MovieChat Forums > 8½ (1963) Discussion > Maybe it's a pet peeve, but...

Maybe it's a pet peeve, but...


I can't stand watching this movie. I'm not that big a fan of abstract work, especially in film, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised that I was annoyed and bored. It's not that I think the movie is bad, I'm sure there are strong themes and messages hidden in all the mess, but this is one scenario where my own personal criteria outweighs the positive aspects of a film.

I have the same feeling with a 2010 indie film called The High Cost of Living, although instead of pet peeves, it's everything that I personally love in a film. It's very down to earth and literal, taking place mostly in an apartment or out on the street. It analyses the characters more so than it does any theme/message. It's the kind of story that anyone can experience in their lifetime, and it's not overly artsy.

Everyone likes at least one bad movie and hates at least one good one. Anybody else have a pet peeve or personal preference in film?

reply

everyone has films they can't stand ....especially revered films or award winners even if they have merits.

i can't stand THE KING'S SPEECH

i also find ozu's tokyo story unwatchable but that's also perhaps an earlier film MAKE WAY FOR TOMORROW deals with the same issues more eloquently.

i find the 2 above talky bores.

film which everyone seems to dislike but i like - THE TREE OF LIFE, THE MASTER

reply

It took me 3 tries to finish watching this unique master work. But, the 3rd time I got into it and began to appreciate the film on Fellini's terms. That's the key. Truly great films have to be seen multiple times to really "take in" everything. It was after I saw the entire film that I began to go over all the things that separate this from just about all other movies. It is a one of kind film experience. For that reason it may not be for everyone, but multiple viewings may make it more interesting and/or enjoyable.

reply

I have been a big fan of this film for a long time, and saw it again this weekend after not having seen it for a few years. Despite the wealth of its content, I found I remembered much of the film, enabling me to focus more on details, particulars of the dialogue and how characters were developed, as well as more cinematic elements.

But on the whole viewing this film has become an experience of the interrelations of its themes. Of course there is the artist's search for the creative impulse, here (and often amusingly) shown to occur in really a materialistic, economic setting. One might well say why search for that impulse if the search itself seems to squeeze out inspiration, but of course in large part the economics of it all provides an answer of sorts.

The other theme is Guido's love of women, and how he relates to each of them - what is different, what is common among the ones who receive, and subjectively deserve, more interest. I do recall the Sandra Milo's character as relatively trashy, but this time she seemed less clownish, and more sexually attractive. Interesting! Anouk Aimee's turn as Luisa remains endlessly fascinating, and of course recalls her work along with Marcello in La Dolce Vita. These are awesome performances by Ms. Aimee. Claudia Cardinale's cameo is also fascinating.

Anyway what struck me this time is how the issue of Guido's view of his marriage seems rather unclear. I think Luisa has had it with him, and even the friend Rosella can't seem to come up with much interest or hope in the marriage's continuing. Yet Luisa, other than Claudia, is the most beautiful and interesting woman in the film. Claudia seems something of a almost wistful presence in Guido's life, but when he says he has no part for her, surely this means not only no film role but no part in his life. As much as he may want her.

I hardly mean to suggest here that Guido should "settle" on Luisa. Instead, what keeps them apart? Is it merely his philandering (not that that is a small thing, but I mean is there something else as well)? In fact what about the philandering? Is there something in the past of Guido and Luisa that has killed their sexual interest in each other?

It is interesting that when we first see Luisa, her hair is rather short and almost carelessly coifed, those huge blackrimmed glasses seem almost masculine, and her clothes, while well fitted and stylish, are not exactly sexy. Yet Luisa for all that IS very attractive, and one senses taht Guido is very much aware of this.

The scene in the outdoor cafe where Carla shows up and is seen by Guido, Luisa and Rosella has its comic elements. But it is also fascinating for the look that Marcello uses for his character, a mix of embarrassment and pride as his wife looks at his lover.

Is this supposed to mean Guido has no good reason to cheat on his wife, other than sexual appetite, and perhaps even a suggestion of self destructiveness? Does he love Carla? How about does Luisa in some way encourage Guido to cheat on her?

I don't think the film really answers these questions. And to me, having seen it again, I am struck by that being part of its brilliance. In the end, I don't think Fellini had a good answer to these questions. Guido in fact is something of a prisoner to his own emotions and actions. He does not want Luisa to leave the theater as they watch screen tests. But he cannot find it in himself to convince her to stay, and later misses another opportunity for reconciliation at the set for the spaceship. His situation with his wife and the other women in his life parallels his relation to his work.

Brilliant.

reply