In my mind yes, la dolce vita is a neo-realistic film. In the fact that, yes it is a film about " the failure to communicate " between people. But in my mind yes it about the people. If neo realism is about the people and problems with the people then i believe that this is a neo realistic film. This film is about the people yet it is about Marcello. But Marcello is you and me, everyone. Neo-Realism came about with De Sicas Ossesione (1942), more noteably The Bicycle thief (1948). The Bycicle Thief portrays personal emotion and definitely social problems and it is considered "neo". I believe this film falls under the same criteria. This film is Neo - Realistic, Realisic, Humanistic, and great.
re·al·ism
An inclination toward literal truth and pragmatism.
The representation in art or literature of objects, actions, or social conditions as they actually are, without idealization or presentation in abstract form.
neo-realism
any movement seeking to incorporate a modified form of realism, as in art, cinema, literature, or philosophy; a revived realism
P.S. :As for the other comment i meant a century, not a decade excuse me.
P.P.S. :And one more thing.. what does Quote: "fake shot in sound studios" have to do with non realism films.
reply
share
steverogers23
20 years ago
Hmmm... Neo-realism is a movement started in the mid 1940's The Italian movie the bicycle thief (1948) is a good example. A neo-realist movie is shot on location. It about the poor as a whole not so much the individual and has communist over tones. The locations have to be were the poor lives. Many neo-realist directors liked to use amateur non-professional “actors” usually a steal worker or someone unemployed who could act a little. This was done to keep the authenticity of the movie. Another key to a neo-realist film is that society makes one do what they do that the lack of money creates crime and evil. The poor is naturally good and only because of the system he is becomes bad.
Fellini, in La strada, is where he breaks away from this movement. The main character, Zampano is a wretch of a human being and it is not because of his lack of money he has a job and is making out reasonable well. He can buy all the wine and food he wants. The only real poverty we see in the movie is at the beginning with the selling of Gelsomina. The character of Zampano is just a bad poor person with a way to make enough money for himself and Gelsomina. Society didn’t make him this way. Zampano has no redeeming characteristics He kills the fool, abuses Gelsomina, and tries to steal from the nuns after they helped him. At the end there is a transformation in Zampano and it is not from commie ideals. He shows pity on Gelsomina by giving her the trumpet. And so on if you haven’t seen la strada I recommend it. It is the best Fellini movie and the only one I can watch.
Why Fellini isn't a neo-realist. First off his pictures are not shot on location. Everything in Fellini moves after la strada is artificial. 2nd they are not about the unhappy pitiful poor and down spirited (note I said down spirited Gelsomina is very happy to be an "artist" and a traveling clown transient). 3rd he doesn't make his characters "bad" or "criminals" because of the circumstances of not having a job or because of the rich. 4th it would be very hard for me to get a commie message out of any of his movies that I have seen. His movies are about the individual not society as a whole.
reply
share
chris_moore2004
20 years ago
There I disagree I do believe Fellini's movies are about society, everything else youve said is interesting and I would like to do more research on it, what in your mind is the difference between realism and neo realism.
and what would you classify this film as.
P.s. I updated my last post
reply
share
steverogers23
20 years ago
From the movies that I have seen of Fellini’s they are about the individual’s unique experiences not a mass commentary on society. The vast majority of people in 1960 Rome were not carefree playboys like Marcello in Vita. Rome was in an economic boom, yes but that doesn’t mean everyone lived like a playboy. It is the story of Marcello no one else (same as in 8 1/2 and other fellini movies they are the story of the character and can not be insert into just anyone). In the bicycle thief the director wants you to believe that this is everyone’s story- Just take the scene at the end when the “thief” and his son vanishes into the crowd as if to say that this is just one of countless tails of the corruption of poverty or that everyone else their could tell you a sad story too.
Neo-realist as opposed to realist. The dictionary definitions are not the definitions that you want to use to describe an art movement unless you get it from a pretentious art book :)
Neo-realism comes out of Italy- it started there. Neo-realism is a rejection of escapist cinema it only really lasted until the mid-maybe the late 50’s. I know that there are movements in the states that are called American realist which are 1930’s cowboy westerns and gangster movies (John Ford movies). It is like in art when you think of modern art you don’t think of anyone contemporary you think of Duchamp and Picasso. The titles don’t necessary refer to exactly what it is- they are just the names giving to the movement.
I hope that helps I am not an expert at this and I don't claim to be one.
reply
share
joseph-johnston
20 years ago
Yes, I would agree with your definition of neo-realism and I guess Fellini never quite falls into that that category although I admit to not being an expert on this period.
My understanding is that Visconti started it all with "La Obesessione" which itself is a reworking of the "The Postman Always Rings Twice" so American "film noire" seems to underpin the movement.
I know that Billy Wilder (himself a European) was not a great fan of these "realistic" films and thought that they were just badly made which is a fair comment because they are often clumsy: "The Bicycle Thieves" for example is clumsy and a very dull film. It does serve one however purpose in so much it signals the need for film makers to be in touch with their audiences something Hollywood is failing to do at the moment. Modern American cinema prefers to bury its head in the sand with Tarantino or Speilberg or Ron Howard. Where are the "red" v "blue" America films? Where is the debate? Where are the films on immigration?
reply
share
chris_moore2004
20 years ago
Are you sure it was Visconti, I thought it was De Sica, and that it was an illegal film version of " The Postman Always Rings Twice "
And i believe the purpose of Tarantinos films as well was Ron and Steven's are to be entertaining. There were movies all over the spectrum then and there are now. Except nowadays 70% of movies are crap.
reply
share
joseph-johnston
20 years ago
Chris
De Sica definitely did Bicycle Thieves but L'Obsessione is Visconti which I believe predated it.
I don't doubt Tarantino, Howard & Speilberg attempt to be entertaining. I think Jaws is great fun! I was simply making the point that if post-war Italian cinema has significance, it lies in its ability to confront contemporary issues. That in itself does not guarantee that the film is any good.
Modern American cinema seems incapable of confronting modern American problems: for example, the decline of your cinema, the political/religious divide, the collapse of the education system, the problem of immigration/multi-culturalism, the outsouce phenomenon, Middle-East policy.
The sad thing is that only the left (Michael Moore of course) dominate these issues. Why can't corporate America see the insanity of some of these policies? Would the Founding Fathers agree with America as it is today? There are many 'conservatives' who are unahppy with the direction the US has been taking in recent years. Where is their voice?
reply
share
chris_moore2004
20 years ago
First Off : You were right about Visconti i looked it up today my mistake. But I was jsut pointing out that jsut because movies are "entertaing" they should be panned. But there should also be a balance between entertainment movies and cinema that challenges things. There is still cinema out there you just must look for it. The corporation is a good movie, entertaining yet challenging, Farenheit 9/11... thats all I can think of at the moment haha. Yes i do think that a time in film is needed for challenging, but Im afraid those days are over. As long as people will pay 10 bucks to go see Alien Vs. Predator they will continue making those typses of movies.
reply
share
steverogers23
20 years ago
hmmm... I think a lot of movies out there challenge ideas and thought but you want political mombo-jumbo crap. who really cares about that propaganda grabage, it is so overrated- lol there I go I am such a silly American calling something overrated.
reply
share
josephjohnston
20 years ago
Steve
I am not demanding political 'mumbo jumbo'. That is not the prefoundity I am demanding. I regard "All the President's Men" for example, as a frivolous film which is simply propaganda in praise of a left wing "coup d'état" by the American press against a freely and democratically elected President of the USA.
A good example, I believe, of challenging cinema can be found in Capra. His "It's a Wonderful Life" is just as entertaining as "Back to the Future" (which it in part resembles) but it is a far deeper and darker film than the more modern Zemeckis film.
It challenges on a moral plane (not just psychological) but has a social dimension as well. All together a more rewarding experience.
Joe
reply
share
steverogers23
20 years ago
Joseph
well thats good because political propaganda movies SUCK no matter what side of the fence they are from! Some people like to be force feed their beleifs I for one am not one of them. Fellini, I am sure ate alot because he sure did make alot of Sh!t. However Fellini stayed pretty far from the political propaganda crap. The only Fellini movie with politcal over tones that I have seen is Roma -and if you seen that movie you will get my joke about eating alot :)
And I am glad you are making more sense now yes there are plenty of movies- recent movies- that challenge with out being political propaganda. it is not dead
reply
share
josephjohnston
20 years ago
Steve
perhaps I am still not making sense! The Frank Capra film "It's A Wonderful Life" was made in 1946 (if me memory serves me right!). I class it as an "old film" in so much as Capra was highly active before WWII as film maker and his career declined afterwards.
Moreover, "talkies" were only 17 years old when it was made. It's worth pointing out that the British novelist Graham Greene (he wrote the script for "The Third Man" but wrote the novel first and then adapted the scipt - wow!) believed that the "talkie" sent movies back 10 years as an art form when they arrived in 1929.
To return to the original point: I regard Capra's "IAWL" nevertheless as superior to "Back to the Future" (1984). In my book the latter is rightly called 'modern' given that it was produced (but not directed) by Speilburg.
reply
share
steverogers23
20 years ago
Joe
hmmm... I don't know where you are trying to go with this... I think it's a Wonderful life is a great film one of the all time greats infact and I too think it is an "old film" - old as in it was made almost 40 years before I was born.
well when ever there is drimatic change you always have someone who will think it will not be "good" or something will go wrong that doesnt or whatever (just look at the 1980's and what happen and what the artsy-fartsy(music/art/flim) people thought was going to happen)
No one is going to argue that It's a Wonderful Life is superior to Back To The Future and I really like BTTF alot. but I don't know what you mean by "modern." Modern with a lowercase "m" mean a lot of different things in the world of the arts- a whole different story with a capital "M" then it's deffinition is pretty well defined we alll know what Modern Art looks like. could you please elaberate
reply
share
indigol
15 years ago
I agreed with joseph-johnston's point about Modern American cinema seems incapable of confronting modern American problems.
I see films like Precious as the closest thing to a neo-realistic film for America in the last decade or more (besides Moore and a few "doc"-films).
When America tries to present its problems it is usually through a comedic portrayal as not many associated with Hollywood care to bring that look at America anymore.
.
reply
share