A classic film, such films are especially interesting to watch to try to understand for yourself: what is genius there?
Frankly, I had a hard time watching this movie, and the closer to the end, the harder it is. That’s because it’s hard for me to accept this lifestyle. Sweet but empty and idle life. In the film, nobody creates anything, nobody strives for anything. Everyone indulges in pleasure, entertainment, everyone who falls into this vicious circle. So Father Marcello, succumbing to temptations, after being devastated, rushes to escape. But Marcello himself can't get out. Even if the angel calls.
It turns out that all this beauty is worth nothing. That under this halo of success and self-confidence lies the bitterness, the pain of emptiness and meaninglessness. And love is always perverted, it does not create, but torments.
9 out of 10
How not to choose between the leading secular chronicle and the paparazzi, or which of the lesser evils.
The film resembles an impressive glossy magazine. It is no coincidence that Fellini himself (who worked as a journalist in the publications Piccolo and Marc Aurelius) admitted that in many ways the manner of presentation of material on the covers of illustrated magazines influenced the creation of the visual range, so the film turned out so stylish. It is worth admitting another of his merits: without “Sweet Life”, we would call annoying paparazzi somehow differently. The name Paparazzo, the antipode of the main character, with the release of the film became a household name. We stick to the marked contrast between the journalist Marcello Roubini (should I say he was played by Marcello Mastroianni?) and the photographer Paparazzo.
The first is a tabloid journalist (the leading column of the secular chronicle, if so less offensive sounds), an observer of the sweet life of the Italian elite of the late 50s, at the same time enjoying the gloss of bohemian and fed up with it to such an extent that even the super-sexual film diva Silvia (Swedish Anita Ekberg), splashing in the pool, can only briefly bring him out of the state of internal stagnation. He has everything - money, connections, professional recognition, success with women (and which! besides the above-mentioned Anita Ekberg partners Mastroianni in the film were Anouk Eme and Yvonne Furnault). There's just no point in this whole vanity fair. Marcello especially acutely feels the futility of his work after the suicide of Steiner’s friend, who urged the day before to quit everything, sit down with his memoirs, and do business. However, Marcello is too used to living on the principle of “I am ready to entertain you if you obey me in everything” and can not give up the image of a mischievous Roman reveler. This conveys the final scene, when the angel-like girl and Marcello are standing on the beach, and the important words that she shouts to him, drowned in the noise of the waves, never reaching the addressee. The second character, Paparazzo, like Marcello, lives in a chaotic world of artists and high society, but he is absolutely not burdened by such a life, he is completely satisfied with his share of the hunter for the stars. The prototypes for the collective character were the Roman photographers T. Secchiaroli, L. Nanni, E. Sorsi and G. Coluzzi, who were called “pirates”. If Marcello experiences a bitter taste of disappointment, then Paparazzo is not even able to recognize in the sweet life of the bohemian simulation, carnival (often found in Fellini’s carnival form of narration), picture and tinsel shine. This is the only thing that distinguishes them, and therefore the antagonism of the characters seems very strained. If we have to choose between two evils, we would prefer to abstain. Or pick an angel-like girl, yes.
Life is a very uninhibited thing. Here, I am walking down the street, an extraordinary man who plays chess better than Lionel Messi, and football is cooler than Anatoly Karpov, and no one is hunting me with a camera at once, does not try to get a stroke of a pen in a cherished notebook, does not invite me to a banquet with a breath in his voice. Here ran past the correspondent of the local district, without even turning his head in my direction, because Boris Moiseev passed through the city restaurant, and tomorrow all the residents will be sure to read greedily at the turn what he ate, and at what window he sat, and the happy cook will tell more than one year about the descent of the celestial in our seedy world.
The term “paparazzi” entered the lexicon of the inhabitant of the planet Earth with the light hand of the classic cinematography Federico Fellini. The film “Sweet Life” successfully got into a temporary fork, when officials and clergymen, enthusiastically anathematizing the picture, were forced to leave the post, who stepped into the shadows, thereby issuing the picture a free promotion. And success in Cannes and academic Hollywood has fixed the status of masterpiece. Especially since "The Sweet Life" is just a dream for a film critic. Each scene, each episode for almost three hours can be easily brought under any philosophical or social basis. From the first shots of the arrival of Jesus Christ in the Eternal City to the deafness of a secular lion to the voice of a simple girl in front of the credits.
And although the director disagreed with many conclusions of the reviewers (for example, he interpreted the ambiguous title not with a canonical condemnation of the glamorous layer of society, but with a call to realize that life consists of magical moments that you want to drink like sweet wine), little depended on him. Film critics and publicists, racing to include “Dolce Vita” in the lists of the best films of all time, convincingly cast in granite the real and invented advantages of the picture. It is simply indecent not to be familiar with the symbol of the great era in Italian cinema, and attempts to talk about the everyday nature of the topic and the protracted timing tattoo on the reputation of the profane symbol.
Moreover, the acting, and music, and camera experiments are really on top. It is clear that the style icon Marcello Mastroianni is elegant and multifaceted, so the rest of the ensemble as a selection - and Anita Ekberg, Anouk Eme, and Yvonne Furno blossomed with orchids. That's just the appearance of Alain Kuney constantly awakened in the memory of the character of the elderly erotomaniac from "Emmanueli", what to do, it was painfully strong was a youthful notch. But the losses of Nino Rota were often heard as separate works, the benefit of the reflective pace of the narrative contributed to this.
And I do not want, frankly speaking, to moralize about the worthless life of a capital journalist, the lack of tact of reporters, the childlike spontaneity of an overseas star and other religious naivety. The surrounding reality is woven from similar fractals. Few people rise every day on the diamond chariot, clusters of their own shortcomings have long passed the point of no return, the herd feeling commands to believe not that in Madonna – in the infallibility of another new politician. Aetate fruere, mobili cursu fugit. Enjoy life, it's so fleeting. Sooner or later you will realize that the vector was turned in the wrong direction. At least the taste of saccharin will remain from the sweet life.
A strange color for a review of the film of the great Fellini, right?
This is my second film, the first was 8 and a Half. After watching 8 1/2, she vowed not to watch Fellini as long as possible. I decided to take a risk.
Not my director. Almost three hours of wasted time. Even Nina Roth's music didn't cheer me up. The scenes are long, viscous, loaded with completely meaningless dialogue, I do not remember what the characters of the film talked about, but I watched it half an hour ago. I don’t understand why there is so much to talk about. We are shown the life of an Italian journalist and his weaknesses. His name is Marcello, he is incredibly beautiful and lonely, loves women, but not one of them can stay in his heart for long. And he has everything - a car, a new apartment, acquaintances with influential people in Italy, a job, even friends have and something is still wrong.
Oh, spare me the pain of that Italian burner! Fellini sympathizes with his hero, tries to assure us that “not all the gold that shines” and it turned out somehow pathetic, I saw only tinsel, only the pomposity of the film, but not its essence.
I will not apologize to connoisseurs, this is a drawn-out cartoon for me personally. It was boring comrades, not interesting and completely useless. I would love to write more, but this film drove me into an insurmountable sleepy state.
5 out of 10
The first shots of the film are very symbolic. The statue of Christ (carried by helicopter) flies first on the ancient ruins and then over the modern city. Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened, and I will give you rest; take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am meek and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls; for my yoke is good, and my burden is light (Matthew 11:28-30).
But then we find ourselves in a world where there is no Christ, where corruption, vice and pleasure triumph. Beaumond, the world of aristocrats, movie stars, singers, dancers... and the crowds around them. Bored, saturated, accessible women.
And this is Federica - a she-wolf, has an exorbitant love for boys. And this is little Eleanor -- 80,000 hectares of land -- two suicide attempts.
This is the world in which our hero Marcello revolves. The “sweetness” of this world envelops him, he is handsome, which provides him with the interest and attraction of women, provided that allows him to be in the center of events, in some ways famous. Written journalists are popular in price. From time to time, he flares up relapses of anxiety, dissatisfaction, the realization that life is wasted. But new meetings, vicious beauties and alcohol again and again plunge him into a sticky quagmire of voluptuousness.
Perhaps he could help a loving woman, but his bride is always terrified, jealous philistine, with whom in the end there is a final break.
The suicide of Steiner, a friend of our hero, leads him to a stupor. He seemed to him a spiritual person, his house was a haven of intellectuals, and his bride saw this house as a model of a warm and cozy family nest. The truth of the speeches made by the guests, and Steiner himself, gave off a hellish cold. The fruit of "high" reasoning was a terrible death.
Other important characters in the film are journalists and paparazzi. A bad audience that has nothing sacred and is disgusting. However, their work is in high demand in a society infected with intellectual fetishism. He loves to rummage and feel the dirty laundry of his idols, while experiencing pleasure, delight, envy, condemnation, indignation ... hating and deifying them.
Religious themes are also touched upon, or rather it is the same topic of the media that fanned a sensation by reporting that children see Madonna in some seedy place. Although the representatives of the Catholic Church do not confirm the truth of these visions, who cares? And now they film how exalted and sick people run after their fooling children in anticipation of miracle and healing. Is this not a “fun” entertainment for idle readers and viewers?
But Marcello's story is nearing its end. And here we have a spiritual corpse. Bohemian life sucked everything out of it, leaving one shell, within which a gaping emptiness. And this void will no longer be filled by any entertainment and perversion. Eyes are empty, ice on the heart - the fate of those who aspire will enjoy the "sweetness" of sin.
Before us is the path of degradation, the spiritual catastrophe of a person gifted, thinking, but choosing the path of “sweet” life, or rather death.
Maybe Fellini had a different meaning, but I shared what I saw. As for cinematography, the picture is perfect. Many moments in the film are mini-masterpieces in themselves. Thank God it was in 1960 and not 10 years later. I think the picture would be full of sex scenes. It has a sexual taste, but no naturalism. The fact that a three-hour film released 53 years ago looks in one breath, I think, is the best assessment and evidence that it is timeless.
10 out of 10
I understand, of course, that because of this review, I may be stoned and ignored, but I can no longer remain silent. I just want to say that I don’t understand movies like that. At least kill, but I can’t with all my desire to get into this film and understand its deep meaning. Please forgive me for this and still read my review: perhaps someone will agree with some thoughts.
Federico Fellini is considered a very famous and recognized director of the XX century. Many of our parents have heard, and perhaps even heard, the work of this director. His films are included in many different lists of the best films in the world, recognized not only by critics, but also by ordinary people. Of course, I cannot disrespect him, because he has made a huge contribution to the development of Italian cinema, but nevertheless, I am not able to accept the films of Señor Fellini either, except for Nights of Cabiria, which really had an interesting plot and a touching ending. As for the other films I’ve seen, like 8 and a Half, Amarkord and Sweet Life, I can definitely say that all of them caused me boredom, feelings of irritation, misunderstanding and a desire to finish these films as soon as possible and put a checkmark about acquaintance. ALL.
But back to a specific movie called Sweet Life. Let's see what he's talking about. A well-known journalist, already in adulthood, with attractive appearance, spends his life on entertainment, meaningless parties and meetings, while changing women like gloves and thereby breaking the heart of a woman who is in love with him without memory and who was so waiting to marry him and start a family. But how long can you burn a life? Isn’t it time to think about the future and the future? In the film, we are shown a degenerate, frivolous society that chases spectacles and lives only by them, which believes in everything they are told (characterized by footage of the appearance of the Virgin Mary to children), at least someone would think that they are simply bred. So the main character Marcello joins this herd with low values and ideals, instead of creating truly valuable art.
Yes, from this idea it was possible to make a great film, and in fact a lot has already been shot, but for some reason the director did everything to watch it was simply impossible.
First, the length of the film is too long it is unclear for what, most frames do not have any semantic load.
Secondly, all the conversations and actions of the characters are mostly meaningless and too emotional (yes, I understand that they are Italians, but not to the same extent to go crazy that).
Thirdly, I did not understand the plot and any sequence of events at all, and for what purpose was this or that event shown to us? I don't understand. Couldn’t the hero’s life and work be shorter? Or at least more interesting. For me, this film remained a set of some unrelated frames with annoying people and their actions.
Overall, I am disappointed to the core. It is disappointing that this kind of film is admirable and a benchmark for many people. As a result, towards the end of the film, I decided that I would rate it much lower than I thought. Sorry.
“Sweet Life” is a picture of impermanence, about finding yourself and your place in society. Being a classic of Italian cinema, the film is built on emotions and relationships.
Plot
“Peace makes me afraid, and if I hate something in the world, it is peace. Peace is insidious and deceptive. (c)
The main narrative consists of events that occur with the main character - Marcello. As a journalist, Marcello takes part in social events, meets interesting people. But despite his achievements and position in society, he does not feel his life to be complete. Work becomes more of a routine, and the woman he loves begins to lose importance to him. In general, the plot is quite difficult to describe, it is best to see the film. The image of Marcello is established thanks to several storylines. The dialogue is well written, mostly because we feel connected to the characters. Regardless of class or social standing, you understand them through the cues. Humor is built around situations that can really happen.
The cast of
Marcello Mastroianni played really well. His character is not entirely positive or negative. Sometimes it seems that he is confused. From the first scenes, it seems that he is loyal to his beloved Emma, but he spends much of the film with other ladies. Yvonne Furnault also plays great. She's getting used to the role and our emotional bond with her and Marcello is only getting stronger. Emma is a powerful and jealous person, and Marcelo is freedom-loving, but restrained. When he loses his patience, you feel that aggression, that frustration, and you believe in them. Anita Ekberg's role is small but memorable. She is an actress, so she behaves more freely than other actors. In her, Marcello sees his new ideal, as he thinks. Despite the fact that the director presents his characters as more lifelike and real, there are symbolic, philosophical scenes with their participation, especially with Steiner.
Music
The musical accompaniment is easier compared to the plot. It is diverse in its structure, just like the events of the film. So is life. But listening to the music, you will forget that “Sweet Life” is not the film where the black stripe replaces the white stripe, everything is more difficult. Nino Rota did an outstanding robot, creating music that occupies such a significant place in the plot.
Visual part
The robot of costume designers and directors is great. Some cabaret and other events that the heroes attend have become a great reason to create creative and unusual costumes. I am delighted that the film has been restored. Operating is particularly strong. The very first shots are a helicopter flying over the city with its sights. The angle of shooting, how it was taken, how the composition was observed is impressive.
Bottom line:
The time of the film is 3 hours. But that time is absolutely necessary. As I said earlier, everything that happens forms the image of the protagonist, giving an idea of the elite society of the time. And ultimately, we realize how close Marcello is to us. We all want a sweet life in one way or another. “The Sweet Life” is one of those films in which many viewers will find something close to themselves and this is an invaluable contribution to cinema by Federico Fellini.
10 out of 10
Federico Fellini's films 8 1/2" and "Sweet Life" are combined into a dilogy. The actor who played the main characters is the same - Marcello Mastroiani, and a similar theme - the search for inspiration, endless throwing from one to another, avoidance of reality, creative dead end, the destruction of ephemeral illusions.
Marcello in "8 1/2" and Guido in "The Sweet Life" chase the beauty of women, quickly cooling down, drowning in empty dreams to give meaning to their existence, but only some scraps are obtained. In "8 1/2" no conversation is completed, only individual phrases, a lot of questions unanswered, all in a state of stagnation and incompleteness - Guido's relationship with all his women, his film, castings for roles, all conversations - everything remains hanged in the air, everything is frozen. And all because the director himself does not know what he wants, what he needs, where he should go, what to do, can not make a single decision and is immersed in memories and dreams. Marcello is in a similar state - starting one, he throws. At first I am sure that he is crazy about one woman, the next day from another, then decides that the person closest to him is his girlfriend, but after a while she pushes her away. Marcello Roubini tries to fill the void, creating imaginary relationships, Guido turns to the past and dreams.
But if the director manages to realize the impotence of his attempts to create a film, and he abandons it, looking for another way, restoring relations with his wife, Marcello is doomed to get bogged down in bohemian life and meaningless meetings, forgetting about the desire to write a book.
The innovative techniques used by Fellini are admired: for example, the camera as a hero’s view of the environment, which is covered by a 360* turn, and during the turn, the events of what is happening, the relationship with others, expressed in their successively expressed single phrases or unanswered questions, while capturing characters in different planes. Also bizarrely weaved suras, creating and revealing secrets.
Fellini’s dilogy is accompanied by the music of Nino Rota, whose work is used in other films of the Italian film director, it should be noted, as it is an important component. These are not two films, “deprived of any hope”, this is a denunciation of the bohemian society of Italy of the 50s and film production, self-disclosure as a creator. It's something that deserves attention.
Everything is the subject of consideration. In the sight of the paparazzi, everything that smells a little scandal. The relaxed entertainments of the overgrown secular pride, divine miracles, human tragedies. Okay, okay. But the most important and constant on this list is the sweet life.
They stare at the monstrous fish, pulled by fishermen to the shore, are surprised by it. And then, in the morning, when the drunken dexterity and the appropriateness of night fun passes, there is a nasty sediment that can only be scored with another party, they themselves become such a fish and their onlookers will see it in the newspapers and wonder - it turns out, there are such miracles in feathers.
There is another, unsweetened life, too. But, my God, what does it lead to? And Steiner, who was as tall as a Gothic spire, so tall that he could not hear the voices of people, did a terrible thing. The fullness of his life was a chimera. So the way he pointed out - agree with the publisher and write a book - is also a chimera.
I can't say Marcello is a weak man. That he is a man who is despised of women for lustful reasons only. He followed in his father's footsteps. He is not disrespectful to his women. It switches easily from one to the other. He doesn't want anyone. Some of them confess their love. Is it sincere? Marcello has a peculiar understanding of love. For him, it's two extremes: either you get fed up in your mouth, or you have sex with the most beautiful women, every day with new ones. The first is a miserable ideal, a life between the kitchen and the bed, the boredom that strangles his father in the provinces. The second is a bright and festive world.
And so Marcello runs up the stairs, up behind a lush, golden-haired dream (a dream for once), and at the same time down from literature to journalism, from journalism to advertising. But the diversity of the sweet life dries up. It doesn't stop at once, no. Pleasure slowly slips away, and although the nights become long and not so cheerful, it is more and more disgusting to meet the dawn, it is not clear where to go.
“It's a job. You can't have fun! You must all obey me, and I will show you paradise. I am amazed by your beauty: you seem to have come down from ancient canvases. Boring. Dad, the woman who picked up the phone -- she only comes to me occasionally to clean up. My love, why did you do that? Who did you want to hurt, me?
You're as bottomless as the sea, Marcello. Because of your noise, you can't hear the voice of an angel who didn't have time to tell you something at the diner. Something very important.
To my shame, I realized that by my early 25s I had never seen this movie. After seeing him the day before, I decided to share my impressions.
We are told the story of Marcello - men, as they say, in the prime of their powers. Not young, but not old. He rotates in all bohemian circles, along with a group of his paparazzi penetrates all receptions, takes pictures of celebrities and meets beautiful and famous people. It's not nice for girls, even though most of them are. In fact, he is a rather weak-willed person - he can not even explain himself to his wife Emma, who is far from all this bohemian "gloss".
The film is not about a hero per se. Through our character, we see that very “sweet life” in the understanding of many. We see people essentially “cardboard”, we observe them, as it seemed to me, some “drawn” fun. Marcello himself gives the impression of a man not only very happy, but also not unhappy. Today he is with his mistress Maddalena (in the face of the wonderful Anouk Ame), tomorrow he already follows a certain Hollywood star Sylvia - a woman of very lush beautiful forms. Watches somewhat sluggishly, but not without hope for a "night sequel."
The first half of the film reminded me of something, sorry, quite “carnival”. Something insanely cheerful where everyone dances, smiles, sings and loves each other. But we are soon told that the sweet life we see through Marcello’s eyes is not so sweet. We are shown a longtime friend of Marcello Steiner, a writer (but I may be wrong). I apologize in advance, who explains to our hero that the meaning of life is lost. He recommends that he sit down at the book of memoirs, engage in creativity and not burn his life on these endless “bourgeois orgies”. In the morning, we learn that Steiner is committing suicide.
I am not going to tell the film in detail. First of all, this is an ungenerous matter, at least to the classics. Secondly, even if I describe each frame in detail, the perception will still be completely flat. For a “volume” picture, this work must be viewed, understood and evaluated. By virtue of my perception, life experience and even my “corruptness”, I apologize.
There is no sustainable plot in the film. “Sweet Life” is a canvas about the very bohemian life that will be modern until the very “higher light” in the face of endless bohemian artists, writers, actors, directors, photographers, etc. disappears. And what happens in the film will be repeated – these stories about the fact that in the bourgeois world a person as a person without a “core” will rot – will, unfortunately, continue to be the case.
There were some negative opinions about the film. That the director de, never once a genius - Fellini, made something of his own and we - the audience - as you want to understand. Such an opinion also exists. And that's the genius of the work -- it allows us to talk, to debate and to think. Moreover, give different assessments and opinions. And what Fellini's original idea was, we don't need to know, I think. I don’t care what Peter Ilyich thought when he wrote one of his symphonies. I listen to it and either I like it or I don’t.
And finally, by the way, about music. Nino Rota, who worked very hard with Fellini, created amazing music for this picture in frequency. For all the embellished and exaggerated idleness of the first half of the film, this simmering atmosphere of fun and incendiary - music does not seem superfluous to me. It is placed in the places where it is needed. No more and no less.
The film is recommended for everyone who is already sixteen or seventeen years old. And a little personal advice from me - the film CRAINE I do not recommend watching intermittently. Take the time and watch it carefully. The picture with its timekeeping does not seem long. You will feel as if you have just left this world. From the world of the sweet life.
Young, handsome, fashionable and successful journalist Marcello is engaged in secular chronicle. He has many acquaintances among the cream of Italian society and all the necessary connections at the level of ministries. To make the reports more vivid he helps friend photographer Paparazzo.
Marcello Mastroiani played the role of the glamorous journalist Marcello, perhaps at the peak of his sexuality. The role is brilliant. A young man who values freedom most of all, which is why he is in no hurry to propose to a loving girl who lives in his house, who often spends the nights alone, while he is in the arms of another rich nymphomaniac or an overseas star. It happens that he just hangs out in the company of bored rich people. He does not like his work, he wants to be a serious writer, but the secular chronicle brings a good income and it is difficult to give up all the benefits it has brought. A strong blow, which turned something in the worldview of Marcello, was the death of his friend Steiner.
Steiner was played by Alain Kuney. Outwardly a prosperous man with a beautiful wife, beautiful children, a great house in which the bohemian constantly gathers and talk about modern art. Marcello envied his friend with white envy, but behind external well-being lurked insoluble problems.
Fellini showed us the sweet life, but it is sweet only from the outside. Behind the endless social parties, ostentatious fun, an ineradicable longing runs through, which is tried again and again to be treated with an endless holiday of life. Secular chroniclers and stars are like two sides of the same coin. They were made for each other. Without one there are no others.
The picture is flawless in every way. The music of Nino Rota is served as dessert to the dish. The small role of a young Adriano Celentano singing rock and roll was a nice addition. That cherry for dessert. In short, it is a masterpiece, and for centuries.
10 out of 10
In the new decade, the 1960s, Federico Fellini entered with a truly grandiose satirical-grotesque film fresco that split Italian society in two. The progressive part of it, the youth and democratic circles, in every possible way praised “The Sweet Life” for the revolutionary nature and freshness of ideas, while the conservatives, reactionaries and clergymen unanimously condemned the film for obscurantism and freethinking. All things in order.
The idea of making a sequel to Mama’s Sons, Moraldo in the City, has long tormented Fellini and gradually receded into the past: the very time of the action, the fascist atmosphere of 1939, is hopelessly outdated, now people were worried about other problems, and the Italian society itself has undergone significant changes. In place of the solidarity and solidarity of the war years came the parasitism of the ruling, aristocratic classes, which actually dominated the country in symbiosis with the Catholic Church. A certain evolution has also undergone a young, full of hopes and ambitions Moraldo: now his name is Marcello (Mastroianni), he is a successful journalist, with money and connections, who has success with women and calls a good hundred representatives of the Roman bohemia his friends. But he has no specific purpose in life, leading an aimless existence, Marcello spends himself day after day on trifles, morally emptying himself and eventually coming to a complete spiritual collapse. In many ways, this character is autobiographical, as, for example, and Zampano with Augusto: having entrusted Marcello Mastroianni to embody on the screen a secret part of his nature, Fellini, as he jokingly admitted later, “tried to make him brilliant and charming.” On the other hand, the on-screen Marcello is a kind of average type of bohemian Roman reveler, having some profession only for cover, in fact morally rotting from the consciousness of his own inaction.
Externally, “Sweet Life” does not impress a picture with a clear and smooth plot structure. Rather, it resembles a rather chaotic jumble of episodes inspired by newspaper chronicles, comics and the yellow press of tabloid magazines. This was the goal pursued by the well-coordinated tandem of the director and screenwriters – Brunello Rondi, Tullio Pinelli, Pier Paolo Pasolini, Ennio Flaiano and, of course, Fellini himself: to create a cinematic testimony to the chaos of the era, to express the feeling of fatigue and longing, inspired by the absurd secularism and decadent luxury. It would seem that it is difficult to challenge the realistic, sometimes even naturalistic nature of the picture: the director deliberately used real people in some scenes (the artist Anna Salvatore, the writer Leonid Repaci), others gave an almost documentary shade (arrival at the airfield of the movie star Sylvia performed by Anita Ekberg)... But Fellini did not retreat from his inherent symbolism, paying due attention to surreal and baroque details, as well as carefully and with a secret meaning known only to him, working out the design of costumes. What was not seen in the seven-part mosaic of the film: an allegorical depiction of the seven deadly sins, and the seven days of creation, and the seven church mysteries; the picture itself was often interpreted in the spirit of the "philosophy of ethical enthusiasm" Seren Kierkegaard, close to Emile Zola "erotic religiosity", satirical works of ancient authors ...
The last guess is perhaps not without originality. Indeed, Fellini’s orgies at the dachas of aristocrats are very similar to the immoral pagan festivals of ancient Rome of the time of Nero and Caligula: it is quite possible to imagine that two thousand years ago high-ranking idlers, for fun, poured wine and sprinkled feathers on each other. But, as we can see, many remnants of that era were preserved in the middle of the XX century, because very many learned in the satirically depicted Fellini realities and personalities themselves, their usual way of life. They found out and were very unhappy. A special attitude to the "Sweet Life" was formed by Catholic hierarchs: the first frames of the film - a statue of Christ transported by helicopter - quite transparently hinted at the loss of the Church's dominant role, the failure to fulfill its social function. This was also evidenced by the so-called “night of a fake miracle”, clearly echoing the plot of the canvas “The Blind” Peter Bruegel, one of Fellini’s favorite painters: children who have seen Madonna lead not only parents, but also a whole crowd, distraught in religious ecstasy and unable to distinguish the true God from an idol. It is not surprising that with the light hand of the official Vatican organ “Osservatore Romano” the cardinals, priests and editors of Catholic journals spoke of “Sweet Life” unequivocally negatively, as allegedly openly and vilely describing nauseating vices, deliberately demonstrating the humiliated position of women and leaving no hope for their heroes, mired in immorality.
Despite the obvious bias, the latter claim is not entirely unfounded. Think about it, because, in fact, none of the characters of “La Dolce Vita” really inspires compassion; very often we are surrounded by solid antiheroes, and even Steiner (Alain Kuney), whose more or less firm principles seemed to be the only salvific anchor for the antagonistic Marcello, does not withstand battles with fate and drowns, trying not to swim against the flow of mediocrity. But Fellini did not consider it necessary to introduce the lyrical alter-ego into the narrative, as well as to create its social background or emphasize political-anticlerical morality. Having provoked a polemic unprecedented for its time, Sweet Life was not polemical in nature; it is difficult to call it “the highest, most complete product of Catholicism in recent years,” as Pasolini considered from a Marxist standpoint. Digging into the philosophical background of Fellini’s decisions, criticizing the excessive allegorism of his film language, looking for the connection of his ideas with the views of the luminaries of world existentialism and absurdism, many critics missed the most important detail. After all, if we discard all the platitudes and learned from the outside, we will see painfully familiar to each of us situations: difficulties in relations with the father (Annibale Ninci) neglected the upbringing of his son and unable to understand him in adulthood; a difficult choice between devoted maternal love, which was personified by Emma ( Yvonne Fernault), and free relations with a stunning, but empty and puppet beauty in the face of Sylvia; finally, fatigue from the ostentatious mastrociousness of friends. Fellini neither exposes nor punishes: he is deeply attached to Rome, sincerely sympathizes with the tragedy that Italian society is experiencing, and even in the depiction of its most unsightly sides, the great humanism of the creator is noticeable, just as the joyful face of life shines through satire.
10 out of 10
Rich people, paparazzi and a bright smile of a girl.
I watched a bunch of movies where a woman climbs into a fountain, imitating the heroine of Anita Ekberg. The incomprehensible directors of these films paid tribute to Federico Fellini. A person, a director, even if he did not want to, showed the moral emptiness and decay of the society that the media still presents to us as an example of worthy people. You can’t call them people like that.
Journalist Marcello asks a very rich lady:
What do you do?
- Nothing.
- You have nothing to worry about with your money.
- You think?
If this woman were poorer by a few million houses and cars, she would have no time to do “nothing” and suffer from it. A sane person will easily understand this. But it is worse when such people stop doing nothing and amuse themselves with wrecking, become criminals. Marcello looks at all this, participates, turns in this society, so any attempts that could lead a person to another path do not work on him as a result.
Many films of those years, recognized authors were similar, externally and internally. They all had similar thoughts. Criticism, reflection, long philosophical silence, lively chatter and again silence. I like the films of Vittorio de Sica about ordinary people and their pressing problems, I like comedies in Italian.
Films such as “Dolce Vita” were good for their time, ignorant opened their eyes to reality, tearing off masks (and sometimes muzzles). Today, everything that can already be thwarted, it would seem that people should already understand what is what, but look at the celebrities that they have done to become those who became famous. Viewers, instead of understanding the essence, take an example, set themselves the goal of “getting into these people.” Directors shoot a sweet life so that the audience aspires to it, as if this is their destiny. And I'll tell you, today is the time to make a film about the very girl we see at the very end.
Sweet Life is a series of incidents in the life of Roman tabloid reporter Marcello Roubini (Marcello Mastroianni) who revolves in the bohemian society of Rome in the 60s. He is bewitched by it and at the same time is completely disgusted with it.
In this film, Fellini very subtly and symbolically alludes to our misconceptions about the life of glamour. He showed us a generation of spoiled celebrities that, after half a century, has not changed at all. For example, the final scene of the film illustrates the complete difference of values and misunderstanding between a girl with an angelic face and Marcello, who eventually goes to live his life with pseudo-friends.
But Bohemian life is not the only topic that the director raised. The scene of a planned "miracle" where crowds of people literally ripped apart a tree seedling allegedly because Madonna descended next to it shows us religion as a "herd" effect. I think it's a very brave protest, especially for that time.
Despite the fact that the film is sometimes delayed, it looks easy due to the rather uncomplicated plot and the quality of the shooting. Lighting, editing and sound are all at the highest level that fully convey the aura of the film and the atmosphere of alienation, loneliness, boredom, selfishness and suffering that sometimes entails that very “Sweet Life”. Classic of the genre.