the young blond girl from the restaurant

I agree with Jimbo - the young girl was interesting to him because she represented a stage in life he could never go back to, and an innocence he could never attain again. The distance between them at the end of the movie, and his inability to hear her, are both symbolic and very real.

My real name is Jeff

oh, sounds correct. Now I gotta see it again...
I guess all the comments here sound correct also.

thanks

GCH

[deleted]

I think that's meant to be the point. He refers to her as an angel, and that's what she represents in the final scene. In the end, his jaded, cynical attitude make him incapable of hearing or understanding the message she has for him. She finally ends by waving goodbye to him, as if to say, go away then, it's no use.

NIce thread here, although I have posted about this character's relevance to the film before. Jason's point and others about the importance of her not being understood by Rubini is very significant and I will get back to that. But first about the visual aspect:

While to be sure the scene is shot with editing that shows the two characters, the shots of Rubini are from an angle that does not indicate or suggest that we are seeing him through Paola's (that's her name) eyes. But she is shot from an angle that indicates we see her through Rubini's eyes. I hate to seem self important, but here it is literally easier to post a link to a thread I began on the relevance of the way Fellini shot critical scenes than to restate it. Here is the thread:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053779/board/thread/245153628

In any event it is clear to me that we are meant to see the editing in this scene, the interplay between Paola and Rubini, through his eyes, or perhaps more accurately as we the audience see the developments through the experience of Rubini's character.

Whether the inability to hear what Paola is saying means he is no longer capable of hearing her, as in he not only cannot at the moment but never will, could not even under different circumstances or at a different time, I don't think is a necessary or even preferred understanding of this scene. Yes he cannot hear her. BUt it is part of the open ended brilliance of this film and what Fellini did with it that allows for different takes on it.

I appreciate I end up bringing a combination of both a literal and idealistic pov into this in saying there is nothing about Rubini's situation that prevents him from, at some point even if not at that point, leaving the "dark path" someone else referred to that yes he does seem to be on. He is not trapped. He is not enslaved, incapable of achieving some redemption in the future. His very awareness of the nature of his then current life's limitations, the inauthentic quality of it in Existentialist terms, suggests that there is not only a way out for him. It also suggests a dissatisfaction with the path he is on.

And perhaps that very dissatisfaction will propel him to change course.

The party scene that precedes the encounter on the beach with first the sea monster and then Paola is critical. another brilliant effort on Fellini's part, on one level the party is shot with just a sufficient level of prurience and bantering dialogue to make it seem fun, sexy and interesting. We know in that regard exactly why Rubini would want to be at that party. But during the course of the party he is challenged for no longer being a real writer, a valid journalist. He is instead labeled in effect a hack, in this context the specific manifestation of his own lack of authenticity. And Rubini does not dispute the characterization, and in not disputing in effect accepts the charge.

So, what is the net effect on him? Does he say to himself, oh well who wants to be a real writer? No, in a way that is so brilliant he begins floundering, encouraging the divorcee to do a striptease, then to have assigned couples pair off, then to humiliate the girl from the mountains. But he does it in a way that shows no joy, in fact shows guilt and even a hint of remorse.

This indication of remorse is compounded at the beach. They leave the party and encounter the sea monster. This is obviously intended as a comparator to Paola, who immediately appears, in contrast to the dead creature. Monstrosity is shown as death, here at Rubini's feet, while idealism, beauty and hope, albeit in youthful an naïve form, is shown some distance away. Can be seen but not heard.

In turning away Rubini certainly gives support to those here who have a pessimistic view of that means to his life and future. But I believe the very last shot is of Paola, still there, still smiling. This is no accident. Felling is saying even if Rubini has turned away and apparently leaves the beach with his fellow partygoers, Paola is still there, and metaphorically still WILL be there, later.

There is nothing here to suggest Rubini will prefer the company of the others. Eventually he will tire of them, just as he has apparently tired of Emma. What will he do? One need not say it is definite that he will change his life and seek the good if you will, but I think that more likely than not.

Remember the party going scene follows the death of Steiner and the whole awfulness of htat together with the encounter on the street with Mrs. Steiner. This suggests he has gone to the party to lick his wounds, deal as best he can with the meaning of Steiner's life and death. Is this a permanent end for him?

THe party is bookended by Steiner's death, referenced by the dead sea monster, but also the vision of what Paola represents. The film ends with that vision. I think that is not for nothing.

No, I do not think one has to be an optimist to see the film as both open ended and holding out the possibility of Rubini's redemption.