To the people who love this film

I liked the movie, but from reading through this board for a few minutes, people on here are disgustingly pretentious. Liking foreign movies doesn't make you an art connoisseur who's above the rest of society.

I believe Fellini has documented what one theologian called the "line of despair," below which mankind exists apart from communion with and knowledge of God. The moral decay of Western civilization is on display; Marcello's wanderings (and halfhearted?) search (without real success) for purpose and meaning in life allow the viewer to see the decay in various aspects of society (the vanity of modern living seen in the night life Marcello and other journalists cover for their jobs -- the night clubs, the pleasures and turmoil among the "celebrity class," if you will, the decadence of the nobility as depicted by the late night party at a prince's family estate at Bassano di Sutri; as visitors and remaining partygoers walk out late at night to explore the old decrepit villa on the property, the patriarch tells his son to be careful of the bridge that leads there. "You know it's rotted." Once at the old villa, they engage in seances and assignations. Monied or not, influential or not, these people seem doomed to squander their lives.

One of the most interesting aspects of the movie is that Fellini's eye has seen it and he uses the camera to let you see it for yourself. He does not make didactic pronouncements about the vapidity and destructiveness of modern life. He arranges the flow and leads you to see what he has seen. The murder-suicide of Steiner and his children shocks Marcello and should shock us all. Even that is not enough to shock Marcello into steering his own life toward a goal.

If this film seems to be going nowhere, it is because it is about people going nowhere. Fellini illustrates through the characters' own comments and conversations. He doesn't preach at you; he lets the characters show you. You get the sense that there are a few points at which Marcello might have been rescued from this purposeless floating. He seems genuinely struck by the natural beauty of the young waitress at the outdoor cafe, the one who is homesick for her native region (I think it is Umbria). She seems more natural than the other characters. At the end of the film, when Marcello is walking from an all-night party to the sea, the same girl calls out to him on the beach across a shallow inlet created by the incoming tide. He can't hear her; the temporary inlet is shallow enough that he could walk to her, but he doesn't; he goes back the way he came with a woman from the party.

At this point, he is a successful publicity agent. Some success. He isn't happy, nor is he fulfilled. In such a brief reply, I couldn't begin to cover everything I see now in this movie. When I was 15 I watched it just to see the spectacular Anita Ekberg dancing in the fountain. As dim as is the director's view of a superficial, materialistic, spiritually vacuous society, I'm glad I found the movie again as an adult. If you could rent a copy that has commentary and view it with the commentary turned on, it might be more enlightening and satisfying to you that way; I mean, you did wonder enough about it to ask those of us who think it is a worthwhile film. Hope this helped.

I can certainly understand why some people wouldn't like this film at first viewing. I've watched it numerous times because I adore Fellini's films so take my bias with a grain of salt and bear with me as I attempt to explain to you what I think of it. First of all, I loved the movie. I didn't love it like loved I Vitelloni, but I loved it nonetheless, and if I had to pick the best reason why this movie is a great one it's for the character development, particularly the development of Marcello. You've probably read this before from the other posts, but Marcello is an interesting character because of the crisis in his life: he has lost his ambition and is caught in a career he does not enjoy; he is unsatisfied in his love life and with his suicidal girlfriend Emma and consequently seeks love from random interesting woman that will never love him like Emma does (he does not love any of the women he interacts with but rather is in love with the thought of being in love with the perfect woman); his father and him are alienated from each other from the absence of a personal connection; his hero, Steiner, is an intelligent man that he envies but ultimately discovers his weaknesses, shattering his perceptions of the man he looked up to (similar to a child who discovers that Santa Claus isn't real). As these events occur, Marcello becomes deeper as a character, more developed, and more understandable. He is a character unlike any other character you will find in other films.

Another point of interest are the events that give Marcello his depth. They are extraordinary in and of themselves. Everything from making love in the hovel of a prostitute (hilariously with someone other than a prostitute), the night at the Cha Cha club, the failed orgy at the beach house, the tragedy of Steiner, the bittersweet farewell at the very end of the movie, to (my two personal favorites) the aristocratic party at Steiner's apartment and wandering through the alleys of Rome with a gorgeous movie star is fascinating and vibrantly told. Furthermore, all of this occurs within a span of 7 days split into 7 dawns, 7 nights, and 7 day sequences. Not to criticize you z10g, but just as you don't see why people like this movie, I have a hard time seeing as how some might find this movie boring. It is filmed and acted with such boundless and surreal energy that I can't describe it as anything but enticing. Each sequence is followed by yet another extraordinary sequence all taking place within a single week. The thought of that alone makes every episode of this more interesting and exciting to me. But that might just be me.

More to the point, the setting of the movie also makes it more interesting. This is set in post-war Italy, at the beginning of an economic boom and a change to a culture of modernity. This is really set at the start of a modern wave of materialistic culture that is more concerned with depicting and gossiping about the enviable "sweet life" (for which the movie is named for, as "La Dolce Vita" roughly translates to "the sweet life") of movie stars, playboys, and intellectual or artistic figures of high society than that which pertains to pre-war Italy (hence the opening scene in which the statue of Christ is leaving the city of Rome and the introduction of Marcello directly afterwards, signifying the departure of the traditional and the arrival of the modern). This sets the stage for Marcello as he believes it this lifestyle among these peoples of modern high society that will bring him happiness, hence why he envies his friend Steiner whom appears to have all of that. However, Marcello gets a glimpse of the farce when *HOLY *beep* A SPOILER DON'T LOOK AT THIS NEXT PART IF YOU DON'T THE MOVIE SPOILED FOR YOU* Steiner commits suicide. *END OF SPOILER* (apologies for the gratuitous warning). Whether or not Marcello recognizes the farce, however, is never made clear to us. I personally assume that it is not yet clear to him and it won't be until he grows older and wiser I'm sure. What is certain, however, is that ultimately Marcello is searching for happiness. He believes that the path to happiness is through indulgence in "the sweet life." But that is not so and it is obvious that he will not find happiness through meaningless rendezvouses with women who will never love him, nor with aristocrats who live lives of self-indulgence under the guise of happiness. Tragically, Marcello's opportunities for happiness are limited, since he can't bring himself to love Emma and his father is reluctant to open up a relationship with him, and he really doesn't have any true friends other than Steiner. The rest are acquaintances, failed romances, and Paparazzo. The movie ends without any resolution on Marcello's part of what it will take to make him happy, and he leaves the beach and the girl from the restaurant he does not remember continuing in his search for happiness within "the sweet life" just as he did the night before that and the night before that and so on.

The movie really is a tragedy and a satire of materialistic lifestyle and is ultimately one man's search for happiness in a modern era. It is only complex in the way it weaves each of the sequences of Marcello's week together to bring the allegory and life of Marcello to view. Furthermore, it's not a movie that can be viewed once. This film should be viewed once every couple years as you grow older and as you change. With age, I think, comes a greater understanding of this film.

Personally, based on all of that (rambling), I find the movie to be an exceptional work of cinema and a very unique form of storytelling that makes it wondrous. I'll admit, however, that I also enjoyed it because I saw a bit of myself in it. I work in criminal justice, but my true passion is film. Consequently, when Steiner, referring to his career, stated "I'm too serious to be an amateur, but not serious enough to be a professional" it struck a very personal chord with me and the film seemed to instantly click with me. I have had very similar experiences with most of Fellini's films, especially I Vitelloni, which is why I love them so much. My point is that when you watch this film it's important to find something of yourself in it, just as you should with any Fellini film because they are such introspective and emotional films. Naturally, it is a matter of taste and if you don't like it, don't sweat it. I just hope this helps you understand why I (and possibly others that i don't wish to speak for) find this movie to be as great as we claim it to be.

Anyways, if you read all of that, I hope it was helpful (and thank you for reading all of it) and I hope you watch the movie again because it is my belief that it deserves the title of "classic cinema."

P.S. Oh and as for those of you who criticized and condescended to z10g for not liking the film, condescending to him isn't going to get him excited for it again so quit being snobs and simply why you love the film and not why you think he's at fault for not loving it. YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG.

I really loved the fountain scene in La Dolce Vita!

I think it's simply a matter of taste; and what you're used to see in the cinema. If one hasn't seen "film-modernism" of the 1960's, one can be sure not to understand La dolce vita. However, I've met several people who know their Nouvelle Vague, novi-film, Godard, Antonioni etc. So I'd say it's most all a matter of taste. I myself rank La dolce vita as my third favourite by Fellini (the first being Nights of Cabiria and the second La strada).

What makes it interesting/Why do I love La dolce vita?

I think La dolce vita is the most observant film made about the new world of thw 1960's: the fragility of elusive relationships; the lack of profound consciousness and the sweetness of life. It is an epic study of the society of the 1960's, to put it briefly.

Of course, you don't have to like La dolce vita but it would be essential to understand why some do and I believe it would be quite juvenile to form opinions about a film based on "nothing happens in it" and so on. Nothing happens in the plays of Samuel Beckett but they're universally praised. I guess an important realization is that nothing happens and everything happens. Another reason why people might not like the film is that it is so full of everything. For the emotion of abundance might lead to regardless denial.

[deleted]

I'm responding to a number of posts in this thread:

Fans of the film, tell me what specifically in the film shows (or in some cases, tell me specifically the way the film shows):

* "a society in crisis"/"a society in decay"
* "a series of comparative panels that comment upon and develop one another"
* "characters [that] are multi-layered . . . and leap out of the screen as three-dimensional living archetypes"
* "hilarious satire"
* "tragic explanation"
* "The contradictions & supreficiality of religion"
* "the contradictions & superficiality of everyday life"
* "the vacuity of modern life"
* "the inability to accomplish one's goals in the face of eternal distractions"
* "emptiness in the things we do accomplish"
* "the constant struggle that Marcello experiences between Emma and the 'scene.'"
* "relationships, narcissism, the struggle between fleeting pleasure and true happiness, etc."
* "the meaning of life"/"the whole world 'seeming meaningless'"
* "people that don't know how to live anymore"
* "[fighting] for being like ourselves, and not to be like the other's want us to be"
* "a man . . . searching for content in his life"
* "Maddelena . . . [being] too elusive for [Marcello]to grasp."

. . . there are more in other posts, but that's a start.

Because I do not agree that any of those things are actually in the film. I think that rather those things are in your head in response to the film, but in the sense of seeing a light in the sky and saying that it's not only an alien, but a commentary on man's connection to the universe, etc. . . . when it was just a streetlight.

And by the way, I LOVE "film as film", yet I hate this film. I don't have ADD though. ;-)

Also, the vast majority of that stuff that people are commenting on it not at all about the film AS A FILM. It's about liking the ideas folks are interpreting into the film. Films have to work on a formal level. I disagree that liking a set of ideas is enough for the film itself to be good. And for me, this one does not work on that formal level.


http://www.rateyourmusic.com/~JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies

OP:

I wouldn't say I loved the film, but I did enjoy it (I gave it an 8/10 rating), for the following reasons (in no particular order):

1. I enjoyed listening to the music.
2. I enjoyed seeing the beauty of the actors/actresses.
3. I enjoyed watching the existential struggle of someone who basically had everything and appreciated very little, if anything, in his life. It confirmed for me that those pursuits, in and of themselves, are pointless and unsatisfying. (For me, Emma's character expressed that sentiment directly, in the scene where she's hollering at Marcello on the deserted road late at night.) I don't know any other film that makes that point better than La Dolce Vita. I also liked the way Marcello's character played off of Steiner's character; they were different, yet in some ways, the same.
4. I enjoyed, for lack of a better term, the energy of the film.
5. I enjoyed how the various seemingly disconnected vignettes stimulated me just around the conscious/subconscious level, coming together in some non-linear way, which I found more powerful than a more straight-forward, logical storyline approach. So in simple terms -- it moved me in a way that was different than a lot of other films trying to "say" the same thing.

I don't know if that's the most elaborate way of stating my reasons for liking the film, but those are the stripped down "bullets" of why I liked it.

"Love isn't what you say or how you feel, it's what you DO". (The Last Kiss)