1. I agree that this film strays from normal storytelling and character development. The characters are thrown into the mix, not properly identified. As the audience we don't know what many of the characters do, who they are, what their motive or desires are. And without that knowledge, it's difficult to connect to the characters or understand how they are changing throughout the film. There are some exceptions, but generally that is the case. Also, the way the passage of time is dealt with in this movie is very different from most. Instead of gradually changing from night to day, this movie tends to finish a night scene and go right into a day scene. It throws the audience off balance, keeping us on our toes because we never know where the next scene will take us.
2. I feel that one of the underlying themes of this movie is everything looks better from the outside looking in, or the "grass is always greener..." phrase. This is strongly emphasized by the near constant presence of the paparazzi. The paparazzi represents modern culture idolizing celebrities and famous people. They try so hard to capture a part of their lives because it seems to be so much better, it seems to be the perfect life. When in reality no ones life is perfect. None of the characters are without problems.
3. I really enjoyed the scene at Steiner's house. It may not seem like an essential part, but I believe it is. Steiner tells Emma that she needs to love Marcello more than he loves himself in order to be happy. Then Emma tries to hint at marriage to Marcello, which was unsuccessful. Steiner admits that he chose the comfortable life, becoming respectable, but not a professional. He feels like he took the safe road. And Marcello admits that he needs to change his life, that something has to give in order for him to be happy and find his passion (not in so many words, but still). For these reasons and more, Steiner's house was very important. It is the first time in the film where the desires or motivations of the characters are explained. The shot list ranged from close-ups to medium, to wide shots. 3-shots, 2-shots were also used. I don't remember any camera movement though. I don't believe there was any use of dolly, tilts, pans, zooms etc... Though the camera work wasn't special, the staging and composition of each frame was. The party guests were all placed at varying heights, which placed a person at every level. The party group was strange and diverse enough, but then to scatter them around the room, some sitting, some standing. Some slouching, some standing with firm back. It created a successful contrast between each person, creating depth, range and flavor to the shots.
Overall, I enjoyed this film. I got used to how the narrative was disconnected and the characters had to be eased into. I also feel that I would gain a lot more if I re-watched it.
I think this is a very impressive analysis for someone who was not completely at ease to watching the movie. As to your first statement I agree that the characters sort of went in and out of Marcello's life without too much plot regarding their existence, which I think was a prime part of Fellini's surrealism and Marcello's journey because he always seemed to be in a dazed state, wandering Italy without a full sense of what he is supposed to be doing other than living, loving, and learning.
ReplyDelete