by Allan Fish
(Italy/France 1960 174m) DVD1/2
Aka. The Sweet Life
This isn’t love, it’s brutalisation!
p Giuseppe Arnato d Federico Fellini w Federico Fellini, Tullio Pinelli, Ennio Flaiano, Brunello Rondi, Pier Paolo Pasolini ph Otello Martelli ed Leo Cattozzo m Nino Rota (including “Toccata and Fugue” by Johann S.Bach) art/cos Piero Gherardi
Marcello Mastroianni (Marcello Rubini), Anita Ekberg (Sylvia), Anouk Aimée (Maddalena), Alain Cuny (Steiner), Yvonne Furneaux (Emma), Magali Noel (Fanny), Nadia Gray (Nadia), Lex Barker, Jacques Sernas, Laura Betti,
No other film in the European cinema has had such a cultural impact as Fellini’s classic from the turn of the sixties, a film that represented the changing of the guard; both cinematically in terms of Fellini turning from his neo-realist roots, and in terms of a new direction for the cinema itself. Without it, perhaps the later Italian masters Pasolini (who helped on the script here) and Bertolucci would not have been so welcomed.
The plot of Dolce is difficult to pin down, not least because it doesn’t follow the traditional narrative structure, rather showing us a disparate collection of sequences seen through the observant eyes of Mastroianni’s immoral paparazzi wastrel. His Marcello truly is a womanising, untrustworthy hedonistic soul who represents his era in a nutshell, and we follow him through his early encounters with a Swedish film actress through the media circus of a potential religious miracle to a truly iconic final orgy in a seaside house where anything goes and nihilism reigns.
Though his later 8½ remains Fellini’s most personal film, Dolce is undoubtedly his most influential and, though forty years on many might find it a film of its time, I rather think it gets better with age. Its theme of paparazzi invading celebrity privacy was never more potent than now, as they descend around the pneumatic Ekberg like fmoths around a light, while scenes of the upper classes failing to find amusement for themselves and resorting to hedonism ring as true today as they seemed startling then. Many will see it and see glimpses of the future Satyricon, yet it also looks back to Petronius’ ancient original, and if the glory of ancient Rome is no more, its shadow still lingers. Never was that more demonstrated than in the opening sequence with a statue of Christ being flown by helicopter over the city to St Peter’s Square; the first thing it passes is the ruins of a Roman aquaduct. For these people, this statue blends in with the ruins, the religion of Christianity now seen as past its sell by date by the cynical intelligentsia. It’s a truly great sequence and a truly multi-layered opening statement.
Yet such sequences flow through Dolce, many of them featuring that most top-heavy of European sex-symbols, Anita Ekberg; the one dimensional actress in the ultimate three dimensional body. Marcello runs after her like a schoolboy promised his first sexual experience, literally panting after her as she ascends to the balcony high up above St Peter’s. Who can forget that wonderful shot where Ekberg clutches a kitten close to her more than ample bosum, before sending Mastroianni off to find milk in the early hours and finally enticing him to an impromptu but magical shower in the Trevi fountain? It’s a moment where the cinema itself stands still (literally in the case of the camera, as dawn seems to break within seconds).
In amongst such iconic imagery, it’s easy to forget the individual contributions. Did Rome ever look more ravishing than as photographed in Cinemascope by the great Otello Martelli, or did Nina Rota ever write a more iconic score for his frequent director collaborator than here (its main tune the unforgettable accompaniment to Nadia Gray’s impromptu striptease)? Mastroianni, too, cannot be praised enough for his portrayal of the ultimately frightfully bored protagonist, who is even too bored to see when, in the final moments, a young girl gives him an escape from his nihilistic ride and he cannot take it. This society is crumbling like the Roman aqueduct, but in capturing its very essence, Fellini created the most eternal film of all those about the eternal city.
Voted for by:
Shubhajit Lahiri (no.18)
Bill Riley (no.21)
Frank Aida (no.39)
Another one of your incomparable capsule reviews that re-define the art of word economy, the most challenging type of writing. The matter of whether LA DOLCE VITA should be regarded as a comedy or even a drama with comedic elements rests in the perceptions of the voter, three of whom here feel it belongs on the countdown. Certainly there are spicy satirical underpinnings, centering around the hedonism of it’s characters, and it’s a study of modern society’s fascination with celebrity, glamour, scandal, and decadence, all transcribed amidst a mythological cultural landscape. As Allan alludes to in other words, this is an episodic film, and it’s philosophy is nihilistic. The humor would mostly emanate from all the excesses.
In any case, the wikipedia entry of the film leads off with this assertion that the film is a comedy drama:
La Dolce Vita (Italian pronunciation: [la ˈdoltʃe ˈviːta]; Italian for “the sweet life” or “the good life”)[1] is a 1960 comedy-drama film.
Trying to figure out is it is would be no easier than coming up with a cogent explanation of the film’s multiple themes.
I didn’t include this film on my list — not because I don’t think it’s a great film (I do) but because I couldn’t justify my classifying it as a comedy. While this dilemma popped up regarding several other films that nevertheless made the cut, the Fellini films in general are too often impossible to categorize.
That said, I’m glad to see it receive the attention it has received in this review, which is well written and captures well the essence of the film. I still get giddy over the scene where Ekberg keeps panting, “Marcello! Marcello!”
Point well taken Pierre. I didn’t vote it on my own list even though I love the film, because I had problems as to whether I could include it as a comedy. With you, Tony, Allan and I believe Jamie lining up against the concept I certainly won’t be offering an argument now either. But I do know that there are some out there (including the three here) that count the satire as the breaker as far as categorization. I won’t vote it as such, but can at least understand why some did.
“Comedy” is extremely subjective and exclusive to a distinct audience (of one). Personally I find something like War Horse a laugh riot myself, though many viewers probably don’t. If someone thinks La Dolce Vita is part of that pantheon, then who am I to belittle them. The Fellini movie in question seems like something other than my own interpretation of comedy, but the guidelines/definitions are different for everyone. Lists are, after all, more fun and significant as individual indications of taste than any bogus consensus truth anyway.
The in the eye of the beholder argument does not apply. What is important is the film-maker’s intent. Did Fellini intend making a comedy? No. The dominant idea behind film criticism is ascertaining how successfully the film achieved that intent. If M laughs at War Horse that is a criticism of the film not a valid categorisation.
Tony – the eye of the beholder is just as valid as the filmmaker’s intent. This point won’t be resolved anytime soon, if ever.
The point is that three individuals decided La Dolce Vida is a comedy and voted for it. We are not working by the rules of film criticism or director’s intent which you define for (only) yourself. We are following the law of WITD and genre countdowns based on individual taste and classifications. We have these disagreements every time one of these projects rolls around… is Picnic At Hanging Rock horror? Is The Seventh Victim a film noir? Everyone has their own interpretations and beliefs. I happen to agree with you that La Dolce Vita is not comedy, but it seems irrelevant to tell Shubs or Bill Riley otherwise.
. . . not to mention the fact that it’s near impossible to determine a filmmaker’s intent, since precious few of them ever divulge it.
And let me say that I probably did indulge in some of these arguments myself during the horror/noir countdowns. It seems futile, looking back, to bother telling someone else what is what.
As I was politely mentioned here I will offer a brief explanation. My definition of comedy is one that embraces slapstick, anarchy and satire. No La Dolce Vita is not for the most part ‘laugh aloud’ comedy, to say the least. But I found the satire corrosive and pointed, and believe that satire is the most meaningful type of comedy. Yes the films aches, yes, there is a melancholic current, as can be seen by Nino Rota’s contribution. And yes, I agree with those who have suggested Amarcord, The White Shiek or Otto e Mezzo as alternatives. I also believe the perception of what a comedy is can be answered by taking in the account of the filmmaker’s intention AND the audience’s interpretation. I have no issue at all with anyone who disagrees with my vote. In fact I thank them all for being so kind to address it in this discussion. It does comes down to taste, but more importantly how one person finds something funny. I found myself laughing at La Dolce Vita, even while my heart ached. I appreciated the opportunity to submit a ballot to this countdown.
I think this discussion illustrates the point that labels and categories are useful as departure points for discourse but not so useful in establishing rigid characterizations of the nature of something (or someone, for that matter).
Now THAT is a classy comment.
Great essay. La Dolce Vita is not a comedy and voting it here as such is beyond stupid. Sure there is satire but via a savage withering attack on the empty vapid existence of the Via Veneto crowd. It is not funny full stop. If you want to vote a Fellini as comedy you have Amarcord. Don’t have this masterpiece in low company at the arse-end of this countdown. It’s like voting Bicycle Thieves a comedy because you laugh at Bruno trying to have a piss, or because religion and superstition are pilloried.
I definitely agree with Tony that AMARCORD would be the best example of Fellini comedy. Another Fellini that I will admit had me rolling in parts is FELLINI SATYRICON.
The White Sheik certainly rates as a comedy, as well.
Indeed Pierre. And I would have to say that all things considered the great 81/2 can well be considered one. (and has been)
. . . and many of Joan Crawford’s movies can be viewed as comedies. . . . The list goes on. . . .
scoot, watch your tongue when broaching Miss LeSueur.
Oh I also like ‘scoot’ think Joan is a hoot. But she’s still one of my favorites.
You’re right, Bill Riley — I’d better watch what I say about Miss LeSueur else she reached out of her grave (like Sissy Spacek), and slap the piss out of me. (By the way, for reasons I don’t quite understand, Pierre de Plume and scootvanderbean are one and the same.)
I think my biggest regret about my own list is that, due to imagined peer pressure, I excluded Lolita from my list. To me, that film’s strongest element is its comedy.
When Network came out, I think people in general, and that includes AMPAS, regarded it as a powerful drama while I viewed it as a dark satire. Similarly, Fargo’s dramatic streak seemed to outweigh its comedic elements with respect to its public perception.
‘Scoot’ or ‘Pierre’, I believe the opening sequence of ‘Lolita’ with Mason finally gunning down Sellers contains some of the most outrageous and creative comedy on screen. Just that scene alone would justify it.
This is the problem with comedy. With other genres, by and large there are set criteria and conventions – location, setting, characters, etc – but with comedy, it’s broadly defined was what makes the viewer laugh. I mean, really bad films make me laugh, but they’re not comedies. I think there must be a degree of INTENT. I mean, at the time Thackeray wrote it, Vanity Fair was satire. But does that make it a comedy? No, a satirical drama with comic undertones maybe. I mean, there’s a massive amount of comedy in Dickens, but could anyone take him for a writer of comedies when the cut and thrust is to expose a tragic -out-of-sight underbelly in Georgian and Victorian Britain.
Just wanted to make an additional comment. Not only are there three people on this countdown who feel ‘La Dolce Vita’ can be interpreted as a comedy ot at least as a drama with strong comedic elements, but I have seen other essays and sites have categorized it as such. This would mean to me that the final word will always be inconclusive. “wondersinthedark” makes some excellent points.
OK, this most interesting discussion has me thinking of my visit last week to the Film Forum to see two Sirk classics, the first screening of which was Written on the Wind. The unusually boisterous audience that night was laughing well beyond the pall at a great deal of the dialogue. The hysterical assault got so intense that a young man sitting on the sixth or seventh row stood up and angrily denounced the audience screaming loudly “Shut the f_ _ k up!!! While I can hardly grant that explosion a seal of approval, I nonetheless could sympathize with his position as not only was the laughter over-the-top and sometimes inexplicable, but it made it tough to hear the dialogue. Now I would imagine that a good deal of these people would consider Written on the Wind a comedy, yet in my opinion the “satirical underpinnings” that Sirk did indeed strive for (as many film scholars have opined) should not have fully mitigated against the trenchant and tragic drama that dominated the proceedings. Or should they have? I don’t have an answer. I commend my friend Bill Riley for his most reasonably-explained vote and position.
My final position is this:
I cannot and will not compromise on artistic license when it is within reason (if someone were to call Bresson’s Au Hasard Balthazar a comedy they’d be certifiable) and I grant the voters here their say, however if Tony, Allan, Maurizio and Pierre were to sit me down and have a heart-to-heart talk about La Dolce Vita I dare say based on the persuasiveness I’ve already read here……….I’d succumb.
Oh pleez, Sam — pleez!!!! — don’t succumb!!!!! We want you! We need you!
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
“as not only was the laughter over-the-top and sometimes inexplicable,”
If we’re talking about Douglas Sirk the laughter cannot be inexplicable. The audience probably couldn’t help themselves with all the silliness in the dialogue.
Maurizio, I laughed a few times myself and know that his satire hits the mark in a way that induces laughter, sometimes uncontrollably. But you have no idea of what went on there that night. Some audience members went above and beyond, backwards and forward, up and down to laugh beyond anything acceptable for this film. It was as if they knew what Sirk was striving for in one sense and needed to accentuate it. The same people found a line in All That Heaven Can Allow a few nights before as hysterical because it ironically pointed to Rock Hudson’s real life homosexuality. I found that outburst in bad taste. The audience overdid it, as there is so much more at play here by way of dramatic themes.
Laughter is fine to a degree. This was not laughter, it was a lynching.
But mind you, these people loved the film and the director as much as I do. Sirk knew exactly what he was going for, and is now seen by many film scholars as a brilliant director. I couldn’t agree more, what with three of his films in my view five-star masterpieces:
Written on the Wind
Magnificent Obsession
All That Heaven Can Allow
Sam, I’ve never been more on your side than I am right here. People that laugh at Sirk (and granted he had a very, very darkly funny streak), and much of the melodramas of the age are being foolishly ironic and not fully understanding what is going on (either the dramas concepts or much of the acting styles of the day). People laughed at much of Mercedes McCambridge’s bits the time I saw Johnny Guitar and at first I was angry (and you’re ‘”Shut the Fuck Up!” point is applicable), than I just had pity that many would never understand much of the films power.
It’s like an essay on Pinter I once read on one of his early masterpieces (it was either for The Caretaker or The Homecoming), and there was a quote from Pinter about his audience to the effect of, yes, it’s written very humorously with very dark humor in places as a ‘comedy of menace’, but at a certain point the darkness, the seriousness of it, should take over and any person who is serious and feels anything about the world will stop laughing. The horror of it is to much to bear over mere chuckles. The giggling of unease will fully dissipate.
This has nothing to do with this films inclusion here today, more just to the slightly different thread developing here.
I will also say to be slapped by Crawford would be akin to having your portrait painted by Rembrandt. Very rarely do we get the opportunity for true artists to do their wonders onto us.
I agree wholeheartedly, jamierue! And I can’t decide which is better — a barehand slap from Miss Crawford . . . or a slap from her begloved hand. Either way, one would not want to wash one’s face for weeks to come. . . .
As far as Sirk goes, I’m just about as big a fan as anyone is that regard. I don’t find his films to be particularly funny. I enjoy the overtness of everything because of all the buried symbolism etc. I would never include Sirk in the comedy category and people that do, either think his films are a joke and silly….or they just don’t get them or both.
Either way, one would not want to wash one’s face for weeks to come. . . .
Love it!!!!!!!!!!! Ha!!!!
To wondersinthedark – while I agree that being funny (on purpose) is the main criteria for what makes a comedy, I also there are certain more or less definable genres that are classifiable as comedy, generically. The classical comedy (a marriage at the end); satire, or ironic modes; picaresque )comic journeys); parodies and travesties generally… Satire generally counts, though it can be a very bitter pill… La Dolce Vita would seem to count, though it might not be a natural fit. Though Fellini usually seems to have a certain kind of wit, exaggeration, etc. that gives all his films a comic twist.
And to Sam (and others) – I’ve been to Sirk films where the audience seems to think they are seeing an expensive version of Glen or Glenda, haw haw hawing away at every line and all the decor, as though no one in the 1950s thought of what those oil derricks would look like to a modern, sophisticated audience. Which makes them odd films to see, because they all seem shot through with some very sharp, and funny (though not the haw haw haw kind of funny), satire, multiple innuendos, and jokes. It is odd – audiences today usually seem to recognize the jokes and innuendo in Hitchcock, and assume he was in on the jokes and subtexts – but don’t seem to give Sirk the same benefit of the doubt. But he was Danish, and it was the 50s – how could he not know what he was doing?
(Speaking of which – don’t get me started on whether you’re supposed to laugh at Dreyer films. Though in a lot of these cases, the question is when to laugh and when to cry.)
@weepingsam—-I have never seen a Sirk film with an audience. Everyone’s comments to this regard today makes me not want to see it with other people. I think it would ruin my mood. I actually would probably prefer to watch them all by myself in the comfort of my home. Good point about Hitchcock getting credit for being sly…but Sirk gets laughed at.
Yes Allan, I am currently in the middle of David Copperfield and I was amazed to rediscover how droll Dickens can be, but no way is the book a comic novel.
Eddie Muller has said more than once that he is not amused by immature audiences laughing through classic films noir at theater screenings. If a serious film fan can’t immerse himself in the period then he should give it away.
@Jon: they aren’t all like that. Imitation of Life seems to draw the worst crowds – “it’s a fish!” someone helpfully informed the audience (and probably 2 blocks on either side of the theater) when Lana Turner had a marlin hung on the wall… But they aren’t all like that. The black and white ones usually seem to go pretty well – maybe the crowd there are all Sirk fans, while the more famous color ones bring out the ironists. Either way, when the print is good enough, none of the noise matters. Metty and Sirk knew their business.
B+W vs. Color is a great point I think. I saw There’s Always Tomorrow and it was about 2 dozen people in attendance that got on quite well with the picture. Plus, when it ended there was a small bit of applause, which was quite deserved I’d think as that is quite a film there.
Yes both Weeping Sam and Jamie are dead-on here as far as I am concerned. Color does indeed bring out the ironists. And I concur with WS too that IMITATION OF LIFE always attracts the most audience laughter of all the Sirks
I’m surprised that kind of audience would be at The Film Forum making a ruckus. I remember going to see the first Paranormal Activity in theaters and having many people in the crowd making fart noises and deflating any “possible” scare/tension by acting foolish. I chalked that up to a young immature demographic group attending a lame mainstream multiplex picture. I would expect audiences at your home away from home to be much better behaved Sam. But then again with Sirk I’m not surprised… I have long suspected the director’s core audience are not really sincere about the worth of his pictures overall (with some exceptions). It’s all based on irony and campiness. A highbrow Troll 2 IMO…
I have long suspected the director’s core audience are not really sincere about the worth of his pictures overall. It’s all based on irony and campiness.
Maurizio I can’t argue on that at all. Superbly reasoned and to my perceptions quite true. The Film Forum audience is traditionally sophisticated, well-behaved and incomparably tasteful but the Sirk ‘rift-raft’ if you will attended these screenings.
Yes, but this says nothing on the films content, Directors sensibility but more on the audience. Which you understand I see, but it’s an important note to make in classifying genre.
I personally don’t like Sirk very much, but not because of the actual content contained within his work. In many ways its the opposite of these unruly hipster audiences… it’s the style and execution that turn me off not the actual depth. Even something like Johnny Guitar I favor less than more subtle Ray. My sensibilities demand a certain kind of tone perhaps.
Ray is subtle, but not in the way you mean, I don’t think. Especially if JOHNNY GUITAR is being asserted as ‘unsubtle Ray’.
Most people get confused on emotional intent anytime they see the intensity of cinemascope color. There IN A LONELY PLACE or THE LUSTY MEN become ‘subtle Ray’ while JOHNNY GUITAR isn’t. When in fact all these films are overlapping and working in much the same way emotionally, pictorially, and within filmic grammar.
Cinemascope and technicolor doesn’t help, neither does Joan Crawford. But there is a definable difference in execution, melodrama, and performance between Johnny Guitar and They Live By Night. Sure the final intent is similar (same filmmaker obviously) but the tone isn’t. I personally find how a film decides to say something (mode) as relevant as what it’s actually saying.
Tone and style is different yes, but that doesn’t have much to do with degrees of subtlety. Each tone and style has its own spectrum of subtlety making the style of a Joan Crawford different than another actor, then her (Crawford) subtly is different across her career and performance. Your intermingling definitions that don’t mean the same thing, often to disparage. Which isn’t fair.
Nope…..it’s not based on irony or campiness. It’s based upon my appreciation for the symbolism for the elegant artistry for the subversion of the 1950′s for the melodrama. It’s not about camp….although there certainly can be that aspect at play.
Have to agree, this is as much a comedy as, to keep to 1960, L’Avventura or Peeping Tom. We’ll have Duck Soup as a war film at this rate.
Ha! Agreed.
I also do not think ‘La Dolce Vita’ is a comedy. Still, I am inclined to give room to those who feel otherwise. Sam, that opening ‘passing wind’ sequence in ‘Fellini Satyricon’ film is a classic.
Frank I remember that sequence well. Ha!
LDV didn’t make my list but it definitely has its funny moments. One perhaps underrated comic element of the thing is Lex Barker virtually playing himself while gleefully subverting his image as a stolid hunk. I’d say some Fellinis are funnier but I expect the countdown to confirm that. I have no problem calling LDV a comedy but I appreciate the distinctions being drawn between comedy and satire and the concern over an unintended unfairness to LDV’s achievement.
My own favorite story of inappropriate laughter may enhance the side discussion. It was a college showing of Paths of Glory at which any line that could be taken for “black humor” (e.g. “The men died well!”) was roared at. I suspect that satire in the past wasn’t expected to be laughed at as readily and heartily as it’s often laughed at now. A perception that everything’s a joke of some kind has grown over the last half-century or so that often dulls satire’s thrust. But I do think Fellini intended laughter at LDV so the categories in play aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive.
Excellent response here Samuel.
I do not consider this film a comedy in the list. I suppose I am missing something because those that voted it…voted it rather highly. My question still comes back….yes it may be funny…but was it intended? Is that the main point of the film?
Actually a better question maybe supposes that even if it is a comedy….is it a great comedy, which is basically what this list is.
Excellent point Jon.
Any kind of meaningful discourse requires some agreement on what certain descriptors mean. Context is important too.
Despite the best efforts of some here to cloud the issue, logic demands that if this countdown is to have any internal consistency, a basic imperative must be observed so that we are ranking oranges against oranges: the ballot called for votes for great comedy films – not films that have only comic elelements.
Anyone is free to think LDV is a comedy but insisting it has a rightful place in this countdown is nonsense and far worse fatally damages the integrity of the rankings.
Tony, I am relieved that in surveying the remainder of the 90 films or so to come in the countdown that there won’t to my eyes be a single further instance where a serious question could be raised as to whether a film deserves placement on the list. (naturally I did not vote for a number of them though. Ha!) You’ve made many sound points, this is undeniable. As to my own position, while I will always defend the right of any voter to include whatever films they would like to, I will back away from any contention that asserts that LA DOLCE VITA or any other film should be defended for inclusion. I will only stand by the individual voter, and not contend that the results are “rightful.” I am extremely pleased with the results of the Top 100, and can honestly say that this one placement will be the only one that comes into serious question. I am checking in from Manhattan’s Film Forum (the cafe) where Lucille and I will be watching a 9:20 P.M. screening of CASQUE D’OR on the opening day of the ‘French New Wave Festival.’
Sam, you know I am a natural contrarion
Playing the devil’s advocate is just so much fun!
Tony, Yes I follow your train of thought completely. When I was putting together my list, I only included films that I thought contained as their main element—-comedy and it had to be great at that in whatever style it took. I voted for a few films that no one else seemed to—Like Kaurismaki’s stuff. But those are indisputable comedies IMO.
Didn’t Fargo make the countdown Sam. That one can also be argued.
Maurizio….I’ve never heard anyone argue that Fargo is not a comedy. Does someone here think it isn’t???
For some it might be viewed as a crime drama with comedic elements. I know I left it off my list for this reason (and I would wager a few other people as well). While it cannot be argued that the film isn’t trying to humor it’s audience and calling it a comedy is certainly reasonable, that particular element seems secondary to me. The Big Lebowski does Fargo in reverse… a comedy with crime drama elements.
That’s a fair enough delineation Maurizio. And as you know LEBOWSKI will be appearing at some point.
I didn’t vote for it either in my top 60…if I’d had a top 100 it might have made that section of the list. If it is a crime drama….it’s a pretty funny one and it’s hard to keep a straight face when I watch it.
Speaking of Ekberg and Fellini did – a rhetorical question for obvious reasons- Bocaccio ’70 make the list? Fellini’s contribution Le tentazioni del dottor Antonio featuring the giant Ekberg billboard is brilliant AND witheringly funny!
Tony, that film did not make the list, but I completely agree with have been a wholly original and welcome choice!