road movie. the landscapes and the characters are inseparable.
>
> And, BTW, I meant to mention the use of sound in this film. The dubbed
> voices are as two dimansional as the characters. In reality, voices sound
> quite different depending upon the surroundings (a stone church vs and open
> field, for example), yet the dubbed voices (to be clear, we watched the
> subtitled version, but the voices are obviously recorded in post production)
> always sound as if they are recorded in the same room. This little detail
> simply decreases the films depth by another order of magnitude.
we can't expect standards of current sound technology from old movies.
the thundering horses in seven samurai sound rather crude today.
but, i don't see why this matters so much. la strada is about simple
people in a simple world. a little crudity in lip synch and
one-dimensional sound can easily be overlooked.
in fact, i dislike how every sound effect is overdone, exaggerated,
made crisp and clear in today's films or music. i still prefer the
roughage, the texture of older movies than the soulless perfection of
today's movies.
i'll take the metallic sound of blonde on blonde to the impeccable
spacious sound of infidels(which is a fine album, by the way).
>
> > it's a
> > shaky balancing act but i think fellini succeeds because when the
> > comedian dies by getting smashed in the head, his vulnerability and
> > mortality is stripped naked. we lose our illusions along with
> > gelsomina
>
> What illusions? Hes a shrill talking piece of cardboard. The cardboard
> cutout fell over.
he's annoying but he does give gelsomina a thoughtful sermon about how
everything in the world has a meaning and purpose. why zampano, as
awful as he is, is part of the cosmos as are gelsomina and his
annoying comical self. gelsomina thought she'd been nothing but a dog
or slave to zampano. but, taking the comic's words to heart, she
entertains the notion that thru her devotion zampano could be changed,
redeemed, saved. it gives her a sense of meaning in life, a sense of
sacred mission. when the comic gets bludgeoned to death by zampano,
gelsomina's childlike mind is mortally wounded. she had thought of
running away from zampano, but in fact stuck with him only because of
the comic; so when zampano kills the very person who inspired her to
stick thru the travails of life and alongside zampano, it's not only
tragic but deeply ironic, even absurd(if gelsomina has something of
the cynic in her bloodcells, she might have overcome the incident, but
at heart she's an eternal child).
so the magic triangle that gelsomina embraced--herself, zampano,
comic--crumbles like a house of cards. she becomes emotionally
paralyzed.
however, fellini shows that in a strange way, the comic and gelsomina
do live on--if only within the heart of zampano--, that there is a
cosmic unity, because after all zampano isn't just a conscienceless
brute after all. gelsomina's goodness and the comic's theory take seed
within the animal.
>
> > and, the comedian's soothing advice, which gelsomina had
> > taken to heart, dissolves in a pool tears by an helplessly whimpering
> > gelsomina; in a pathetic sort of way, an angel too becomes an animal,
> > a mangled dog. the comedian, once light as air, becomes a dead mound
> > of flesh, ground into dirt. fellini seems to say symbols are
> > ultimately illusions. that all theories, even the most beautiful, are
> > nothing against the harsh fate of man. ultimately, insofar as we are
> > all mortal and prey to brutality, we are all beasts of misfortune and
> > malice.
>
> Tony, I simply cant relate to the depth you find in these occurrences. It
> seems to me that they may be the directors intention (?) but they require a
> lot of faith and effort on the part of the viewer to ascribe such high
> artistic merit to so little on screen. I often wonder if it is the artistic
> types...perhaps I shoud say "artsy fartsy types"...and...sorry, dude...that
> is how I see you...have thier own language. Maybe it's even shorthand. In
> any case, I dont speak it.
no, the artsy fartsy types reject early fellini. they go on and on
about chantal ackerman and todd haynes. and lard born frier. if you
think la strada is painful, try 'jeanne dielmann'. ackerman is worse
brute than zampano. she nearly killed me.
>
> I watched the entire film...almost twice if you include the commentary. And
> I do surrender myself to film in that I am always ready to believe and
> hopeful to enjoy (why else would I have loved LDV when I expected to hate
> it?)...but I dont shut down my brain. If Gel seems simplistic, it isnt a
> detached intellectual judgment, it is how I experience her character...it's
> how I see the world. You could have tossed her in a wood chipper and I
> wouldnt feel a thing. Step on a bug and see if I cry.
>
in time, there will be steve on a beach... suddenly overcome by
emotions, weeping and wondering 'why was so zampanoish about la
strada!'
we can only pray.
steve
On 11-May-2004, farou...@hotmail.com (far out right) wrote:
> > Just looking for great films to watch. Fellini is reputed to be great
> > so I
> > am giving his films a look. If it werent for that bit of LDV, I'd be
> > ready
> > to conclude his films are of no value to me. Time is a valuable
> > commodity
> > and I dont intend to squander it on shitty films, so yes, I will keep
> > score
> > in oder to help me to pick the best films for my time and money. If I
> > dont
> > like LDV when I see the whole film, Felinni will probably be on my shit
> > list
> > forever.
>
> sometimes it takes awhile to appreciate greatness. as children, we
> couldn't appreciate music, movies, books we can now. we never totally
> grow up, never entirely grow wise. as mature adults, what we can do is
> be more patient, openminded, and try to see other angles.
Understood and appreciated. Why do you think I'm on my 3rd Fellini when I
havent enjoyed one minute of any that I have seen in full? The 4th is yet
to come, but I only have so much patience. At some point I have to decide
if I go on or give up.
> but the best art shouldn't be
> treated like a commodity.
> while we
> shouldn't be slavish to conventional wisdom or critical consensus, we
> should quiet our minds, settle down, and try to at least understand
> why a certain work has stood the test of time, why it appeals to so
> many.
But I dont know that it is great. Right now I think it's crap. "Why it
appeals to so many" is part of what I hope to extract from the commentary
and this NG.
> > "MSTing"?
>
> mystery science theatre. never watched it but ng people refer to any
> running commentary as MSTing.
Thanks.
> in my case, every movie i care about has been diminished by running
> commentary. there's nothing with what the commentator is saying. it
> just sounds wrong along with the image, the purity and integrity of
> which are lessened by even the most respectful praise by the
> commentator. worse, it gives us alot of meaningful gossipy trivia
> which belongs in a biography.
I understand your point, but the goal of good commentary is not to make the
film greater, but to provide information that is outside the film. Listen
to the commentary on "Seven Samurai". It was an education for me in the
vocabulary of film. On Amores Perros the director and writer give us a
window into the creative process and artistic choices.
> > But how can their be "pain, anguish and sorrow" if the characters arent
> > sufficiently real? Gelsomina is about as emotionally evocative as harpo
> > marx. Shes sad, so we get a big frown. Shes happy, so a big smile
> > crawls
> > onto her face. This is simplistic and, consequently, ineffective.
>
> they are sufficiently real. zampano is a dime-a-dozen clunkhead. he
> likes to drink, womanize, and has few qualms about how he makes his
> money. he thinks himself clever with his strongman schtick among the
> desperately poor in need of amusement or gullible enough to impressed.
> the pathetic irony of his existence makes him all too true.
I find him far too simplistic. Perhaps the obvious unreality of Gel
increased that perception (or lack thereof).
> gelsomina's character is somewhat problematic. she's supposed to be a
> child-like woman with a pure heart, like that of a trusting dog. she's
> not exactly dumb, but she's certainly not intelligent. in some ways,
> she borders on autistic.
Bottom line: Shes a romantic invention. There is no such human.
> also, harpo marx was emotionally rich
But not remotely realistic. Great for comedy.
> like harold and maude.
Please dont mention that film. It doesnt help.
> > As for the "rape"...I really take issue with that interpretation.
> it's effective because it's so matter-of-fact.
> it's sad because there's no one
> make a fuss over it, no one to lend a ear, no one tell gelsomina that
> she'd been terribly violated
But we dont even know that it happened. And if it did, she certainly doesnt
seem terribly put out.
Why is it assumed that she was raped? Zampano shows no sexual interest
other than referring to her as his wife. Gel shows no physical signs of
abuse. The assumption is rather gratuitous.
> >
> > We disagree. The landscape is grubby, the characters are nothing.
>
> it's a road movie. the landscapes and the characters are inseparable.
That seems so out of touch with the nature of this film. The landscape and
characters are at odds in thier level of realism.
> > And, BTW, I meant to mention the use of sound in this film.
> >This little detail
> > simply decreases the films depth by another order of magnitude.
> we can't expect standards of current sound technology from old movies.
> the thundering horses in seven samurai sound rather crude today.
> but, i don't see why this matters so much. la strada is about simple
> people in a simple world. a little crudity in lip synch and
> one-dimensional sound can easily be overlooked.
And I'm capable of overlooking that weakness (I do just that in major
portions of "Touch of Evil"). But it is yet another weakness, and in this
case it is a real distraction. It is one small step from Godzilla movie
dubbing (which is great in the monster movie genre). At some point, the
details begin to matter.
> in fact, i dislike how every sound effect is overdone, exaggerated,
> made crisp and clear in today's films or music
That's one of my criticisms of "Gangs of New York", in fact. Yes, we agree.
> i'll take the metallic sound of blonde on blonde to the impeccable
> spacious sound of infidels(which is a fine album, by the way).
Dont know what you're talking about.
> but, taking the comic's words to heart, she
> entertains the notion that thru her devotion zampano could be changed,
> redeemed, saved. it gives her a sense of meaning in life, a sense of
> sacred mission. when the comic gets bludgeoned to death by zampano,
> gelsomina's childlike mind is mortally wounded. she had thought of
> running away from zampano, but in fact stuck with him only because of
> the comic; so when zampano kills the very person who inspired her to
> stick thru the travails of life and alongside zampano, it's not only
> tragic but deeply ironic, even absurd(if gelsomina has something of
> the cynic in her bloodcells, she might have overcome the incident, but
> at heart she's an eternal child).
I admit I missed this entirely.
> however, fellini shows that in a strange way, the comic and gelsomina
> do live on--if only within the heart of zampano--, that there is a
> cosmic unity, because after all zampano isn't just a conscienceless
> brute after all. gelsomina's goodness and the comic's theory take seed
> within the animal.
I simply dont buy it, and this is another weakness in the 2D character of
Zampano. That transformation is beyond his sorry ass or he wouldnt have
been the sorry ass he was for so long. What happend to Gels sister? I
assumed Zam killed her.
> no, the artsy fartsy types reject early fellini. they go on and on
> about chantal ackerman and todd haynes. and lard born frier. if you
> think la strada is painful, try 'jeanne dielmann'. ackerman is worse
> brute than zampano. she nearly killed me.
Again, dont know to what you refer.
> > I watched the entire film...almost twice if you include the commentary.
> > And
> > I do surrender myself to film in that I am always ready to believe and
> > hopeful to enjoy (why else would I have loved LDV when I expected to
> > hate
> > it?)...but I dont shut down my brain. If Gel seems simplistic, it isnt
> > a
> > detached intellectual judgment, it is how I experience her
> > character...it's
> > how I see the world. You could have tossed her in a wood chipper and I
> > wouldnt feel a thing. Step on a bug and see if I cry.
> >
>
> in time, there will be steve on a beach... suddenly overcome by
> emotions, weeping and wondering 'why was so zampanoish about la
> strada!'
Tony, thanks for a good laugh. I mean that more than you probably know.
People dont understand my sensitive side. Yes, I have one...stop
laughing...but it is somewhat demanding and has no patience for the
slightest degree of falsity.
Oh, why am I so Zampanish...LOL!
Tony Spadaro
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"steve" <st...@steve.com> wrote in message
news:40a121fd$0$3036$61fe...@news.rcn.com...
far out right
> On 11-May-2004, farou...@hotmail.com (far out right) wrote:
>
> > > Just looking for great films to watch. Fellini is reputed to be great
> > > so I
> > > am giving his films a look. If it werent for that bit of LDV, I'd be
> > > ready
> > > to conclude his films are of no value to me. Time is a valuable
> > > commodity
> > > and I dont intend to squander it on shitty films, so yes, I will keep
> > > score
> > > in oder to help me to pick the best films for my time and money. If I
> > > dont
> > > like LDV when I see the whole film, Felinni will probably be on my shit
> > > list
> > > forever.
> >
> > sometimes it takes awhile to appreciate greatness. as children, we
> > couldn't appreciate music, movies, books we can now. we never totally
> > grow up, never entirely grow wise. as mature adults, what we can do is
> > be more patient, openminded, and try to see other angles.
>
> Understood and appreciated. Why do you think I'm on my 3rd Fellini when I
> havent enjoyed one minute of any that I have seen in full? The 4th is yet
> to come, but I only have so much patience. At some point I have to decide
> if I go on or give up.
i understand, but i still think you're keeping score, going for
quantity than quality, by which i mean you'd gain to seriously examine
your own ideas about art and reality--and their relationship--and
about art and the artist. so the number of fellini films you watch
won't be of any use unless you focus on yourself, on your own heart,
assumptions, and expectations from art.
for example, someone journeying to another culture will have no
appreciation unless he accepts and realizes that the foreign culture
isn't foreign unto itself, that it has own history, values,
traditions, its own perspective and cosmology. otherwise, no matter
whereever you go, no matter how people you meet or how many sites you
see, it'll be seem like an interminabley pointless and strange
culture, not worthy of your attention.
now, i don't mean to suggest a kind of relativism where every movie
can be defended on its own raison d'etre. and, i don't doubt your
seriousness and good faith. but, judging from your observations on
ricci of bicycle thieves, i think you expect everyone to think like a
libertarian american. maybe they SHOULD. but, art isn't a
philosophical tract but an observation of human, cultural, personal
truths which often have little to do with sanity, decency, or wisdom.
it's the poetry of human warts.
>
> > but the best art shouldn't be
> > treated like a commodity.
>
> > while we
> > shouldn't be slavish to conventional wisdom or critical consensus, we
> > should quiet our minds, settle down, and try to at least understand
> > why a certain work has stood the test of time, why it appeals to so
> > many.
>
>
> But I dont know that it is great. Right now I think it's crap. "Why it
> appeals to so many" is part of what I hope to extract from the commentary
> and this NG.
well, if you really feel that way after much thought, fine.
ultimately, honesty is a higher virtue than pretending to like
something because of critical consensus. i also have issues with
critical consensus. 'do the right thing', 'far from heaven', 'piano',
'three kings', etc. i think they're shit.
everyone has his likes or dislikes. what matters most is stating one's
opinions honestly. i highly respect dave kehr but he has no use for
fellini:
http://onfilm.chicagoreader.com/movies/capsules/11578_STRADA
http://onfilm.chicagoreader.com/movies/capsules/2801_DOLCE_VITA
http://onfilm.chicagoreader.com/movies/capsules/3414_FELLINI_SATYRICON
you a john simon fan by any chance? he was often passionately
dismissive of movies championed by the zeitgeist; he had a reputation
for muttering hostile germanic gibberish and rolling his eyes during
screenings. you should check out his books. while i disagree with most
of simon's views, i always admired his honesty and courage to go
against the tide.
and, sometimes he was right. amarcord was overpraised upon release
because it was such a relief to have a subdued fellini again; prodigal
director had come home. and, i agree with simon that discreet charm of
the bourgeoisie is fluff. and, simon's warnings against godard proved
prophetic as godard plunged into insanity from 67 to early 70s. but
being of literary and highbrow background, he couldn't understand(nor
forgive)movies that didn't declare its loyalty or deference to the
already established high arts.
>
> > in my case, every movie i care about has been diminished by running
> > commentary. there's nothing with what the commentator is saying. it
> > just sounds wrong along with the image, the purity and integrity of
> > which are lessened by even the most respectful praise by the
> > commentator. worse, it gives us alot of meaningful gossipy trivia
> > which belongs in a biography.
>
> I understand your point, but the goal of good commentary is not to make the
> film greater, but to provide information that is outside the film. Listen
> to the commentary on "Seven Samurai".
i listened to some of it and it was instructive. but, i felt like
someone was intruding on MY vision, love, and understanding of the
film. i don't feel this way when i read reviews afterwards; it's just
a personal pet peeve of mine; i can't stand commentary accompanying
the movie.
> It was an education for me in the
> vocabulary of film. On Amores Perros the director and writer give us a
> window into the creative process and artistic choices.
yeah, if you have interest in the film beyond that of a viewer, if
you're interested in the creative process itself, then commentaries
can be informative and enligtening. sometimes, i think dvds have
godardized films by giving us this quasi-brechtian distancing device.
godard wanted to tell us that movies were fake, but now every
moviemaker is telling us; the commercial artists are willing to share
the secret and everyone's has developed, more or less, a kind of
aloof, postmodern attitude towards movies.
still, i wish directors themselves didn't comment on the movies. leave
it to the geeks. maybe i'm old fashioned but i prefer artists who just
create and leave us to put together the pieces, ponder the meanings,
figure out the magical process. i can't imagine kurosawa himself
commenting on his movies. or kubrick, or bergman.
i can't imagine dylan offering an audio option on cds where he
explains the meaning of his songs. in the case of godard, who wanted
to strip cinema naked and expose its machinations, it was
understandable. but, art is mostly about organic construction. artists
should create and let us deal with the sublimely mysterious creature
they've created.
>
> > gelsomina's character is somewhat problematic. she's supposed to be a
> > child-like woman with a pure heart, like that of a trusting dog. she's
> > not exactly dumb, but she's certainly not intelligent. in some ways,
> > she borders on autistic.
>
> Bottom line: Shes a romantic invention. There is no such human.
she's part real, part invention. but fellini was never a complete
realist. he believed in the personal muse, in the power of dreams.
there has always been a magical/musical quality about fellini films,
where life isn't just a struggle but a circus.
and, movies often do exaggerate for dramatic or symbolic purposes. for
example, the heroine in woman in the dunes represents the primitive,
earthmother female principle. characters in ayn rand novels are larger
than life, part reality but in large measure, ideals. the reynolds
character in deliverance represents one aspect of dickey's
personality--nietzschean superman machismo--just as the jon voight
represents the another--modernity and sobriety. few movies--those by
tavernier, for example--have characters that are almost exactly true
to life. more often, we have people like ethan of searchers, vito of
godfather, shane, gary cooper of high noon, brando of viva zapata,
mifune in seven samurai; they are all, to large extent, exaggerations
and/or stylizations of personalities.
>
> > > As for the "rape"...I really take issue with that interpretation.
>
> > it's effective because it's so matter-of-fact.
>
> > it's sad because there's no one
> > make a fuss over it, no one to lend a ear, no one tell gelsomina that
> > she'd been terribly violated
>
> But we dont even know that it happened. And if it did, she certainly doesnt
> seem terribly put out.
movies, especially old movies, suggested rather than spelled out.
perhaps, had it been made later, it would have been made graphic and
obvious, like the whackoff scene and bigtit sucking scene in amarcord.
but old movies, either due to artistic discretion or censorship, had
to rely on suggestion. so M by lang will have lorre walk away with a
kid and then we see the kid's balloon drifting into space. we know the
kid's dead though we didn't actually see anything.
but, i suppose it's possible that zampano only petted gelsomina and
asked for a hickey. it's still pretty ugly.
>
> Why is it assumed that she was raped? Zampano shows no sexual interest
> other than referring to her as his wife. Gel shows no physical signs of
> abuse. The assumption is rather gratuitous.
zampano shows little in the way of sexual interest because his needs
are so crude and basic. for him sex is little more than scratchig an
itch. gelsomina is NOT sexually attractive but it doesn't matter with
zampano, just as lonely greek sheperds don't care if they ramming
sheep as long as their jism is unloaded.
some people eat to enjoy food. some eat just to eat. some people have
sex to enjoy sex. zampano has sex to satisfy his basic drives.
gelsomina shows little sign of physical abuse because she was too weak
or timid to put up a fight. in fact, in that kind of world, rape among
the lower classes isn't exactly one of the cardinal sins. and,
perverse as this may seem, she probably had unsatisfied sexual
curiosity and needs, and zampano--an important man in her smalltown
povertystricken eyes--might have fulfilled some of her needs. no, i'm
not defending rape under ANY circumstances, but human emotions are
alot more complex, darker, and contradictory than any philosophy or
ideology would have us believe.
for example, the woman in slingblade wasn't only a victim but did feel
some genuine attachment to the yoakum character. and, to vicky in
raging bull, lamotta--despite his brutality--had a manly physicality
that attracted and impressed her. she had been nothing but likes being
something as a wife of a championship boxer despite the jealousies and
beatings, or perhaps because of the jealousies... to some extent,
anyway. men like to conquer, women like to be conquered; at some
primal psychological level we are animals.
>
> > >
> > > We disagree. The landscape is grubby, the characters are nothing.
> >
> > it's a road movie. the landscapes and the characters are inseparable.
>
> That seems so out of touch with the nature of this film. The landscape and
> characters are at odds in thier level of realism.
yes and no. the road is often barren and desolate; zampano and
gelsomina are smalltime hucksters ekeing out a living; so the
landscape and the characters are one. on the other hand, there is
something magical and winsome about gelsomina which cocoons her
angelic nature from the harshness of reality; so in this case, the
very fact of her and the landscape being at odds is crucial to what
the movie is about. fellini is saying life is often poetic and
bearable because the beauty is within us despite the outer reality.
fellin's i vitelloni has a couple of characters who are stuck in a
nondescript smalltown but they have dreams of leaving for the big city
or becoming an artist; for them, there is always more to life than
their enviroment. so, the landscape in la strada exist in collusion
with life(zampano) but also in contrast(gelsomina of the eternally
virgin heart).
>
> > > And, BTW, I meant to mention the use of sound in this film.
> > >This little detail
> > > simply decreases the films depth by another order of magnitude.
>
> > we can't expect standards of current sound technology from old movies.
> > the thundering horses in seven samurai sound rather crude today.
> > but, i don't see why this matters so much. la strada is about simple
> > people in a simple world. a little crudity in lip synch and
> > one-dimensional sound can easily be overlooked.
>
> And I'm capable of overlooking that weakness (I do just that in major
> portions of "Touch of Evil"). But it is yet another weakness, and in this
> case it is a real distraction. It is one small step from Godzilla movie
> dubbing (which is great in the monster movie genre). At some point, the
> details begin to matter.
la strada doesn't bother me, but there have been cases where technical
incompetence was so great that i was affected also. desica's garden of
finzi continis has such poor sound--in both italian and english
dubbing--i could not properly appreciate it.
la strada is so scrappy and crude in its overall texture that i never
much noticed such failings. i also had no problem with lancaster
speaking italian in the leopard or with the american actors in il
bidone. perhaps, i just never pay attention to such things unless they
are really obvious.
>
> > but, taking the comic's words to heart, she
> > entertains the notion that thru her devotion zampano could be changed,
> > redeemed, saved. it gives her a sense of meaning in life, a sense of
> > sacred mission. when the comic gets bludgeoned to death by zampano,
> > gelsomina's childlike mind is mortally wounded. she had thought of
> > running away from zampano, but in fact stuck with him only because of
> > the comic; so when zampano kills the very person who inspired her to
> > stick thru the travails of life and alongside zampano, it's not only
> > tragic but deeply ironic, even absurd(if gelsomina has something of
> > the cynic in her bloodcells, she might have overcome the incident, but
> > at heart she's an eternal child).
>
> I admit I missed this entirely.
>
> > however, fellini shows that in a strange way, the comic and gelsomina
> > do live on--if only within the heart of zampano--, that there is a
> > cosmic unity, because after all zampano isn't just a conscienceless
> > brute after all. gelsomina's goodness and the comic's theory take seed
> > within the animal.
>
> I simply dont buy it, and this is another weakness in the 2D character of
> Zampano. That transformation is beyond his sorry ass or he wouldnt have
> been the sorry ass he was for so long. What happend to Gels sister? I
> assumed Zam killed her.
no, zampano didn't kill gelsomina's sister. rather, she died on him
like a poorly treated animal.
now, why do people change when they do? i dunno. i never figured it
out either. why does lout lamotta begin to feel remorse after he gains
50 lbs and loses his wife? why does strolnikov in dr. zhivago abandon
his revolutionary zeal and go searching for lara? i'm just glad
fellini suggested rather than spelled it out. we don't know exactly
why or how such changes happen but we know they happen, even to the
worst of us(we all dream of being a child again? seek to regain the
lost innocence, the fresh seaside breeze at the break of dawn?). why
does the guys in the wild bunch decide to sacrifice all for angel?
stir of the moment thing? or had they been inexorably moving toward
such redemptive apocalypse? i dunno but i believe.
we don't know what gelsomina's sister was like, but this we know about
human nature. some people feel no remorse over killing countless men
but become deeply affected by the killing of one.
i remember reading about peckinpah, who'd been a deer hunter all his
life. one day, he shot a deer and he broke down in sadness, in utter
sympathy for the dying animal. odd, out of character, but completely
plausible.
gelsomina had a wonderful quality about her, perhaps something her
sister lacked. we were told when the movie begins that the sister had
always been sickly. so zampano's loss of gelsomina was probably felt
more acutely. also, zampano abandoned her when she was most
vulnerable. she didn't die on him but was thrown away like trash.
also, her fate is linked with the man zampano murdered. zampano acted
out of animal rage but he didn't mean to kill. it's likely he'd gotten
into many fights but never killed anyone before. so, they all tie
together. if gelsomina had died of a flu, it might not have mattered
much to zampano. had zampano killed the comic but remained with
gelsomina, he might have regained his equilibrium. but, there's a
chemistry of happenstance which sets into motion connections and
associations within his buried psyche which ultimately pour out in
grief.
larry legallo
>Just looking for great films to watch. Fellini is reputed to be great so I
>am giving his films a look. If it werent for that bit of LDV, I'd be ready
>to conclude his films are of no value to me. Time is a valuable commodity
>and I dont intend to squander it on shitty films, so yes, I will keep score
>in oder to help me to pick the best films for my time and money. If I dont
>like LDV when I see the whole film, Felinni will probably be on my shit list
>forever.
What I wouldn't give for a large sock with horse manure in it.
(Sorry, Steve, couldn't resist). Seriously though, I've been
following this thread, and I think you're looking for something in
this film that was never meant to be there.
Tony actually has some good things to say here (it must be the second
Tuesday of every 5th month again, huh), so I'll just add a few
thoughts.
>But how can their be "pain, anguish and sorrow" if the characters arent
>sufficiently real? Gelsomina is about as emotionally evocative as harpo
>marx. Shes sad, so we get a big frown. Shes happy, so a big smile crawls
>onto her face. This is simplistic and, consequently, ineffective.
This seems to be your main hanging point. It's confusing because
there are many neo-realist elelments in it, but the film is basically
a fable, populated by abstractions, rather than "real" characters.
With most Fellini, you need to allow yourself to enter his fantasy
world, rather than detach from it. I know, it should be his job to
draw you in. But he's one of those major directors who relies a lot
on his own stature, even as far back as La Strada, as a kind of
shorthand. It's taken for granted that he's working on a grand
emotional scale. I think he would see "fleshing out" characters in
the traditional sense as a waste of time. I think Fellini himself
referred to them as "moral markers", or something like that.
So as soon as you see Masina doing her Chaplin expressions, you know
the representation of innocence, and are supposed to instantly feel
sympathy towards her. And I think most viewers do respond that way.
>As for the "rape"...I really take issue with that interpretation. We see
>Zampano insist that Gel get into the wagon, and then we see him asleep and
>Gel making her sad and happy faces. How are we to conclude that she was
>raped? How do we know the had sex at all, consensual or otherwise?
Would you have gotten it if Fellini showed the wagon entering a
tunnel?
But really, in 1954, there wasn't much you could do to even imply
rape. Just look at the studio release of Touch of Evil, compared to
Welles's intended version. Even when I first saw La Strada though, I
thought it was pretty clear form the way that he threw her into the
wagon that they weren't going to be reading bedtime stories.
>Tony, I simply cant relate to the depth you find in these occurrences. It
>seems to me that they may be the directors intention (?) but they require a
>lot of faith and effort on the part of the viewer to ascribe such high
>artistic merit to so little on screen. I often wonder if it is the artistic
>types...perhaps I shoud say "artsy fartsy types"...and...sorry, dude...that
>is how I see you...have thier own language. Maybe it's even shorthand. In
>any case, I dont speak it.
It's going to be awfully hard to appreciate Fellini films *and* remain
aloof to the "artsy fartsy types" at the same time.
> I watched the entire film...almost twice if you include the commentary. And
> I do surrender myself to film in that I am always ready to believe and
> hopeful to enjoy (why else would I have loved LDV when I expected to hate
> it?)...but I dont shut down my brain. If Gel seems simplistic, it isnt a
> detached intellectual judgment, it is how I experience her character...it's
> how I see the world. You could have tossed her in a wood chipper and I
> wouldnt feel a thing. Step on a bug and see if I cry.
Here we have the problem. If you're not willing to invest yourself
emotionally, and can't generate sympathy for someone so tremendously
innocent and good-natured, then this is definitely not your film. But
I should warn you, when you get around to watching La Dolce Vita,
you're probably going to find those characters just as cardboard.
John Harkness
they're both goo-ily sentimental, and that is Fellini's worst mode.
Casanova is very strange, and City of Women is a good 80 minute movie
hiding inside one that runs 140 minutes.
John Harkness
steve
On 12-May-2004, "Tony Spadaro" <tspa...@ncmaps.rr.com> wrote:
> THen perhaps you should try them - they are much easier to follow.
But I prefer those simple films for idiots...like "Winter Light", "Rififi",
"El Bruto", "Woman in the Dunes", "Amores Perros", "Night of the Iguana"...
Get a clue, dude. Film choice isnt limited Fellini vs. commercial crap, and
I've never enjoyed commercial crap.
steve
On 12-May-2004, larry legallo <lleg...@usa.net> wrote:
> >Just looking for great films to watch. Fellini is reputed to be great so
> >I
> >am giving his films a look. If it werent for that bit of LDV, I'd be
> >ready
> >to conclude his films are of no value to me. Time is a valuable
> >commodity
> >and I dont intend to squander it on shitty films, so yes, I will keep
> >score
> >in oder to help me to pick the best films for my time and money. If I
> >dont
> >like LDV when I see the whole film, Felinni will probably be on my shit
> >list
> >forever.
>
> What I wouldn't give for a large sock with horse manure in it.
> (Sorry, Steve, couldn't resist). Seriously though, I've been
> following this thread, and I think you're looking for something in
> this film that was never meant to be there.
Hi Larry.
Sock of crap wont do you any good over the internet...and that's not
necessarily a good thing, I'm sure.
I dont feel I'm looking for anything other than a worthwhile film
experience. I'm just trying to express why La Strada doesnt seem to be it.
> Tony actually has some good things to say here (it must be the second
> Tuesday of every 5th month again, huh), so I'll just add a few
> thoughts.
Watch out, Larry. You just said something good about Gaza. Better run back
to safety like Nony the Coward (boy do I hate that guy!).
> >But how can their be "pain, anguish and sorrow" if the characters arent
> >sufficiently real? Gelsomina is about as emotionally evocative as harpo
> >marx. Shes sad, so we get a big frown. Shes happy, so a big smile
> >crawls
> >onto her face. This is simplistic and, consequently, ineffective.
>
> This seems to be your main hanging point. It's confusing because
> there are many neo-realist elelments in it, but the film is basically
> a fable, populated by abstractions, rather than "real" characters.
I have a real problem with heavily romanticized characters. In part, I
think, because the romantic elements are often intended to be endearing, yet
I usually dont see them as such.
> So as soon as you see Masina doing her Chaplin expressions, you know
> the representation of innocence, and are supposed to instantly feel
> sympathy towards her. And I think most viewers do respond that way.
Exactly...but I dont. My idea of the ultimate sympathetic character is
Molly Bloom in Ulysses. Give me a window into a persons psyche and maybe I
will respond. Plaster a silly grin or a clownish frown on a simpleton and
it means nothing to me.
> >As for the "rape"...I really take issue with that interpretation. We see
> >Zampano insist that Gel get into the wagon, and then we see him asleep
> >and
> >Gel making her sad and happy faces. How are we to conclude that she was
> >raped? How do we know the had sex at all, consensual or otherwise?
>
> Would you have gotten it if Fellini showed the wagon entering a
> tunnel?
> But really, in 1954, there wasn't much you could do to even imply
> rape. Just look at the studio release of Touch of Evil, compared to
> Welles's intended version. Even when I first saw La Strada though, I
> thought it was pretty clear form the way that he threw her into the
> wagon that they weren't going to be reading bedtime stories
OK, how do we know, for example, that she didnt voluntarily surrender
herself to his advances? I dont think it's a stretch to imagine they did
the wild thang (I suspected as much the minute he threw her in the coach)
but I question the jump to assume that and especially to go even further and
assume rape. She is a rather sheepish...lets even say accomodating person
and would conceivably lie there and let him do what he wanted. In fact,
that romanicized characterization should leave all questions open. If
Fellini is going to make her strange and enigmatic, he has to live with a
poor definition that cannot be subject to the usual assumptions. He cant
pick and choose.
And, BTW, Fellini could have done a lot more within his limitations. I
mean, compare that scene to the older woman who basically says "Do me, Zam
man! Old Italian ladies like a nice hard salami!" There was nothing subtle
there.
> It's going to be awfully hard to appreciate Fellini films *and* remain
> aloof to the "artsy fartsy types" at the same time.
Maybe that says something about the film, and that is part of my point.
> > I watched the entire film...almost twice if you include the commentary.
> > And
> > I do surrender myself to film in that I am always ready to believe and
> > hopeful to enjoy (why else would I have loved LDV when I expected to
> > hate
> > it?)...but I dont shut down my brain. If Gel seems simplistic, it isnt
> > a
> > detached intellectual judgment, it is how I experience her
> > character...it's
> > how I see the world. You could have tossed her in a wood chipper and I
> > wouldnt feel a thing. Step on a bug and see if I cry.
>
> Here we have the problem. If you're not willing to invest yourself
> emotionally, and can't generate sympathy for someone so tremendously
> innocent and good-natured, then this is definitely not your film. But
> I should warn you, when you get around to watching La Dolce Vita,
> you're probably going to find those characters just as cardboard.
I'll tell you what I saw in LDV that really drew me in. Anita Eckberg is in
the fountain and luring some guy into the water with her. He jumps in and
suddenly the water is shut down and all is strangely quiet. Aside from being
so incredibly visually stunning(!), I took that as a rather clever play on
my expectations, much like Bunuel in "Discrete Charm...". Very cool...or
did I miss the point? Well, when I see it all, I'll know...maybe.
But I am more than willing to invest my emotions in real people. Mere
innocence does not a lovable character make. In fact, innocence and good
nature arent even necessary conditions. Artsy fartsy shorthand...a smiling
simpleton:you must love her. Why does Molly Bloom bring forth such sympathy
and empathy? Shes no innocent, yet her portion of the film and the novel
brings me to tears (no kidding) every time.
steve
On 12-May-2004, farou...@hotmail.com (far out right) wrote:
> > Understood and appreciated. Why do you think I'm on my 3rd Fellini when
> > I
> > havent enjoyed one minute of any that I have seen in full? The 4th is
> > yet
> > to come, but I only have so much patience. At some point I have to
> > decide
> > if I go on or give up.
>
> i understand, but i still think you're keeping score, going for
> quantity than quality
Duh...I'm going for quantity OF quality. You and I never seem to speak the
same language.
> by which i mean you'd gain to seriously examine
> your own ideas about art and reality--and their relationship--and
> about art and the artist.
I do that all the time, Tony. I just reach different conclusions than other
people might. I've tried to bore people here with some of my thoughts on
that subject, but get little response.
> otherwise, no matter
> whereever you go, no matter how people you meet or how many sites you
> see, it'll be seem like an interminabley pointless and strange
> culture, not worthy of your attention.
Well, I dont think that's whats happening here. You seem to be assuming
that if I dont dig Fellini, I must be missing the point. Maybe the point
isnt well made or maybe the subject matter is trivial or trvialized. I can
only experince and explore the art. I cant assume it has value because
others say so.
> i don't doubt your
> seriousness and good faith. but, judging from your observations on
> ricci of bicycle thieves, i think you expect everyone to think like a
> libertarian american.
Tony, you dont understand me. But I wont revisit that discussion.
Part of why it is interesting to talk to you (that's right, ramp-f-ers, you
heard me) when you are sincere is that you and I see things so fundamentally
differently.
I often wonder why you so often choose bullshit over real discourse. Do you
have so little respect for the rest of us that you assume real discussion is
pointless? Do you find these real discussions uninteresting? Seriously,
dude, why so many vapid and insulting threads when you clearly have
something to say (even though I generally disagree) about film?
> you a john simon fan by any chance?
Dont know the name.
> > I understand your point, but the goal of good commentary is not to make
> > the
> > film greater, but to provide information that is outside the film.
> > Listen
> > to the commentary on "Seven Samurai".
>
> i listened to some of it and it was instructive. but, i felt like
> someone was intruding on MY vision, love, and understanding of the
> film. i don't feel this way when i read reviews afterwards; it's just
> a personal pet peeve of mine; i can't stand commentary accompanying
> the movie.
I understand perfectly. Combining commentary with the film images is a
bastardization, to be sure.
BTW, dont you love the insightful comments some of those tracks include,
like "OK, here is where we first see Samuel Jackson". Jesus, if you're
going to do a commentary, prepare some fucking remarks!
> i can't imagine kurosawa himself
> commenting on his movies. or kubrick, or bergman.
> i can't imagine dylan offering an audio option on cds where he
> explains the meaning of his songs. in the case of godard, who wanted
> to strip cinema naked and expose its machinations, it was
> understandable. but, art is mostly about organic construction. artists
> should create and let us deal with the sublimely mysterious creature
> they've created.
Excellent point, Tony.
Gotta get to work. See you.
dobe...@dropsocal.rr.com
>I have a real problem with heavily romanticized characters.
Other films of major stature that you probably wouldn't (or don't)
like are "The Children of Paradise," "Beauty & the Beast," "Way Down
East," "City Lights," "Mr. Deeds Goes to Town," "The Night of the
Hunter," "The African Queen," "Rebecca," "The Tales of Hoffmann,"
"Menilmontant," "Le Million," "Forbidden Games," "Miracle in Milan,"
"Shoeshine," "Earth" & "Top Hat." Each has, to varying degrees,
elements of whimsy & romantic fable, explicit in story &
characterization or implied in tone, & none is overtly the type of
comedy you've said you enjoyed.
>Why does Molly Bloom bring forth such sympathy
>and empathy? Shes no innocent, yet her portion of the film and the novel
>brings me to tears (no kidding) every time.
Why should her final affirmation of life upset you?
steve
On 12-May-2004, dobe...@DROPsocal.rr.com wrote:
> >I have a real problem with heavily romanticized characters.
>
> Other films of major stature that you probably wouldn't (or don't)
> like are "The Children of Paradise," "Beauty & the Beast," "Way Down
> East," "City Lights," "Mr. Deeds Goes to Town," "The Night of the
> Hunter," "The African Queen," "Rebecca," "The Tales of Hoffmann,"
> "Menilmontant," "Le Million," "Forbidden Games," "Miracle in Milan,"
> "Shoeshine," "Earth" & "Top Hat." Each has, to varying degrees,
> elements of whimsy & romantic fable, explicit in story &
> characterization or implied in tone, & none is overtly the type of
> comedy you've said you enjoyed.
Close. I've seen 3 of these: Mr Deeds, NIght of the Hunter, and African
Queen and hated the last two. Actually I loved the first 20 minutes of
African Queen but it quickly went in the crapper. Comedy is a different
animal with few limitations.
> >Why does Molly Bloom bring forth such sympathy
> >and empathy? Shes no innocent, yet her portion of the film and the novel
> >brings me to tears (no kidding) every time.
>
> Why should her final affirmation of life upset you?
It doesnt. It overwhelms me and a host of complex emotions rush in and cant
be held in check. I suspect that if I could explain it, it probably wouldnt
happen.
"There's nothing like a hot kiss right down to your soul."
(forgive me if the quote is approximate)
Tony Spadaro
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"steve" <st...@steve.com> wrote in message
news:40a22508$0$3023$61fe...@news.rcn.com...
larry legallo
>On 12-May-2004, larry legallo <lleg...@usa.net> wrote:
>
>> What I wouldn't give for a large sock with horse manure in it.
>> (Sorry, Steve, couldn't resist). Seriously though, I've been
>> following this thread, and I think you're looking for something in
>> this film that was never meant to be there.
>
>
>Sock of crap wont do you any good over the internet...and that's not
>necessarily a good thing, I'm sure.
I was just being silly. That's a line Woody Allen used about a
Fellini-basher in Annie Hall.
>I dont feel I'm looking for anything other than a worthwhile film
>experience. I'm just trying to express why La Strada doesnt seem to be it.
Yeah, I wouldn't think it would be your cup of tea. But then, I can't
figure out your taste for anything.
>OK, how do we know, for example, that she didnt voluntarily surrender
>herself to his advances? I dont think it's a stretch to imagine they did
>the wild thang (I suspected as much the minute he threw her in the coach)
>but I question the jump to assume that and especially to go even further and
>assume rape.
Don't worry about the implicit rape. It's really used just to magnify
his terrible treatment of her, of which they are plenty more explicit
exapmles anyway.
>And, BTW, Fellini could have done a lot more within his limitations. I
>mean, compare that scene to the older woman who basically says "Do me, Zam
>man! Old Italian ladies like a nice hard salami!" There was nothing subtle
>there.
With seduction and consentual sex, it was easier to be more overtly
suggestive. Rape was really a taboo subject at that time.
>But I am more than willing to invest my emotions in real people. Mere
>innocence does not a lovable character make. In fact, innocence and good
>nature arent even necessary conditions. Artsy fartsy shorthand...a smiling
>simpleton:you must love her. Why does Molly Bloom bring forth such sympathy
>and empathy? Shes no innocent, yet her portion of the film and the novel
>brings me to tears (no kidding) every time.
But La Strada is *about* innocence, and how it can transcend
brutishness, so Gelsomina's character and Masina's performance have to
be simplistic and....well, innocent.
steve
On 13-May-2004, larry legallo <lleg...@usa.net> wrote:
> >Sock of crap wont do you any good over the internet...and that's not
> >necessarily a good thing, I'm sure.
>
> I was just being silly. That's a line Woody Allen used about a
> Fellini-basher in Annie Hall.
Oh yea...I remember that.
> >I dont feel I'm looking for anything other than a worthwhile film
> >experience. I'm just trying to express why La Strada doesnt seem to be
> >it.
>
> Yeah, I wouldn't think it would be your cup of tea. But then, I can't
> figure out your taste for anything.
Shit. That's annoying because I've been hearing it all my fucking life.
My family even complains thay cant buy me gifts. In high school and college
it was "How can you like this music *and* that music", or "if you like this
music why dont you like that"? From that I concluded long ago that most
peoples likes and dislikes are based largely upon superficial
qualities...but I doubt that applies to this bunch. So...
...are others here more predictable? Think I might start a thread on that.
"Guess who likes it and who hates it."
> >And, BTW, Fellini could have done a lot more within his limitations. I
> >mean, compare that scene to the older woman who basically says "Do me,
> >Zam
> >man! Old Italian ladies like a nice hard salami!" There was nothing
> >subtle
> >there.
>
> With seduction and consentual sex, it was easier to be more overtly
> suggestive. Rape was really a taboo subject at that time.
Even in European cinema?
> >But I am more than willing to invest my emotions in real people. Mere
> >innocence does not a lovable character make. In fact, innocence and good
> >nature arent even necessary conditions. Artsy fartsy shorthand...a
> >smiling
> >simpleton:you must love her. Why does Molly Bloom bring forth such
> >sympathy
> >and empathy? Shes no innocent, yet her portion of the film and the novel
> >brings me to tears (no kidding) every time.
>
> But La Strada is *about* innocence, and how it can transcend
> brutishness, so Gelsomina's character and Masina's performance have to
> be simplistic and....well, innocent.
But innocence doesnt have to be simplistic. Gel is probably Fellini's (and
those who like this film) romantic version of the ultimate innocent, I
suppose.
dobe...@dropsocal.rr.com
>...are others here more predictable? Think I might start a thread on that.
>"Guess who likes it and who hates it."
That might be fun! Guess who likes what, steve. Then, when we say that
we think "Night of the Iguana" is a lousy movie, you can call US the
philistine & berate us for being prosaic & not seeing the forest for
the trees, &c. &c.
>But innocence doesnt have to be simplistic. Gel is probably Fellini's (and
>those who like this film) romantic version of the ultimate innocent, I
>suppose.
A lot of people like this movie but feel nonetheless that the Masina
character is simpering & unattractive -- Pauline Kael used to refer to
these characters derogatorily as "beauty-of-pathos stuff."
Incidentally, you probably want to avoid Fellini's "Nights of
Cabiria," which I think (someone will undoubtedly correct me) contains
an episode with Masina & a similar character. I think that whole
Masina shtick was expanded for "La Strada."
steve
On 13-May-2004, dobe...@DROPsocal.rr.com wrote:
> >...are others here more predictable? Think I might start a thread on
> >that.
> >"Guess who likes it and who hates it."
>
> That might be fun! Guess who likes what, steve. Then, when we say that
> we think "Night of the Iguana" is a lousy movie, you can call US the
> philistine & berate us for being prosaic & not seeing the forest for
> the trees, &c. &c.
Well...right off the bat I'd say I would never guess you didnt like that
film...if that is, indeed, the case...is it?
But the idea is more for YOU to guess the opinions of Sutpen, Madkev, Gaza,
Sawdude, Stacia, Larry the liberal (heh heh), Dober...(oh yea, that's you),
Bobby K, Tony (bust my balls) Spadaro...etc.
Ahh it's probably too much work. Unless people express interest..anyone?
Tom Sutpen
>Well...right off the bat I'd say I would never guess you didnt like that
>film...if that is, indeed, the case...is it?
*****
Hey, Steve...
Well, I like "Night of the Iguana" too (one of the few, really effective
Tennessee Williams adaptations to reach the screen), so I'd never label you a
philistine for that.
"La Strada", on the other hand . . .
It's odd. I can't really disagree with much of what you say about the
movie, and yet I like it probably as much as anyone here. You'd probably need a
search party to locate my rationale, though.
>
>But the idea is more for YOU to guess the opinions of Sutpen, Madkev, Gaza,
>Sawdude, Stacia, Larry the liberal (heh heh), Dober...(oh yea, that's you),
>Bobby K, Tony (bust my balls) Spadaro...etc.
>
>Ahh it's probably too much work. Unless people express interest..anyone?
*****
Damn. Count me in. "Guess Who Likes (or Dislikes) What". Each one of us
assumes 5-10 (or even more) movies per regular, and then see where we all land.
Good way of measuring, as well as clarifying, the tastes of the 'ramp-f' regs,
if nothing else.
Excellent idea, Steve.
Tom Sutpen
"Cinema is Truth, 24 Times a Second"
-- Jean-Luc Godard
"The Truth is 'what is'. And 'what should be' is a fantasy; a terrible,
terrible lie that someone gave the people long ago".
-- Lenny Bruce
steve
On 13-May-2004, akir...@aol.commintern (Tom Sutpen) wrote:
> Hey, Steve...
>
> Well, I like "Night of the Iguana" too (one of the few, really
> effective
> Tennessee Williams adaptations to reach the screen), so I'd never label
> you a
> philistine for that.
>
> "La Strada", on the other hand . . .
>
> It's odd. I can't really disagree with much of what you say about the
> movie, and yet I like it probably as much as anyone here. You'd probably
> need a
> search party to locate my rationale, though.
Hi Tom, dude.
I would have guessed that one (La Strada) but only based on your "Fellini
Rocks" comment. If not for that, I would have pegged you on my side. Send
out the search party and see if Zampano kills them.
> Damn. Count me in. "Guess Who Likes (or Dislikes) What". Each one of
> us
> assumes 5-10 (or even more) movies per regular, and then see where we all
> land.
> Good way of measuring, as well as clarifying, the tastes of the 'ramp-f'
> regs,
> if nothing else.
>
> Excellent idea, Steve.
OK. I'll start throwing things up tonight or tomorrow. Lets see...what
does Tom like...hmmmm...
far out right
> > So as soon as you see Masina doing her Chaplin expressions, you know
> > the representation of innocence, and are supposed to instantly feel
> > sympathy towards her. And I think most viewers do respond that way.
>
> Exactly...but I dont. My idea of the ultimate sympathetic character is
> Molly Bloom in Ulysses. Give me a window into a persons psyche and maybe I
> will respond. Plaster a silly grin or a clownish frown on a simpleton and
> it means nothing to me.
>
you read ulysses? i couldn't get past the first page; not a value
judgment/i just didn't get it. i mean what the hell...
i hear finnegan's wake is even more trippy.
far out right
> "steve" <st...@steve.com> wrote:
>
> >I have a real problem with heavily romanticized characters.
>
> Other films of major stature that you probably wouldn't (or don't)
> like are "The Children of Paradise," "Beauty & the Beast," "Way Down
> East," "City Lights," "Mr. Deeds Goes to Town," "The Night of the
> Hunter," "The African Queen," "Rebecca," "The Tales of Hoffmann,"
> "Menilmontant," "Le Million," "Forbidden Games," "Miracle in Milan,"
> "Shoeshine," "Earth" & "Top Hat." Each has, to varying degrees,
> elements of whimsy & romantic fable, explicit in story &
> characterization or implied in tone, & none is overtly the type of
> comedy you've said you enjoyed.
>
steve is strange. you'd think he wouldn't like woman in the dunes
either--slow, artsy, elliptical--but he likes it.
far out right
> I often wonder why you so often choose bullshit over real discourse. Do you
> have so little respect for the rest of us that you assume real discussion is
> pointless? Do you find these real discussions uninteresting? Seriously,
> dude, why so many vapid and insulting threads when you clearly have
> something to say (even though I generally disagree) about film?
like you said, we are different. what may seem bullshit to you is
serious to me. sometimes i'd rather discuss nonmovie stuff with movie
people. besides, movies are about life so why limit discussion to
reality only shown in movies when the movie industry is monopolized by
louts?
>
> > you a john simon fan by any chance?
>
> Dont know the name.
go to the library and check him out.
i think you'll like his style if not his views.
he loved to go for the jugular, like you. man, he could be vicious,
like a sacrificial priest. spilling blood in the name of art.
>
steve
On 13-May-2004, farou...@hotmail.com (far out right) wrote:
> > I often wonder why you so often choose bullshit over real discourse. Do
> > you
> > have so little respect for the rest of us that you assume real
> > discussion is
> > pointless? Do you find these real discussions uninteresting? Seriously,
> > dude, why so many vapid and insulting threads when you clearly have
> > something to say (even though I generally disagree) about film?
>
> like you said, we are different. what may seem bullshit to you is
> serious to me. sometimes i'd rather discuss nonmovie stuff with movie
> people. besides, movies are about life so why limit discussion to
> reality only shown in movies when the movie industry is monopolized by
> louts?
Oh, come on now. Some of your threads are silly in the extreme. I simply
dont believe you.
> go to the library and check him out.
> i think you'll like his style if not his views.
> he loved to go for the jugular, like you. man, he could be vicious,
> like a sacrificial priest. spilling blood in the name of art.
I go for the jugular? News to me, man. I think I give what I get and no
more when it comes to aggression on line.
..and I dont go to libraries.
steve
On 13-May-2004, farou...@hotmail.com (far out right) wrote:
> steve is strange. you'd think he wouldn't like woman in the dunes
> either--slow, artsy, elliptical--but he likes it.
One of my favorite films. Top 10, in fact. We should discuss it some time.
steve
On 13-May-2004, farou...@hotmail.com (far out right) wrote:
> > Exactly...but I dont. My idea of the ultimate sympathetic character is
> > Molly Bloom in Ulysses. Give me a window into a persons psyche and
> > maybe I
> > will respond. Plaster a silly grin or a clownish frown on a simpleton
> > and
> > it means nothing to me.
> >
>
> you read ulysses? i couldn't get past the first page; not a value
> judgment/i just didn't get it. i mean what the hell...
I've read the first half or so 3 times, and the final 15-20 pages once or
twice. I never seem to stay on a reading jag long enough to finish it.
Grand Inquisitor
> Grand Inquisitor <zo...@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message news:<mpWnc.117549$Vp5....@fe2.columbus.rr.com>...
>
>>Try:
>>
>>8 1/2
>>Juliette of the Spirits
>>Ginger and Fred
>>And the Ship Sails On
>
>
> Oh, lordy.
>
> Three of Fellini's four worst films in one nasty candy colored package.
>
> Try I Vittelloni and The White Sheik
>
> John Harkness
Boy, I thought you had bad taste before.
--
"Don't ask me, I'm just a girl!"
--Hilary Clinton
Grand Inquisitor
http://www.dvdprofiler.com/mycollection.asp?alias=Oost
madkevin
"far out right" <farou...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9568b3fc.0405...@posting.google.com...
> like you said, we are different. what may seem bullshit to you is
> serious to me. sometimes i'd rather discuss nonmovie stuff with movie
> people.
Like how evil blacks and homosexuals are, for example.
Kevin "Back In The Garage With My Bullshit Detector" Cogliano
dobe...@dropsocal.rr.com
>> you read ulysses? i couldn't get past the first page; not a value
>> judgment/i just didn't get it. i mean what the hell...
>
>I've read the first half or so 3 times, and the final 15-20 pages once or
>twice. I never seem to stay on a reading jag long enough to finish it.
Just flip the disc & check out the "commentary": "James Joyce's
'Ulysses' " by Stuart Gilbert, first published in 1930 & still in
print.
"Send us, bright one, light one, Horhorn, quickening & wombfruit. Send
us, bright one, light one, Horhorn, quickening & wombfruit. Send us,
bright one, light one, Horhorn, quickening & wombfruit.
"Hoopsa, boyaboy, hoopsa! Hoopsa, boyaboy, hoopsa! Hoopsa, boyaboy,
hoopsa!"
And remember, steve, Ireland is the old sow that eats her farrow.
Heynony
> you read ulysses? i couldn't get past the first page; not a value
> judgment/i just didn't get it. i mean what the hell...
>
> i hear finnegan's wake is even more trippy.
Perfect. Nailed it. I see that caricature is among your talents.
I would have written "ullyseze" to demonstrate just how unimportant I
consider both the material and audience, but that might have been
overkill.
I've been ignoring your stuff here for many years, every once in awhile
just barely half paying attention, but in retrospect I now see you are
capable of excellent writing. When you speak of movies, it's clear
you've actually seen them, I mean _seen_ them. Plus there's
intelligence, structure, even eloquence.
Who the hell are you, and why aren't you somebody? What are the top ten
reasons you decided to become a practicing asshole instead of the
person you were clearly intended to be?
Or am I misinterpreting the first teetering steps in the infancy of
what will some day develop into a modern, massive, Swiftian epic?
madkevin
"Heynony" <nos...@noway.com> wrote in message
news:140520042150139258%nos...@noway.com...
> Who the hell are you, and why aren't you somebody? What are the top ten
> reasons you decided to become a practicing asshole instead of the
> person you were clearly intended to be?
If you spent as much time throwing shit as Gaza does, you might discover that
some of it is bound to stick. But it's a mistake to interpret the random stains
of Gaza as proof of an actual thought process; it isn't.
Kevin "Mother Nature" Cogliano
unglued
> OK, aside from the hour or so of "Dolce Vita" that really blew my hair back,
> Fellini is now a dismal 0 for 3 on my scorecard. I'm going to wait for LDV
> on DVD before I watch another by this director. I am, however, already 15
> minutes into the La Strada commentary. I really want to know why Fellini is
> held in such high regard. So far, the commentary isnt helping. Ditto for
> the Scorsese introduction.
>
> I see the bit of a cool, neo-realist look in the film, but the film is light
> years from realism. And lets get it straight up front that I understand
> that realism is not the intention.
>
> The two main characters are cardboard cutouts. Gelsomina has some enigmatic
> qualities, but, when taken together with her simplistic (rather than
> child-like) persona they fail to flesh her out. Zampano is not sub human so
> much as inhuman. He displays no element of human capacity, rather he is
> merely a brutal clown. Clearly they are not intended to be credible
> portrayals of a realistic human beings, so I must assume they are
> representative in some other way.
>
> But if they are not real flesh and blood, how can they invoke sympathy or
> empathy? How can they be representative of the human condition? Is this
> film intended as an intellectual exercize, or is it intended to convey some
> truth on an emotional level? And isnt the latter what seperates art from
> advocacy?
For what it's worth, I think you're judging his films with the linear
narrative ruler that Hollywood films are judged by, whereas in a
Fellini film the narrative is a vehicle to present a barrage of
emotional effects delivered from the background by secondary
characters. You just have to approach the films as you would a
carnival, the fun is not in the forward flow of the carnival but
what's going on around you (aside from your own activities of course)
>
> steve
steve
On 14-May-2004, Heynony <nos...@noway.com> wrote:
> Perfect. Nailed it. I see that caricature is among your talents.
>
> I would have written "ullyseze" to demonstrate just how unimportant I
> consider both the material and audience, but that might have been
> overkill.
>
> I've been ignoring your stuff here for many years, every once in awhile
> just barely half paying attention, but in retrospect I now see you are
> capable of excellent writing.
Man, but you are one passive aggressive fuck! You're good at it too, but I
see through you.
First you were afraid the popular kids saw you hanging with one of the
unpopular kids, so you backed off. But you were caught(!), so now you are
trying to rewrite the history. "In retrospect..." Bullshit, Nony. You're
dishonest as well as a coward!
Gaza says I go for the jugular, but in your case (at least) you slit your
own throat. I'm just mutilating the corpse.
angel
>
> On 10-May-2004, "angel" <peeny07n...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > I see the bit of a cool, neo-realist look in the film, but the film is
> > light
> > > years from realism. And lets get it straight up front that I
understand
> > > that realism is not the intention.
> >
> > from
> > the Left who called it a betrayal of Neo Realism (whatever that is). In
> > fact, its release prompted one commentator to write about the "crisis of
> > Neo
> > Realism" and how films such as "La Strada" signalled is death knell.
>
> I find such reactions somewhat quite comical. A new use of a style doesnt
> invalidate or preclude the original. Critics with too much time?
Man I hate work! Sorry about the delay in getting back.
There is actually a funny scene in "La Dolce Vita" if i remember correctly,
where Ekberg's character is being interviewed by the Italian press and one
of the questions she was asked was something alone the lines of "do you
believe Neo Realism still relevant today?" The translator turns to her and
says "Just say yes!" I saw that as Fellini (amongst other things) answering
those critics.
, and gelsomina is a meaningless
> collection of inconsistent and pointless quirks. None are human.
One slight area of agreement I had with you was in Masina's performance as
Gelsomina (but that was only the performance and not her character).
Personally, I
felt she did occasionally overplay the Chaplin-esque stylisations
(particularly at the beginning). She also seemed at first slightly too old
for a part more suited to a ingénue, (but it was his old lady after all and
he probably had no choice!). If I'm honest though, this was a minor quibble
and not a major reservation because she did get better and as her character
developed and grew, her performance became really effective and affecting.
BUB 209
reviewer, that doesn't mean I can't
intensely enjoy a movie just the same
way I don't know much about music
but love Shostakovich. But of the
Italian movies I've seen, there aren't
many that stand out for their plots.
Fellini, however, was an unforgettable
image maker in my view. For instance,
I would watch "Roma" again just for
the scene where the soulful little guy
is playing the accordion as the ship
comes in.
madkevin
"BUB 209" <bub...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040523124023...@mb-m28.aol.com...
Mind you, a "movie reviewer" might know that the scene you're talking about is
actually in "Amacord", and not "Roma".
Kevin "Dammit" Cogliano
last bingo in texas
it's a recurring image in fellini movies. it might be in both.
last bingo in texas
out of libertarian principles? they do soak up much of your tax dollars.
madkevin
"last bingo in texas" <lastbin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c531cab7.04052...@posting.google.com...
> > Mind you, a "movie reviewer" might know that the scene you're talking about
is
> > actually in "Amacord", and not "Roma".
> >
> > Kevin "Dammit" Cogliano
>
> it's a recurring image in fellini movies. it might be in both.
It might be, but it isn't. Next time, ask the video store clerk to fast forward
through a few Fellini movies for you.
Kevin "FF" Cogliano
BUB 209
I'll rent "Amacord," not "Roma," for
that scene.
steve
On 24-May-2004, lastbin...@hotmail.com (last bingo in texas) wrote:
> >
> > ..and I dont go to libraries.
> >
>
> out of libertarian principles? they do soak up much of your tax dollars.
Exactly.
Not only that, they seem to be some sort of sacred temples to the liberal
elite.
dobe...@dropsocal.rr.com
>> > ..and I dont go to libraries.
>>
>> out of libertarian principles? they do soak up much of your tax dollars.
>
>Exactly.
>
>Not only that, they seem to be some sort of sacred temples to the liberal
>elite.
Oddly enough, Liberals don't go to libraries -- at least not the
neighborhood/community variety. Those are bastions of whispering
bourgeoisie.
steve
On 25-May-2004, dobe...@DROPsocal.rr.com wrote:
> >Not only that, they seem to be some sort of sacred temples to the liberal
> >elite.
>
> Oddly enough, Liberals don't go to libraries -- at least not the
> neighborhood/community variety. Those are bastions of whispering
> bourgeoisie.
But they (liberals) sure defend them (libraries) if someone suggests a cut
in public funding.
last bingo in texas
> On 24-May-2004, lastbin...@hotmail.com (last bingo in texas) wrote:
>
> > >
> > > ..and I dont go to libraries.
> > >
> >
> > out of libertarian principles? they do soak up much of your tax dollars.
>
> Exactly.
>
> Not only that, they seem to be some sort of sacred temples to the liberal
> elite.
just out of curiosity, do you want public libraries banned?
i suppose private libraries is a workable idea. too much funding for
libraries goes towards acquiring stupid items like bestseller novels,
idiot magazines, and dumb hollywood movies. in fact, i'd say foreign
or art cinema makes up maybe 5%(if that)in your average library while
they often carry five copies of 'old school'.
still, public library IS my temple.
if i had mucho dinero and if my hearing were any better, i'd probably
attend classical concerts and maybe theatre once in awhile. never
heard live classical music and i think i went to theatre once, back in
5th grade.
last bingo in texas
it's funny but you seem to be only one who's reading every single one of my posts.
you're a mean but faithful dog. here's wishbone. woof.
last bingo in texas
so what do you want next? purina or alpo? woof.
last bingo in texas
i'm getting confused. steve: library liberal temple. dober: liberal
no go library.
what are these assumptions based on?
most librarians seem to be liberal types though.
madkevin
"last bingo in texas" <lastbin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c531cab7.04052...@posting.google.com...
> it's funny but you seem to be only one who's reading every single one of my
posts.
> you're a mean but faithful dog. here's wishbone. woof.
Translation: Why is Kevin always so mean to me, just because I pretend to know
stuff about movies I've never seen?
Kevin "Mote, Beam" Cogliano
madkevin
"last bingo in texas" <lastbin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c531cab7.04052...@posting.google.com...
Christ, Gaza, I wrote that over ten days ago. If you've got a little crush
developing, it'll only end in heartache.
Kevin "Goin' To The Chapel" Cogliano
madkevin
> Not only that, they seem to be some sort of sacred temples to the liberal
> elite.
That is absolutely the funniest thing I've ever read. Damn those liberal elite,
what with their book learnin' 'n' such! It's a conspiracy, I tells ya!
Kevin "Does That Sky Look Any Closer To You?" Cogliano
dobe...@dropsocal.rr.com
>> >Not only that, they seem to be some sort of sacred temples to the liberal
>> >elite.
>>
>> Oddly enough, Liberals don't go to libraries -- at least not the
>> neighborhood/community variety. Those are bastions of whispering
>> bourgeoisie.
>
>i'm getting confused. steve: library liberal temple. dober: liberal
>no go library.
>
>what are these assumptions based on?
Observation. I don't see any inherent contradiction. Steve said that
libraries are the sacred temples in the eyes of the liberal elite.
What he means is that the idea of the library is a sacred temple. I
said, or implied, that it's odd that the liberal elite don't use their
neighborhood libraries often, if at all. When you go to your community
library (assuming you can get there while it's still open for the
week), you see a bunch of sticky middle-class kids, many of which are
being dragged around by their booboisie parents.
>most librarians seem to be liberal types though.
The old ladies with the pince-nez & the glare?! They're examples of
what Bertrand Russell called "nice people."
Sorry for using the "liberal elite" phrase, but I don't want to bother
switching terms mid-thread, even if I could think of something
equivalent but less incendiary.