To the people who love this film

[deleted]

Did you have to watch this in a film class? That sucks, man. Maybe you should change majors.


This vine is for hitting ghosts.

> What is interesting about it?

It's about being ADD (before there was such a diagnosis). It definitely seems to be a love/hate movie & my theory is that those who love it have ADD/ADHD & those who don't "get it" are "normal/conventional" people.

This is my all time favorite movie (because I relate to the Marcello's character & dilemma)...& I have been diagnosed as ADD.

1. It's highly visual. The cinematography is gorgeous. If you connect to visual images more than written word/having things spelled out for you, you are more likely to enjoy.

2. It's driven by themes that recur, not by a plot that unfolds: The contradictions & supreficiality of religion vs. the contradictions & superficiality of everyday life, the vacuity of modern life, the pursuit of beauty & how easily it slips away from us, the inability to accomplish one's goals in the face of eternal distractions (Marcello's life) vs. emptiness in the things we do accomplish (the professor's life)...

3. The swift pace and chaotic flow from one event to another without the (superficial) appearance of coherence.

"but I find it interesting that a three hour long movie that has nothing of what I love about movies can be so highly thought of."

It's highly admired work because it defines what film really is, an audio-visual art. Film is originally a form closest to photography and painting. The message and emotions is told with the images. This is what's good about this film. It's subtle, has long takes and slow pacing because everything is said in the images. The viewer just has to see. It's the opposite of a "every-man's novel" form. The latter form has influenced a film making style which doesn't rely that much on pictures as messages but rather has characters and story lines obviously dictated to the viewers by the director which makes it similar to every-man's novels. That maybe the case, La Dolce Vita is admired by those who love film as a film, you perhaps love books presented as moving pictures.

Yes, I can understand why there are people who cannot stand it. Some people just aren't going to get it, and some who do will still not like it. I get the point of Raging Bull, but dislike the movie.

To perhaps to be able to explain it better, what do you love about movies?

What interests me about the movie is the constant struggle that Marcello experiences between Emma and the "scene." Furthermore, I enjoy how Fellini shows a society in decay. I love the beach scene, especially when the partiers gather round the "monster" fish and begin to comment. If you haven't realized it before, you now realize that none of them are in touch with the "real" world. One fellow comments, "It's alive," to which one of the fishermen responds, "It's been dead for three days." These affluent people who are completely self-indulgent and self-interested know nothing of value outside of their circle. They are excessively flippant, moving from one entertainment to another in order to not be "bored."

Finally, I think the way one looks at film determines how one judges La Dolce Vita. Personally, I judge film the way I judge literature: What does it tell me about the human condition? I think La Dolce Vita tells me quite a lot about relationships, narcissism, the struggle between fleeting pleasure and true happiness, etc. However, if you judge films based on entertainment value (explosions, excitement, thrills), you will like The A-Team much more than La Dolce Vita. However (to put this in a literary context), I don't think that James Patterson is going to outlast Fyodor Dostoyevsky by any means. Therefore, while The A-Team is great fun, La Dolce Vita is great film.

Well, people don't get this movie because they don't want to think when they watch cinema, they just want amusement....

This movie is about the meaning of life, it's about how it's hard to get your life meaningful when the whole world seems so desperate and meaningless. It's about why fight for your ideals, if you gonna die one day...it's about people that wants to live, and people that don't know how to live anymore.

This movies makes us think about our life's and question why we must fight for being like ourselves, and not to be like the other's want us to be.

For those that don't understand this movie, it seems that it has no meaning (like life sometimes), for those who understand, this movie gives us a reason to live and fight.

That's how i see it.

Grazie Federico

Z10q- I think you're looking for something in the movie, that you shouldn't be looking for. It follows it's own format- hence, why the work "Fellini-esque" was coined.

You can't look at this movie as sheer entertainment. This movie is different than other films, because Fellini is speaking directly to the audience through the film itself. Marcello is an alter ego of Fellini. And Fellini makes the viewer work. They must be willing to search the details of the film in order to put together the puzzle that he created.

The story is sporadic and chaotic but very beautiful as well: A man who lives La Dolce Vita (The Sweet Life), filled with beautiful women, parties, cars, celebrities, etc. is searching for content in his life, but can't find any. It isn't Love - he doesn't love Emma, his girlfriend, who almost loves him too much. It isn't money - Maddelena has money, but she is too elusive for him to grasp. It isn't religion - in the case of the fake apparition. It isn't family - he watches his father degradation. It isn't fame - Sylvia isn't happy.

He is intrigued by two things- Steiner's philosphical lifestyle and Paola's innocence. Steiner's life is what he is striving for. To find some purpose like that. But in the end, Steiner's actions confuse him the most- sending him to an orgy-esque party, when he completely hits rock bottom.

And finally, Paola on the beach- whom he doesn't understand. He doesn't understand, because he doesn't understand her life, her purpose, or her innocence. He offers a motion of resignation and returns to La Dolce Vita.

That's my interpretation at least...

It's a matter of taste - some people like oysters, some people don't. I absolutely love this movie - I could watch it at least once a week, but my SO is completely uninterested and bored by it. Is he right and I'm wrong, or vice versa? No, we just see different things in it. He loves Cinema Paradiso, which bores the crap out of me. Is it a bad film? No, we just have different tastes in some things.

I love La Dolce Vita because I grew up in the 60's and it brings back that time to me that I loved - of the parties, the zaniness, the sense of infinite possibilities, the intellectual discussions, even the decadence. I love Marcello, I love the female characters, Anita Ekberg was a GODDESS, the film is beautifully shot, the music is phenomenal. I love the minor characters like the prostitute who lets them use her apartment. These people are ALIVE and intriguing in a way that I no longer see in movies, or maybe even in life in 2011. I would LOVE to be going to these parties, zooming around on a scooter or in Marcello's hot little car. I'd love to go to the Cha Cha club, as corny as it is. And as I get older, I understand the deep sadness of Marcello's character - that he can't find meaning or purpose or stability in anything, maybe because he has no central core himself. Religion has no meaning to him, his girlfriend is annoying and clinging, the Hollywood star is a big, vapid doll, he can't build a relationship with his aging dad, and the guy he admires most, who seems to have the PERFECT life....well...he doesn't as we see. Marcello is filled with longing and hope and maybe some envy, and nothing pans out because he doesn't have it inside himself - he can't find the meaning in all the external things around him, however glorious they may look for an instant. And that's part of the sadness of getting older - lost illusions, forsaken choices, and regret. Maybe that's why the movie doesn't seem to appeal to Americans, with their eternal tragic youth and optimism. At the end, I do believe that Marcello could still redeem himself, and that's what the young, innocent girl represents, but he decides to stay on the lower path, and that's his choice and his tragedy. Unlike Cabiria or the waif in La Strada, he's not a victim - he's an accomplice.