I am 20 minutes in and this is extremely boring yet everyone talks about how its one of the greatest movies ever made so I must be in the wrong.
Is there some required reading/watching I need to do before I can appreciate this movie?
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
yes, you should hace started with La Strada you stupid frick
is this movie a sequel of sorts?
*have
no, but all the Fellini movies after La Dolce Vita are about Fellini
you need to get the man before jumping straight to 8 1/2
at least watch La Strada, Cabiria, La Dolce Vita before
Nta but since you seem to know a lot, what Italian Neorealist films are 'essential', and does Fellini have any? The earliest Italian film I've seen is La Strada and everyone says that was the beginning of moving away from Neorealism. I would like to get a better idea of where Fellini and Italian cinema (I've also seen a few Antonioni) was coming from.
Bicycle Thieves and Rome, Open City are the GOAT of italian Neorealism.
I'd say Fellini's early works like Il Bidone and Nights of Cabiria are more influenced by the aesthetics and ethos of neorealism, but he quickly departed from it as you mentioned.
After being exposed to Fellini, Visconti and the neorealist stuff first, Scorsese + Coppola just seem...eh.
Scorcese and Coppola are Americans.
La Strada is Fellini. I would also say it's Fellini's only true Neorealist film as a director even though it's also ironically the tail-end of the Neorealist tradition and the moment where you can kind of see the elements of the movement giving way to other influences.
If you want essential Neorealism watch Rome Open City (which Fellini passively helped write) and Bicycle Thieves.
>you should hace started with La Strada
Why?
With the exception of maybe I Vitelloni La Strada is the first Fellini movie that truly feels like "a Fellini movie" with his own obvious thematics and motifs.
The pre-La Strada Fellini movies are okay for what they are but they are just kinda plodding light comedies and/or Neorealism.
>his own obvious thematics and motifs
What are his thematics and motifs?
good, stop watching, back to capeshit for you
overrated garbage
just watch antonioni instead
I watched the Red Desert and it was some of the most mindnumbingly boring shit I have ever seen in my life. I know that's not considered Antonioni's best but it left me legitimately baffled how anyone can stylistically compare Antonioni to Fellini.
The pleb advice of someone who knows 2 Italian directors.
>this is extremely boring
that is correct.
I was very bored when I watched this.
Watch Druk instead. It is required viewing for Cinemaphile and is not boring
I liked it
It's other directors saying it's the best. You have to come back to it later.
>making movies is.... le hard
>also I have a sex addiction, which makes my life difficult
it's nothing special. it's only confusing because you're expecting for a plot to kick in.
That´s because it´s art, not entertainment.
Just trust everyone, it gets good. The longer you watch it, the more absorbed you will be. The finale is astounding.
This. I was bored at the start but it gets better and better.
I liked La Dolce Vita but this just felt like narcissism.
>I liked La Dolce Vita but this just felt like narcissism.
that's what I said
Rome Open City and Paisa are the two big ones
not a fan of Bicycle Thief tbh
>Bicycle Thief
At least that wasn't pretentious garbage. It was weird the way they portrayed Italians at the end. Reminded me of Zorba the Greek and how that portrayed Greeks.
This shit happens with the Oscars and them giving awards to movies about making movies. No one outside of the academy gives a shit about the "struggle" of making a movie.
It is extremely boring, of course other film directors will call his masturbatory autobiographical schizo movie the greatest film ever.
>masturbatory autobiographical
that's Amarcord
true but Amarcord is fun and entertaining, the only good parts of 8.5 are the dream sequences
>Can't wait to interrupt watching a movie to look at another screen.
You will never be able to appreciate anything you adhd homosexual frick.
Felt the same watching La Dolce Vita , didn’t even finish it. He’s a humourless, shit director
>humorless
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HOLY FRICK
You're STUPID
Like Fellini I think that the "noble" film is the trap of traps, the sneakiest swindle in the industry. For a real filmmaker, nothing could be more boring to make than a The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)--scenes set inside office alternating with discussions between old fogies and some action scenes usually filmed by another crew. Rubbish, traps for fools, Oscar machines.
Fellinid
Never watch an old foreign movie described as a masterpiece. It's only film snobs pretending it's high art in order to look smart.
Better yet ignore every opinion you see, including here, and just go watch movies. No one's opinion matters but your own.
unless they're about a samurai
>dont learn and expand your cultural horizon, be ignorant and proud!
why are americans like this?
It's overwhelming by the end. The director/Fellini's self-insert at the start is at an impasse in his life and career. He is miserable until almost Act 2...
FWIW, I can never get into La Dolce Vita. Everything else he did was great.
>Is there some required reading/watching I need to do before I can appreciate this movie?
This is the worst mindset you can ever have. Anyone that thinks like this will not make it. And people will zone out and want to be elsewhere when you speak in conversations.
oddly specific, smells like projection
its because its not uncommon
are you implying op is semi npc who cant formulate his own taste? because, if youre uninitiated, watching one of these films you might get the idea that its one of those "you need context" pieces of art - like that unfinished AIDS painting.. looks like shit but with the context it makes homos go stark mad for it
How is understanding that certain works require foreknowledge a bad mindset??? people here say the darndest things
They don't require it.
In a way what I'm saying is that he, or people like him, aren't listening to themselves, because they do have an opinion on the movie.
But since they can't listen to themselves, they have to take on the words of others. These are the types who are insufferable to listen to because they don't speak authentically about "art", it's just a social game.
Any time you start talking about movies in an unengaging way you'll receive that reaction. And you should also know your audience. People who are into movies are into The Conjuring and at best The Godfather.
You have to have preconceived ideas about something to watch pretty much anything
Imagine watching Zone of Interest without knowing what the Holocaust is or Once Upon a Time in Hollywood without knowing who Charles Manson is.
Don't advocate for stupidity, stupid
Pretty dumb thing to say, especially in the case of this movie. Even it's title is an in-joke.
La Dolce Vita is top 5 films ever made but this sucks
how about you finish the movie before posting you fricking midwit piece of shit
If you don't have the attention span to watch an entire movie without pausing it to go post on Cinemaphile you should give up on ever engaging with the film medium in a serious way and just watch porn and action movies.
The ending is more glorious than that of The 7th Seal. Fellini cooked like nobody
Do yourself a favor and watch its much superior American remake instead.
I just watched Fellini's Satyricon today, shit was cash
Unexpected Richard Simmons.
Honestly, I didn't really enjoy watching it the first time around--until maybe the second half or so of the movie. I think if I rewatched it now, I'd enjoy it a lot more. I really loved the ending, and I think it makes the movie worth.
I could also never get into it.
Favorite Fellinis in order:
Amarcord
Roma
La Strada
Nights of Cabiria
Satyricon
Julie of the Spirits
La Dolce Vita
Amarcord has all of the indulgent narcissism people complain about with Fellini but also overreliance on juvenile sex humor. I don't get how it's considered one of his best.
I never thought about it but with Fellini the movies that you'd think are supposed to feel sexualized (Nights of Cabiria, Satyricon) really aren't but the movies you wouldn't expect to be as sexualized (Amarcord, Casanova) are.
Im sorry, but if you wouldn't expect a movie about Casanova to be sexualized I don't even care about any of your opinions. You obviously either severely lack education or are otherwise subnormally intelligent.
I should have added the context that the movie was billed as an adaptation of his autobiography which was more about his adventures than the coomer shit. Fellini played up the coomer shit because he thought Casanova was an idiot and it comes out in the film.
Fellini played out Casanova the way he and everyone of his generation and the next two saw Casanova as an archetype. The only reason anyone knows the name Casanova is because of what you call "comer shit" in your youthful, trying hard to seem insightful ignorance.
When I wrote that I was recalling the story of how he was gifted an expensive copy of Casanova's biography by the Casanova Society or whatever and ripped out pages of it in front of them as proof that he wasn't taking it as the angle of an adaptation of the biography, even though that's the angle it was billed at and the angle he took to Alberto Grimaldi to get funding. Tullio Kezich writes about it in his biography of Fellini.
I'm not gonna powerlevel but I know my shit when it comes to Fellini, trust me.
Who gives a flying frick about the angle the filmmaker took to get funding when it comes to your assessment of a movie? Or about how it was advertised? Eyes Wide Shut (don't get excited, it is an EXAMPLE) was advertised as an erotic thriller, so your reason to dislike it is because it isn't an erotic thriller? Inane.
And you think because you read a book for once in your life you are an authority on anything? Could you be any more of a pleb?
You remain the person who would not think a movie about Casanova (!) mad in the 70s (!!) by Fellini (!!!) would or should not be "sexualized".
abhorrently stupid post
any other era in history you'd be dead by now, it's tragic that you aren't
Quiz samegayging. Nobody is seething but you. Again: someone who would not expect a movie about Casanova to be about sex is in no position to critique anyone else's insight. You are too uneducated to be taken seriously in a conversation.
No one is samegayging you're just uncontrollably sperging for several posts straight over one minor point in one post I didn't think through.
Good that you can at least admit to it, well done.
You are absolutely seething that I wrote one throwaway line while thinking about an anecdote relating to the production of a movie rather than the more apparent subject matter of the movie. Frickin' calm down brah.
holy based, you btfo'd that worm
Did you ever see I Vitelloni?
No I haven't yet.
I forgot Toby Dammit, his segment of Spirits of the Dead - up there with his best stuff.
Don't take it seriously. Don't go watching it expecting all the hype it acquired ever since it was made. It's something like a biographic movie with ironic undertones. It's obviously made for people who knew his filmography and appreciated it. It's not for hyperactive zoomer kids that grew up gobbling up ritalin (a.k.a. lite-coke).
8 1/2 was my favorite movie when I was a moronic 19 year old. I still like it but I've come to understand why people find it indulgent and the whole "le artistic genius" thing is schmaltzy. These days I've come to accept that La Dolce Vita and Fellini's Casanova (which is basically just a baroque-era La Dolce Vita) are just as good if not better.
This dudes style and the one chicks breasts are the greatest in movie, if not human history. As a movie it is boring. Seeing Adam Driver try in vain to copy this dudes aesthetic shows how hard it really is to achieve.
>Is there some required reading/watching I need to do before I can appreciate this movie?
I'd say about twenty years of quality literature, you fricking zoomer pleb. Go back to your talking raccoon flicks.
Read, read, read, read, read. Those who read own the world; those who immerse themselves in the Internet or watch too much television lose it. If you don't read, you will never be a filmmaker.
>Is he right ?
All movies from before like 1990 were made by AI as part of an invented history.
And they're mostly shitty. The reputation ticket the AI gave them does not correspond in any way, shape or form to actual quality.
I pity zoomers and the fantasy world they live in. When the internet was new we thought with total information the world would be seen clearer. But dumb people remain dumb people, no matter the technology. The only hope is to crush the stupid.
Maybe don't focus your attention on your phone while you watch a movie
For me what sticks in this movie is the soundtrack, the concubine scene, some of the flashbacks, and the quarrel that Guido has with his wife throughout
Did we watch the same movie? 8 1/2 has some of the tightest pacing I've ever seen. The narrative consists of introspection and self-loating. but at the same time the movie is extremely witty and funny. Guido-Fellini isn't afraid to laugh at himself and delights in us laughing at him. Crazy to think that it was made in 1963, when Hollywood was bogged down in golden age academicism and French New Wave started only few years ago with puerile amateurisms of Truffaut, Chabrol, etc
okay I'm 1 hour in and I still don't get it
I guess I am just too brainlet and uncultured. This film just has this homework feel to me. Like I can't just sit and enjoy it at face value but feel like I have to analyse each scene to appreciate it. Do I need to be familiar with italian culture and religion?