
by Roderick Heath
Note: This review of “8 1/2″ originally appeared at ‘Ferdy-on-Films’ on September 13, 2009.
Federico Fellini’s signature opus is a film that, nearly a half-century ago, was the height of demanding modernism in the cinema. 8½ shook the landscape by challenging filmmakers to match its new, innately personal cinema spun purely out of its creator’s perspective and psyche and thereby establishing a new argot for exploring creative endeavour in movies. More loudly, too, if not necessarily more artfully, than any other director of the ground-breaking generation to create and work within Italian Neorealism, Fellini abandoned mere reportage and circumstantial study, and pushed deeply into metaphor, associative epiphany, psychology, and personal mystery, rather than analysis, explication, and the traditional demarcations of the social conscience film. He did not abandon such a conscience or method, but radically altered the way that he organised his responses to it, hunting for a way to dovetail the inner crisis with a common sense of anxiety and malaise.
An irony of this was that 8½ established its own personality cult, allowing student and commercial filmmakers, and other artists, to pinch its effects, images, and methods of realising intellectual autobiography. 8½’s inherent individuality was alchemised into public code, its pictorial quirks converted into pop art, for Fellini had a way of generating imagery that lodged in the minds of his contemporaries, as rockers like Bob Dylan and The Doors referenced his films in their songs and record covers, and Woody Allen quoted it endlessly in films like Annie Hall (1977). It’s hard to imagine other, key works by such diverse brethren as Scorsese and Coppola, Nanni Morretti, Charlie Kaufman, Bob Fosse, or Emir Kusturica without its example. 8½ was also a dividing point in Fellini’s career, after which he took up a kind of free-form fresco filmmaking, which bugged the hell out of many.
It is curious then, considering that it was a creative fount built by one of its era’s most iconic artists, that 8½ takes as its concern the theme of creative crisis—the precise loss of clear inspiration and artistic purpose. Fellini kept a sign taped to the camera during production reminding him that the film was supposed to be a comedy, and, indeed, it is a woozily funny film. But it often is underscored with an air of frantic desperation and suffocating intensity, its fumbling search for meaning and metaphor that hasn’t already been beaten to death or prostituted out to any gimmick-merchant around. Underneath its comedic surfaces, 8½ has an often grim message to communicate about the state of modern marriage, manhood, and art.
Fellini presents his troubled alter ego Guido Anselmi (Marcello Mastroianni) as a director who’s in a state of artistic, intellectual, and moral inertia even as everyone around works themselves into a frenzy. He’s given his draft screenplay to Carini (Jean Rougeul), a pompous, relentlessly critical intellectual, precisely so he will do exactly what he does with it—tear it to pieces—despite the fact that sets are being built, cast members assembled, and diplomatic paths being smoothed for proposed sequences involving the church. Guido hasn’t shown anyone else the script; the truth is he’s abandoned the project, but can’t tell anyone.
Throughout the film, Guido dips into moments of reverie, fantasy, and memory that reflect why he’s in such a state, and creep around the edges of his root anxieties. In the immortal, surreal opening, Guido dreams of being trapped in a traffic jam, dying of asphyxiation, then suddenly rising free as a kite, only to find himself still tethered to the earth, to which he falls abruptly like a stone into the sea. Later, he has a conversation with his dead father (Annibale Ninchi) and recalls a childhood filled with moments of communal joy, as when he and other kids pressed grapes in a gigantic barrel, of erotic discovery, as when he and his pals go to watch the gyrations of Seraghina (Eddra Gale), a big old beefy tart, and of forceful punishment after being caught in this act by the guardians of church morality.
These episodes are more than navel-gazing. Guido is engaged in a kind of private, psychological mystery, trying to understand his inability to unite his loving and carnal sides. He has drifted away from his wife Luisa (Anouk Aimee), whose highbrow glasses, short hair, and air of exhausted acquiescence identify her as the frazzled exemplar of the intelligent modern woman, to have an ongoing affair with a foolish but sensual married bourgeois, Carla (Sandra Milo). Several of his male friends are cheerfully hooking up with girls far younger, like his producer with his tag-along teenaged concubine, and Mario (Mario Pisu), who’s happily romping with his daughter’s school friend, the loopy Gloria (Barbara Steele).
Around Guido swirls the madhouse that is the ordinary world. He has retreated to a health spa outside Rome to try to get his wits together, but he’s been followed by the whole apparatus of the film production, including the producer Pace (Guido Alberti), whom he greets with salaams and bows. At the spa, hordes of doughy dowagers and leathery brahmins queue to blaring classical music and display humanity at its most vain, gross, and vulnerable. Guido hangs on to the most singular vision in his proposed film, of a stunningly beautiful and innocent girl (Caterina Boratto), who he wants to be played by star Claudia (Claudia Cardinale), conjuring her in moments of oppression and sadness. Carini dismisses her as an obvious symbol, but this doesn’t dispel the yearning she embodies for Guido.
The only person who withholds herself from Guido’s gravitational force, and thus remains his equal, is his wife’s sly, critical, amused friend Rossella (Rossella Falk). Guido indulges in moments of pure fantasy, as when he imagines himself casually ordering the writer’s hanging, and when he draws all the women in his life together into a dreamland harem, exiling those who have become too old “upstairs” and putting down momentary feminist revolutions with a few good cracks of his whip. It’s a particularly crucial sequence because of its bluntly funny look at the masculine sexual psyche, as Guido accuses himself of childish egotism in his inability to commit, but also relaxes within that childishness, for the harem is in the rural villa of his childhood. He bathes in the same colossal barrel as the grapes were pressed, and the place has the same atmosphere of freedom and rampant indulgence—sexual overlordship imbued with a playtime vivacity. He imagines Rossella hanging about to enjoy the spectacle (she takes the place of a tomboy girl who was his friend in the childhood memory); Gloria shivers in masochistic ecstasy and declares at the lash of his whip, “delizioso!”; and Luisa plays the domestic drudge with cheery acceptance. But out in the real world, when Guido invites Luisa to join him at the spa, she brings Rossella and a young male friend who sparks Guido’s jealousy. And of course, the sight of Carla hanging about the town drives Luisa to a fuming fit. Despite Guido’s real delight in bringing Luisa back into his life, they soon collide in a spiteful bust-up in their hotel room, as Guido is forced to contend with Luisa’s buried anger mixed into a poisonous potion with love.
The artier European filmmakers of the era were experimenting with consciously erasing the edges of the familiar grammar of narrative cinema, and Fellini’s frames, beautifully shot by Gianni Di Venanzo, teem with inky black recesses and hazy, overbright spaces into and out of which characters leap and tumble away in reeling rows, shoving weird faces into view and whipping them away again, or becoming lost in indistinctly defined, maze-like structures and abodes, full of murk and mystery, dropping in half-heard snatches of conversations, jostling and provoking the eye and the mind. Whilst far from abstract, Fellini successfully generates a giddy world dusted with the lightest frost of surrealism. The greatness of 8½ was precisely in being conceived and executed as a comedy despite its painful dramatic concerns; it’s precisely in this way that it avoids pretentiousness and self-importance. Guido is both central to and yet also entirely unimportant to the people whirling about him, who need his inventions to justify their animation but who will become animated without justification.
Fellini’s cast is impeccable, and the whole ensemble, from the brilliant Mastroianni to the underused but ever-intoxicatingly weird Steele, rise to deliver; Aimee is particularly splendid. As the lore around the movie attests, 8½ was originally intended to be a pseudo-sequel to La Dolce Vita (1960), which Fellini had announced would concern itself with the young sprite whose call to renewal went unheeded by the last Mastroianni-embodied Fellini stand-in. And yet 8½ is still more or less that sequel, presenting variations on scenes from the predecessor, but with certain twists on their meaning. An outdoor, nighttime party scene in Vita, with its air of racy self-indulgence, is mirrored here in a goofy, try-hard replica, riddled through with tedious intellections and dopey dancing. A flight into the city night with a movie star resolves not in pagan fountain-bathing, but soulful confession. The monstrous intimation of the future that was the sea beast is here the clapboard rocket ship that is finally demolished without a second thought once the production is scrapped.
La Dolce Vita’s Dickensian wit, sourced like Dickens’ writing in a gift for a feral skit vital to the good journalist (both men were reporters in their youth; and, just as Mastroianni was followed around by “Paparazz” in Vita, Mario calls Guido “Old Snaporazz” here) described its society superlatively well but retained a slippery façade of moral and intellectual finger-wagging. La Dolce Vita strained to use elements of symbolism, expressionism, and old-fashioned bawdiness to expand the scope of the Neorealist tradition, whilst maintaining a critical stance, attempting to effectively analyse, in however fumbling a fashion, social lapses and the failing efforts of European intelligentsia to redefine the modern world, with its pagan impulses, pop culture, and apocalyptic underpinnings. 8½ is angry with the previous film’s pat caricatures and reductive pessimism, seeking instead to venture inward and celebrate the capacity of creativity, if truly let loose, to repaint the world in new colours—it is art’s riposte and response at last to the stifling dictates of politics, academia and journalism.
The film, for all its moments of illness and fractiousness, is generous, even allowing its irritating critic a lucid and sympathetic soliloquy that encapsulates the nature of an artist’s role. “I wanted to make an honest film,” Guido himself eventually defines his aim, “No lies whatsoever. I thought I had something so simple to say. Something useful to everybody. A film that could help bury forever all those dead things we carry within ourselves.” The irony is that 8½ did offer such a freedom, a spiritual gateway into counterculture.”
How 8 1/2 made the Top 100:
Frank Aida No. 8
Ed Howard No. 13
Samuel Wilson No. 14
Bill Riley No. 41







An accomplished and quirky essay. Well done.
I won’t belabor the ‘is it really a comedy’ idea, but the film’s placement here is down to the votes of only two individuals. I feel Amarcord is a lot funnier, and if not necessarily more sincere certainly a less ‘precious’ film.
Anyway, we can stretch the envelope by adopting – for the sake of argument – the view that existence is a cosmic joke and Charon a lecherous jester. So we have Fellini indulging his dreams for our entertainment – quixotic, elliptical, self-indulgent. 8½ is a great movie and cinematically overpowering, but the narrative is rather tedious and sometimes downright annoying. All the rather bourgeois angst about the ‘creative process’. Not that Fellini is alone. Most artists labor under the delusion that they alone suffer the burden of seeing the truth. Like Kerouac talking about Neal Cassady and himself knowing time. Yeah.
That said, the opening and closing scenes of 8½ are amongst the greatest in modern cinema.
Sorry my bad. There are four votes and the three highly ranked ones gave it the overall ranking.
Don’t now if I’d rank this a comedy either, though it does have it’s funny moments and some reall bizarro humor (the same way I don’t think Woody Allen’s STARDUST MEMORIES is a comedy-yada, yada, yada)…
However, this is a wonderful, thorough and all around expertly written and entertaining essay from a guy who really knows the film. Roderick Heath has captured all the fine points and even a few to look out for on this, inarguably one of the most influential, beloved, maddening and down right creative films ever to grace the screens.
I love alot of Fellini films better (NIGHTS OF CABIRIA and LA STRADA are my absolute favorites), but it all starts here…
Tony, not sure if the numbers above are showing up on all PCs, but there were actually four votes cast for 8 1/2, with three of those four providing for the lion’s share of the votes that propelled the film into the Top 100 as per Angelo D’Arminio’s tabulation. Obviously, Frank Aida’s ballot especially, provided the most clout. Still, I agree with you that the jury will always be out as to whether the film should place in a comedy countdown, and I myself did not include it in my 60 choices. (The celebrated writer of this essay, Australian Roderick Heath did not name the film on his own ballot either, though it’s clear enough aside from the comedy pigeon-holing he dearly loves the film) I also agree that while AMARCORD is a funnier film, 8 1/2 is more “precious,” in fact it’s widely regarded by most as one of the iconic masterpieces of world cinema, albeit (again as you note) infuriating for a good number.
I’m certainly a fan, and much appreciate this stupendous previously-published review from Roderick that brilliantly asserts the film is Fellin’s “spiritual gateway into counter culture.” According to Italy’s master cinematic showman dreams and illusions have as much physicality as what is real, and for one of the few times in the form self-absorption is a wonderous and glorious pursuit. Nino Rota’s provocative score is one of the true glories of the cinema.
I do feel that this is Fellini’s greatest film, but like everyone else I also love NIGHTS OF CABIRIA, LA DOLCE VITA, LA STRADA and AMARCORD among some others.
Yes this is Fellini’s greatest film. I myself am not a Fellini fan, but this one is quite good. I wouldn’t consider it a comedy…..maybe its circus-like atmosphere can appear like comedy at times, but the underlying themes do not lead me to believe comedy is the main intent of the film, nor to believe that even if it IS a comedy, that it’s a GREAT comedy. Ah well. Some people did think it funny. Great essay though Roderick and you certainly well collect the inherent elements.
I have another thought though…..perhaps people voted for great films that also happen to be comedies…..I really stayed away from that in my ballot. I voted for films that I thought were great comedies…..and they may or may not be considered great films on their own. Does this make sense? I mean in the ranking, I put Dumb and Dumber and Caddyshack on my list….ahead of films that are better than they….but not necessarily funnier. I’m not going to convince anyone that Dumb and Dumber or Caddyshack are “great films”.
Jon, Although Dumb and Dumber and Caddyshack didn’t make my list, they were close. Maybe it’s just a matter of semantics – parsing words – but in my book a film doesn’t have to be “great” to make it onto a list of “best comedies.” I mean, Pillow Talk DID make my list while 8-1/2 did not.
Scoot….yep the films I voted for had some lowbrow ones alongside more respected comedies.
Count me among those who regard this film as one of the greats but not a film that comes to mind as a comedy, regardless of that piece of tape on the cinematographer’s viewfinder. That said, I can’t bemoan its inclusion on this list even though it doesn’t appear on my own list.
One of this film’s strongest basic scenes featuring extended dialogue – as opposed to flights of fancy – is the scene in Guido’s bedroom with Aimee that is anything but comic.
My compliments to Mr. Heath for tackling a film that’s most difficult to dissect using mere words.
The harem fantasy alone would rank ’8-1/2′ high among films and/or social comedy.
Well, I found it quite funny and admire its maybe-paradoxical spirit of liberation. It’s a great moment of release after Fellini had come up against the limits of an earlier narrative approach in his previous feature. In making my own list I aimed for balance between great films that are funny and films that are greatly funny, so both 8 1/2 and Dumb and Dumber made the cut. This may create issues if one film is seen to be either “greater” or “funnier” than another, but that’s just part of the comedy.
Samuel..thanks for elaborating. It makes sense what you are saying and thus explains the diversity of films on the list so far. In the end, the films in the top half of this countdown are going to be based on far more people voting for them.
I just would like to confirm that I, Bill Riley did in fact cast a vote for Fellini’s ‘Otto e Mezzo’ at the #41 position on a ballot I submitted to Sam Juliano back in July. I see there is some confusion about the ballot, though right now it seems to appear after the review with the three other voters. As I stated on the ‘La Dolce Vita’ thread, everyone is entitled to their own definition of comedy. The British comedy director Terry Gilliam is quoted on interviews on line that ‘Otto e Mezzo’ is one of the greatest of comedy films. Should we assume that he is wrong because a few of us may differ?
No. I was asked to vote on this project, and I did what I felt was in tune with my perceptions, not the perception of others. When I humbly stated at the ‘La Dolce Vita’ thread that I completely understood anyone else thinking otherwise, I was subsequently and obstinately shot down, being grouped with those who were trying to “cloud” the matter. Really? Is the voting here not based on personal opinion, or shall I get “permission” before submitting my ballot? Yes, Mark S., the harem scene qualifies it alone for me.
Does the term “dark comedy” mean anything to anybody here? That is what the film is to me, thank you.
Bill, I think everything is fine here now, and no cause for second-guessing. I am convinced there was a technical gliche, as another blogger had the same problem earlier this week. Your vote was counted properly and tabulated accordingly. While a good number of people do not and will not count this as a comedy (I myself did not vote for it) it’s clear enough several do (you, Ed Howard, Samuel Wilson, Mark Smith, Frank Aida) to have it at least in play. Comparing it to the other Fellini film that was under siege for placing in the comedy ranks (LA DOLCE VITA) I’d say this one has a stronger claim for whatever that’s worth. But all is well my friend, and thanks for participating.
Mark Smith did not vote for 8 1/2 Sam.
No he did not Maurizio. Quite right. But he defended it’s selection as a comedy in his comment above. That’s what I was getting at. I combined the actual voters with anyone who acknowledged the framing in a comment.
Yeah I got wind of that which is why I was trying to delete my comment lol. I’m with you in not considering 8 /2 a comedy. I also agree with Dennis on Fellini’s two best films.
Sorry Bill if I have offended you. My point rarher badly put and with errors was that a film of this stature is diminished by having such a low placing, since the view that it is a comedy is a minority view. It would have been nice to have Mr Heath’s response. What does “woozily funny” actually mean?
Tony is the film really diminished by placing on the low end of the countdown? Not really. It is by no way a commentary on how good or bad the film is, but more reflective of the number of voters who recognized it as a comedy. The point you’re making (I think), is why vote for a great film that is marginally making the cut from a comedic standpoint? Thus it places low…..has no real compelling reason for being there……and sticks out like a sore thumb. But is the film itself diminished in this light?
I am certainly all for everyone having their own opinions on what comedy is. I have my own and that’s why I submitted my ballot. If someone does have an opinion and voted for this film….I can also have an opinion if I didn’t vote for it and raise questions and argue the point. We all have a right to our opinions and a right to question them. This is more directed at Bill I suppose.
Jon, I am not denying anyone the right to express their opinion. I am just expressing mine
Bill I am not questioning your opinion. I stated my opinion that it’s not a comedy. You stated the opposite. However I have a right to question the matter as well. That’s why we discuss things here. In the end it’s rather benign….that 8 1/2 is on this list. I’m mean it’s not hurting anyone. I’d like to get more into a banter though on some of these films. For instance, it’s not so much whether this film is a comedy at all, but why one would consider this for instance a GREAT comedy? I can’t see it.
Oh by the way, this is a most accomplished review.
Comedy or not, this and other films by Fellini occupy their own category — and many of them make “best” lists of films in general. So I wouldn’t worry about its relatively low ranking on this particular list.