Offtopic, an early-ish film that impressed me is ‘The Rules of the Game’ (‘La Règle du Jeu’) by Jean Renoir, from 1939. I somehow stumbled across it long ago, and recently had to wade through Wikipedia looking for its name, because I realized how alive it was for its time—it's basically ‘French new wave’ before even the WW2, and does quite much remind of Fellini. Maybe I'm watching too few pre-war films, but e.g. ‘Citizen Kane’ looks rather stilted compared to ‘The Rules of the Game’.
Apparently the picture was originally poorly received and quickly recut to a shorter time, but reconstructed in the 50s back to 110 minutes—so it's best to make sure to see this version.
One other, even earlier film that has the same lifelike quality for me is ‘Man with a Movie Camera’ by Dziga Vertov, which is not even a fiction film per se but sort of a documentary. Originally a silent film, but now best enjoyed with the soundtrack by Cinematic Orchestra: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGYZ5847FiI
P.S. Wim Wenders said in his quasi-documentary ‘Tokyo-Ga’ about director Yasujiro Ozu, that previously films were about life as it is, as opposed to now that both life and films feel more and more like dreams. That's the impression that I get most from European films from around the 50s and the 60s: French new wave, Fellini, Bergman—even though Fellini constantly swerved into the territory of fantasies. ‘The Rules of the Game’ is also in this company for me.
For me, "Fellini Satyricon" is his most remarkable film, even if not his greatest and certainly not his most popular. No film about the Roman world has conveyed so graphically what must have been the actual, enormous strangeness of classical times. It's a disturbing film, both a picaresque sex comedy and a nightmare of everyday superstition and casual violence.
In comparison, the most famous works of cinema about ancient Rome -- Ben-Hur, Spartacus, I Claudius, and so forth -- are laughably sanitized and similar to our own world, which is the common failing of most historical drama of course. Fellini ditched the convention by, among other things, staying extremely faithful to the original source. The Satyricon of Petronius Arbiter is a jolting and bizarre read. A lot of the humor and wordplay, I'm told, is lost in translation.
Visually, Satyricon was one of the most beautiful films I've ever seen in my life, but also one of the most boring.
If you're looking for films full of sex and violence in ancient Rome watch Caligula[1] (starring, appropriately, Malcom McDowell in a role not too different from the one he played in A Clockwork Orange). Unfortunately, apart from the sex and violence this film doesn't have much going for it. But I'd still rate it far higher than Satyricon, except on the visual level, where the latter film has few equals.
I can't imagine calling Satyricon boring. Kidnapping a young hermaphrodite cult figure? A tour of Roman tenements? A pink sand villa? A raucous dinner party? It's unforgettable.
I also loved that the jumbled, hallucinatory cinematography of Satyricon matches how we have only fragments of the text and whole portions are lost or exist only as a scant few lines
Ah, seeing an old friend on HN in the evening! I recently bought the Essential Fellini collection mentioned here (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B08FPJLQ4T, I great way to spend $170).
Although briefly touched here, he was surrounded by talent that boosted his vision: Giulietta Masina, Nino Rota, and, of course, Mastroianni. 8 1/2 is beyond words; for some reason I still tear up in the "circus ring" finale, but I watch it on YouTube every couple of months (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvrcRSvpI78), it is so sad and yet refreshing in some sense (I had an outfit like that when I was a kid, but it was blue!) Little known fact: Barbara Steele (of Black Sunday fame, this movie plays in the background in a scene in Matrix 2, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sunday_(1960_film)), who plays a sweet young thing in the movie, was dubbed, because her own voice was not found feminine enough :-)
I also love "La Città Delle Donne", although many find it overdone; unfortunately it was not included in this essential set. The "woman hunter" depicted here is really scared to death of them.
In his The Great Movies Roger Ebert writes:
"Movies do not change, but their viewers do. When I saw La Dolce Vita in 1960, I was an adolescent for whom “the sweet life” represented everything I dreamed of: sin, exotic European glamor, the weary romance of the cynical newspaperman. When I saw it again, around 1970, I was living in a version of Marcello’s world; Chicago’s North Avenue was not the Via Veneto, but at 3 a.m. the denizens were just as colorful, and I was about Marcello’s age.
When I saw the movie around 1980, Marcello was the same age, but I was 10 years older, had stopped drinking, and saw him not as a role model but as a victim, condemned to an endless search for happiness that could never be found, not that way. By 1991, when I analyzed the film a frame at a time at the University of Colorado, Marcello seemed younger still, and while I had once admired and then criticized him, now I pitied and loved him. And when I saw the movie right after Mastroianni died, I thought that Fellini and Marcello had taken a moment of discovery and made it immortal.”
As I also love and pity Marcello when I now watch the film, I must be getting old (Ebert was 49, I'm about that age)! No worries though: now I'm having the joy of introducing them to my son.
Never connected to Fellini. Just watched the circus ring finale on your recommendation and was about to use the term overdone but you beat me to it referring to "La Città Delle Donne". So I guess I have to say it feels stagey & self-conscious. I do like the fact that these people are nicely dressed and merely good looking, as opposed to the distractingly perfect Hollywood stars of today.
My feeling about today's mainstream A movies is that the directing is top-notch, the acting is unprecedentedly good on average, the stars are charismatic in the extreme, visuals/set design etc. are better than ever, and scripts are steaming piles of shit.
Anyway, not trying to be rude, seriously--may I learn more about the appeal of Fellini to you? Just feels dated to me, even though I'm a decade older than you. I have literally been trying to like Fellini since I was in college in 1978.
I have not seen cited in the comment section my favorite Fellini's movie: "La Strada". Anthony Quinn at the end of the movie shook me in ways that only Marcello Mastroianni (by the way, someone give me a call when they find a modern movie start with one third of Mastroianni's charming ways: there won't be any need for notifications on) was able to do in "La Notte". Fellini is very Italian in a sometimes decadent, sometimes lustful way. A great director, but not Italy's best (that's Michelangelo Antonioni).
I'm not sure the circus ring finale works on its own. It's the denouement of the whole film that has been building to this point. Mastroianni is struggling with all his relationships: his work, his wife, girlfriend, producer, then he finally turns a corner and is able to celebrate his life for what it is. What I love about 8 1/2 is how the camera is always moving and spinning, taking on Mastroianni's point of view. Characters keep popping up in your face and you feel swept along with the movement. Now that I'm older, I enjoy it more than when I first saw it: it's a film about life, not just Mastroianni/Guido's problems and relationships, all the other characters have their own issues as well. But the surrealism and humor keep it from becoming a downer: when Guido's girlfriend shows up at the same cafe with his wife, Guido has to pretend he doesn't see her, but of course his wife does...awkward ! When Guido quits the film, his critic tell him he made the right decision, never mind the money, it's part of a producer's job to lose money! And when it all becomes suffocating, he climbs out of his car window and flies away.
Off-topic: It irritates me that I pay for the Criterion Channel yet several of the films in the collection you linked to and purchased are not included.
It sucks but like with any streaming site - it depends what they have permission to stream. Just because they have the rights to a Blu-ray release doesn't mean they have the rights to stream it. This is where physical discs and pirates MK files shine.
I have the same issue with Lubitsch films - Trouble in Paradise's only physical release is a Criterion DVD! Yet, it comes and goes from the Channel.
That opening truly does demonstrate how many incredible films were coming out at that period in time. I'm not a huge subscriber of the idea that modern film is truly diminished beyond repair, but the 60's and 70's were a special time. Indeed it baffles me a little that we're not experiencing a renaissance in films, what with cameras and lights being cheaper than ever. Heck, Truffaut famously argued in the Cahiers du Cinema that you could make a film for a lot less and that was in the 50's. Why not now?
The answer, of course, is distribution. Theaters are beholden to the big budget franchises and streaming deals are hard to come by unless you're playing at one of the big film festivals. Even if you taking a streaming deal, your film can slip under the radar unless someone decides to invest in a marketing budget. A Sun comes to mind: https://www.indiewire.com/2020/12/consider-this-a-sun-oscar-...
It's also that movies are just in a deadlock because there are genres/pots/movie flavours that are considered "safe". Movies that are the same old cinematography, the same old story, probably won't be a huge success, but still almost guaranteed to create a profit. This school of thought goes down even to very cheap productions.
Back in those days, before cable television, home video, and obviously streaming, movies would spend months and sometimes even years in theaters. The movies mentioned in the opening span multiple years. I guarantee one could put together a similar list of (soon to be) classics from 2017-2020 that rivals those movies from 1957-1960. Sure, it is less prestigious stuff like superhero movies that break box office records and not these classics, but that was also true at the time too. And maybe you can't see all these classics in a theater at the same time like this hypothetical New Yorker from 1959, but that is because there are so many more distribution channels today competing for "content". These new channels make these movies much more accessible to a much larger audience today than was ever possible in the past. I think this whole debate is overblown.
I'm not so sure you can find as many groundbreaking, experimental movies at the forefront of film in 2017-2020. Movies like La Notte or Hiroshima Mon Amour or Winter Light just wouldn't get distribution these days. Don't get me wrong—I agree that there's plenty of wonderful films made in the last three years. But in the 60's and 70's film was willing to be as risky and innovative and beautiful as the finest novels. I'm not sure that's true today
My taste is less arthousey so I’m not the one to make the list of modern parallels for these movies. But since you asked, here is my personal list after looking at my Letterboxd (in no particular order) Parasite, Little Women, Into the Spiderverse, Portrait of a Lady on Fire, Lady Bird, Phantom Thread, Knives Out, Annihilation, and Get Out. Almost all of those movies involve some type of unconventional approach or risk by the filmmakers. For example even something as basic as the adaption of a century and a half old book is handled in a new and innovative way unlike the countless earlier adaptations. Heck even the freaking Spider-Man movie was playing with the form in ways that no other movie has ever done before. The artistry, the evolution, and everything else is still there if you look for it.
> Indeed it baffles me a little that we're not experiencing a renaissance in films, what with cameras and lights being cheaper than ever. Heck, Truffaut famously argued in the Cahiers du Cinema that you could make a film for a lot less and that was in the 50's. Why not now?
We are. You are just not watching them. Indepent cinema is booming. They have never been as many festivals and the quality of what they screen has never been higher.
If you start looking at world cinema it's even more impressive. Nigeria now has the third largest cinema industry in the world.
The issue is not production but distribution. Good movies are made. They are just not marketed. Meanwhile, people are mostly offered American blockbusters which are at an all time low quality wise.
How many movies have you watched on YouTube? How many were new movies? YouTube is certainly a great way to distribute certain media, but for movies, it's not a good enough platform.
Not to belabor what the article already says, but I don't understand why we so readily accepted and internalized the language of the distributors: a movie, a book or a videogame are not "content". This term, in my mind, tends to sideline books, movies, etc, and put the distribution platform in the limelight instead: the streaming service, the app store. But really, who cares about them? I care about the movie, not about Netflix, Disney+ or whatnot.
I really can't understand how some of you can "suffer" through a Fellini's film. His films have always multiple levels, and there is always one funny dimension, a more philosophical level, the photography is always outstanding, there is a poetic level.
Probably some of the Fellini's irony is lost in translation:his being funny is sometimes linked to the accent of some of the characters(I am Italian) . But you have to gloss over a lot of the beauty to find him boring.
I'm not a huge fan of him. However, I enjoyed a lot Amarcord (which I probably watched 10 times or more) since I spent 3 years in Fano, quite close to where Amarcord is supposed to happen and I could really see this small society mechanisms still in place.
It's also trivially funny.
I blame over reliance on CGI. The Glut of modern Hollywood movies are terribly fake, as fake as the news, and so insincere and brain dead. I recently watched Monty Python, and the gags were all simple smoke and mirror make belief, yet more fun then the most realistic CGI.
I'm going to swim upstream with an unpopular opinion. I heard a lot about how great his films were, and suffered through watching three or so. Suffered is the right word. I hated them. I really don't know what people thought was good about them. Satyricon was probably the most awful movie I've ever seen.
Apparently the picture was originally poorly received and quickly recut to a shorter time, but reconstructed in the 50s back to 110 minutes—so it's best to make sure to see this version.
One other, even earlier film that has the same lifelike quality for me is ‘Man with a Movie Camera’ by Dziga Vertov, which is not even a fiction film per se but sort of a documentary. Originally a silent film, but now best enjoyed with the soundtrack by Cinematic Orchestra: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGYZ5847FiI
P.S. Wim Wenders said in his quasi-documentary ‘Tokyo-Ga’ about director Yasujiro Ozu, that previously films were about life as it is, as opposed to now that both life and films feel more and more like dreams. That's the impression that I get most from European films from around the 50s and the 60s: French new wave, Fellini, Bergman—even though Fellini constantly swerved into the territory of fantasies. ‘The Rules of the Game’ is also in this company for me.