Why do you think movies require a plot to be interesting or valid? a film has a plot when there is a clear identifiable problem that the characters of the film must work towards to solve. It's funny that you mention The Godfather and Titanic as movies that are worth three hours of viewing but they don't really have a plot either, or at least not a consistent one. The Departed has a plot and is in fact the first movie Scorsese has ever made with a clear plot (he even said so himself and for reference you can look on this website under Scorsese's quotes for that). 2001: A Space Odyssey, Raging Bull, There Will Be Blood, Pulp Fiction, etc. don't have actual plots but they are traditional and modern classics. In fact, Raging Bull reminds me of La Dolce Vita ("the sweet life") in that they are both just stories about a man told through various events and sequences that beautifully give light and depth to their characters. Raging Bull is only about the rise and fall of a famed boxer, Jake La Motta, but the story is interesting because it only focuses on Jake La Motta and how he falls. There isn't a clear problem for him to solve and thus no plot. Just a story. The interest is sparked through the characters involved and their own personal, moral, and emotional failings and discoveries and how they develop or even fail to develop, not necessarily in some grand overarching problem that (something which is certainly true in The Godfather). If your argument is that a film is not structured if it has no plot then that is a poor argument indeed because you disregard some of the greatest movies ever made and their best aspects and many of Fellini's films operate in this manner.
In this case, Marcello is an interesting character because this story is essentially all about his search for happiness in "the sweet life," the new culture of post-war Italy and the wave of modernity following it which is concerned with movie stars, playboys, and high society aristocrats and intellectuals. He looks for happiness in love with women who will never love him back (not like Emma does) and by associating himself with the high class members of society. He cannot be happy with his career as a gossip columnist, cannot love Emma, cannot develop a relationship with his distant father, and has no real friends other than Steiner (who was a part of the farce of high society and self indulgent happiness all along). By the end of the movie the allegory is clear: happiness cannot be found in this manner. Happiness in "the sweet life" is nothing but a farce. The film is as tragic as it satirical, because by the end of movie it is apparent that Marcello has missed that, making the ending in which the girl who genuinely likes him waves goodbye (and he doesn't even remember who she is) all the more bitter and saddening. It is a cautionary tale about a man told through elaborate,exquisite, and extraordinary sequences of events spanning a week and it is structured by dawn, day, and night sequences over those seven days. It is a unique style of storytelling and just because you don't care for it or the way Fellini crafts his films does not mean he should be discounted as an influential filmmaker because of your inability to appreciate his style of storytelling. This film has something of all our lives in it: lost ambition; inability to find love (with Emma, the swedish actress, Maddelena, etc); alienation from loved ones (Steiner, Emma, Marcello's father); the loss of a role model (Steiner); idolization of a person (the swedish actress and Steiner), in some cases only to discover you were delusional or wrong about them causing a readjustment of your perceptions; a general wish to belong; and feeling purposeless and lonely. It has tragedy, satire, comedy, drama, and introspective analysis all wrapped into one film. And if you think there was none of that in the movie nor any of that in life itself then to put it bluntly "if you can't find that stuff in life, then you, my friend, DON'T KNOW CRAP ABOUT LIFE" (Adaptation 2002).
I don't see how you think Fellini was smug or pretentious because if anything his movies are humble and introspective in the way he tells a story. Ironically, you are the one being smug and pretentious by claiming that just because his storytelling style does not suit your tastes or your limited definition for what makes a film he is consequently invalid as a influential filmmaker. Your arguments are shortsighted and poorly developed and I can see no valid reason you've given to dismiss Fellini as a filmmaker. I've only read that "Fellini sucks" and "his movies have no plot" and "this movie was too long" (which really that's an argument? come on man. Seven Samurai probably could have been wrapped up in 2 hours instead of 3 and a half and i wouldn't trade that extra hour and a half for anything). Give me a real reason and we'll talk.
P.S. I love Goddard's films and Titanic is among Cameron's best films and gets too much unnecessary and rather irrelevant criticism if you ask me.
reply
share