To start with a digression, at one time Fellini was my favorite director of what are commonly referred to as art films. Films like this one, 8&1/2, La Notte di Cabiria, Amarcord, Juliette of the Spirits, all exceptional films. I even lauded the spectacle of Satyricon. Roma as well. I have since come to see Satyricon as excessively sloppy and self indulgent, but all the others have imo aged well. But I also have come to admire somewhat more Bergman, Atonioni, Truffaut and as comparable directors such as Chabrol, Bunuel and others, not to mention Anglo American directors some of whom I have always admired. But in general I think Fellini did not direct with an equivalent level of artistic vision and rigor as Bergman, and neither with the singular aesthetic style of Antonioni.
La Dolce Vita is nonetheless a complex and challenging film. Arguably Fellin's best, but it is a challenge. The sheer length of it is on one level quite rewarding, as so much is packed into it. But that combination does make one wonder whether the result of his editing is a film that is as tight and coherent as it might have been. (Of course some might feel that an intentional absence of complete coherence is an effect he wished for, but here I am talking about the cinematic result rather than themes and if you will the "point" of the film.)
The OP here identifies a particularly troubling aspect of La Dolce Vita, that being what to make of the character of Steiner. I feel confident in saying Fellini at most alludes to what might have been troubling him, relying on a kind of generalized existential anxiety as the likely culprit, and to my mind clearly staying away from references to what might be simple, and therefore comforting, specific explanations. What then is Steiner's role in the film?
I think MacKenzie above points the right direction. We are first of all to see Steiner through Rubini's eyes, and how the relation between the two affects Rubini. When the police detective asks him why Steiner would have killed his children and himself, we first take Rubini's lack of answer as very much in keeping with the implicit tenor of the detective's questions - what specifics were there? In such specifics do we see what Steiner, having perhaps "suffered" from in a way that other characters in the film, and us, do not experience, in effect separate him from us, and make us feel better?
Rubini not only says he doesn't know, but the truth of such lack of knowledge in turn puts before us the existential anxiety that we share with Steiner (even if Steiner's choice was clearly his own). As of course is shared with Rubini.
In short Fellini's choice of how to "explain", or not, Steiner's suicide was certainly not shoddy filmmaking or anything like it. It is very much intentional that Fellini handled it as he did.
We can also see not merely a confrontation with existential anxiety in some abstract sense, but the event comes at a pivotal part of the film's narrative arc. Someoen above asserted that the death of Steiner put an end to Rubini's thoughts of seeking a more significant life, and instead a prelude to his in effect throwing himself back into the frivilous and even meaninglessness. But I think it is more than that.
First of all I don't thikn it is accurate to say that Rubini gives up all hope of finding greater meaning, or what Heidegger would call authenticity, in his life. He remains a student of other people, and while one can say this is not out of step with his job as a society and gossip columnist, neither is it one that devoid of human caring. We then have the specific event of Maddalena in effect proposing to him, which he then considers and, to my mind, ratehr seriously so responds. With a yes.
While this at least in terms of hte specific events shown leads nowhere, and perhaps should lead nowhere depending on one's view of Maddalena (certainly one of the more complex characters in film as portrayed so convincingly by Anouk Aimee), the sequence in my opinion stands against some generalized notion that Rubini has truly given up.
But it is possible to argue to be sure that as the film ends Fellini is saying Rubini might well have great difficulty in finding authenticity in this particular group of people. Left to the viewer is whether this is a statement of the general human condition, or just of the sort of urban socialites who make up the majority of the characters.
We can say, though, as others above have noted, that Rubini was profoundly affected by Steiner's path. Yes, we very much assume that Rubini admired Steiner, as a kind of possible alter ego he could emulate if he tried, if he wanted, or perhaps more accurately WHEN he will want, when he puts aside his current work and life. But Rubini sees now it will be more difficult than merely finding a new line of work, or getting married, having children - in effect all men face at least the context of existential anxiety. There is no simple answer that can be found in what amounts to as the surface veneer, the objective categorizations of married or not, parent or not, this job or that job, where you live.
The film of course closes with the huge fish on the beach, not clear whether dead or alive, the girl on hte next sandbar a provocation, whether intended to represent a different sort of person than those Rubini was with at the moment, or one who merely looks like she might be different, therein lying hte provocation. Rubini on one level turns away and recedes from the shore with his other party goers, knowing they do not have any answers, either. At least not ones they are aware of. Where does he go now? What does he do?
Whle I don't think the answer is nowhere and nothing, I do know one thing. It is the question we all face, and therein lies the greatness of La Dolce Vita.
reply
share
10 years ago
[deleted]
kenny-164
10 years ago
Welsh,
I mostly agree with your post, but as I identified earlier, I think it is not clear that Steiner's suicide proves as you suggest that a normal life, which of course is a loaded term, has been shown to be a failed route to happiness. And as if that is not enough your words seem to suggest that his suicide leaves open NO road to salvation, leaving Rubini "free to continue and further his hedonistic lifestyle."
The problem with such an analysis, both on the objective level but also I think in terms of how Rubini subjectively viewed Steiner's death, is that we don't know what it was in Steiner's own subjectivity that led to his suicide. It is a mistake to focus on the surface veneer of his life and see in it the direct cause of his actions. Rubini himself I think recognizes this when he expresses confusion and has no real answer when the police detective asks him why Steiner killed himself. Rubini hardly said anything like "Well it must have been his normal life that drove him to it!"
Now of course we can say that the trappings of Steiner's life and what we can imply they meant about how he lived his day to day life did not PREVENT him from killing himself, and that is true. We see this in fact in everyday life. Some kill themselves who seem to be doing alright in a general sense. But of course most people who lead so called normal lives do not kill themselves. Hardly.
So what was it about Steiner? We don't know, Rubini does not know. How to take from a lack of knowledge the conclusory statements you make and what they imply? I don't think it is reasonable to make that leap.
Having said that the end of La Dolce Vita is more than just a bit ambiguous. Rubini sees the girl on the beach, and turns away from her, and in fact does walk away from the shore with the party goers from the previous evening. But he had seemed to accept Maddalena's offer of marriage the night before, and that was AFTER Steiner's suicide. In short while i think Rubini will likely continue drifting for a time, I don't think he has reached any conclusions about the lack of comfort in a normal life that Steiner seems to have felt.
Rubini is not Steiner, and he knows it.
reply
share
10 years ago
[deleted]
kenny-164
10 years ago
Welsh,
I think with your clarification we are now in basic agreement.
Having thought more about the connection between Steiner's death and the film's end, I spent a bit of time this past weekend viewing some of the extras that come with the Criterion dvd release I bought a few months ago. There is a fascinating piece included that compares the gaze we see from the young woman Paola right before we see Rubini leave the water's edge on the beach to an earlier shot of Steiner. the disc says the essay is by kogonada, whatever that means.
Anyway the essay focuses on two scenes, comparing them, and the way the eyes of two characters seem to subtly change what they are focusing on. The essay notes the influence of the famous scene in Ingmar Bergman's Summer with Monika from 1953, when Harriet Anderson breaks the fourth wall and stares right into the camera in an immensely powerful few moments, and how that scene affected Godard and Truffaut, who both used a similar effect in Breathless and The 400 Blows, respectively. The essay notes that Paola does stare into the camera right before the film cuts to the shot of Rubini leaving.
But then we also see that just before that cut, Paola's eyes actually are not centered on the camera, but off to one side, and significantly the angle suggests it would be to the camera's right, which in turn would be where Rubini "is". In other words her eyes are looking at Rubini, and move from her perspective from the left to end up centered on the camera.
The earlier scene opens with Steiner's wife standing in front of double doors, inside. SHe is also looking right into the camera, slightly turns and opens the doors. Inside is a party going on in Steiner's apartment. The camera is rolled inside the doors, and we see Steiner in the middle, staring, as his wife was, right into the camera. He is smiling. He stands and seems to be approaching the camera, and then very subtly turns his focus to the camera's left. Rubini walks into the camera's vision from the left, and we see that Steiner is looking at Rubini as the two men greet each other.
The essayist argues that the earlier scene in Steiner's apartment is literally a reverse of the shot of Paola at the end. Steiner's focus, as was his wife's, is into hte camera, but then his focus moves to be on Rubini. Paola's focus begins on Rubini, and then turns slowly into the camera. The essayist argues that these shots are intended to show that when the subjects are staring into the camera, it is Rubini's eyes they are looking into. I think this is very persuasive.
But what was Fellini up to in these scenes, using these shots?
Returning to Bergman and the parallels to Godard and Truffaut, the essayist notes that Fellini's shots are different in the use of movement, both away from the camera (Steiner's apartment) and into it (Paola on the beach). So, what does this difference suggest?
Before attempting an answer, a brief word about the character of Paola is in order. She is in terms of screen time a very small character, yet it is of her image that is the penultimate one, with Rubini seen leaving the beach the very last. Fellini obviously chose not only to put her image there, but can be seen to have put also a great deal of thought into how her focus tracked.
Just as we are not in effect made privy to Steiner's inner thoughts, as we discussed earlier on this thread, the way Paola is shot, her relative lack of "importance" of attention paid by the film to her own inner thoughts, I think make clear that the focus on her is meant to convey us, in Rubini's place, looking at her as Rubini does and would. It is not among other possible interpretations a view that imparts insight into that which is viewed - here Paola - not understood by a character in the film. It is not imparting to us knowledge that we as viewers have that a character in the film does not have. In short we are meant to understand that the Paola we see, staring right at "us", smiling, and also still standing there as the film cuts away from her, is what Rubini not only sees, but understands about her.
To be sure I think the way the film ends leaves it open ended as to what happens afterward. But I also think we are meant to understand taht Rubini sees Paola as representing some innocent ideal that, while he then walks away from the water, is still there as he does so. And that this ideal will be there at a later time (even if, of course, the character of Paola need not literally remain standing where we last see her), if Rubini chooses to return to it.
As for the significance of the way the focus moves in these two shots, I am not so sure what that is, though. Bergman's shot of Monika by comparison seemed to suggest a conscious connection between Monika and the viewer, with the viewer understanding something about her inner life. Perhaps the movement Fellini uses instead imparts that reference to Rubini's perspective. But it also has the effect I think of putting he viewer in Rubini's perspective.
reply
share
10 years ago
[deleted]
kenny-164
10 years ago
Welsh,
I think Fellini is inclined to have more open ended endings than you feel are there or prefer. For example see La Notte di Cabiria, with its fascinating and in my opinion clearly open ended ending. (which I will not describe here to avoid posting spoilers)
But on the specifics, I interpret Paola's last vision of smiling at Rubini, who yes had not yet walked away, but who had also not given Paola any indication he was about to walk toward her, either, as being generous and open ended.
WHile the film ends and we do not know what happens afterward, I don't think either that it is necessary for Rubini to wallow in a sort of dessicated alienation. Remember that to some extent while the camera is Rubini, the cinematic effect, along with other elements that reinforce this experience, is to encourage our identification with Rubini. so to some extent the beauty of this film and its ending is we can imagine whether he will go this way or that, and to theorize about which makes most sense to us.
An interesting comparitor film I think would be Antonioni's La Notte, which was made two years later with Marcello again in the lead. It is another consciously Existential film that leaves us with an open ending. Of course films other than those focused on the existential have open endings, but I think consciously Existentialist filmmakers had an affinity for that kind of statement. Having identified what leads to our sense of alienation, it is still up to us to decide how to go forward.
As a side note I do not claim to have any particular knowledge about this film's details, having merely seen this critical piece from the Criterion production. I will acknowledge having seen a fair amount of Bergman, though. Heh.
reply
share
10 years ago
[deleted]
kenny-164
10 years ago
welsh,
To be clear I think Rubini is in a state of alienation as the film ends. One can't help but see Fellini's description of his day to day life as an indictment. And I agree at that moment Rubini in effect sees and understands this, too. It is not merely because of Steiner's suicide and the wondering why that it causes. His acceptance of Maddalena's offer is, I think we are meant to understand, not something Rubini would have said if he were satisfied with his life up until then.
And I also think it likely Rubini will wallow in his sense loss, as a kind of self pity, for some period of time.
My optimism if you want to call it that is merely that I do think he also sees "the smile" as a sort of comfort that it is out there, and at some point if he is up to the challenge, which it is, he may pursue it.
The challenge of life when understood as being towards death I think can be simplified as presenting three alternative responses or approaches. We can either try and avoid recognizing this as life's essential truth by being distracted by what Heidegger called everydayness. Or we can give into self pity and a sense of emptiness, at best trying to dull the sense of it by various means. Or we can seek a way forward that is based on caring for others, which of course is Heidegger's suggested approach.
I know this is a simple, perhaps too simple and simpleminded, discussion, but those are the broad outlines.
(Imo the foregoing has nothing really to do with whether one is religious or not, so that's not what I am driving at here, not to digress.)
Whether Rubini ultimately pursues that third option is not at all a certainty. But I don't think the film requires us to see Rubini as left with the second option for the rest of his life (with the first option essentially foreclosed to him, as I do think the film requires us to see).
reply
share
10 years ago
[deleted]
kenny-164
10 years ago
Bergman of course is another subject, but ftr I think there often is in at least some of his films some hope if you look for it.
But as for Fellini, I do not see him as a rose colored glasses wearing optimist, although on the whole I do think as you say his intentions are more positive. The perfect example is the ending to La Notte di Cabiria.
reply
share
kenny-164
10 years ago
I occasionally see posters delete their own posts from a thread, in this case a conversation I was having with the poster welsh.
Why would someone do that?
reply
share