Estimated reading time: 16 minutes
When an author and director conceives his work and expects it to be very expressive, he has to prepare for a duality: the first level is to prepare the subject, and the other is the real live shooting and editing. It's like saying that a writer first accumulates a lot of material to write in the plan, then synthesizes these materials, lays out and cuts them reasonably, and then enters the structural description. But this idea is often only partially realized, and it is only in the mind. ......
It is well known that Fellini did a great deal of work in order to make a good film, when he was preparing what I call the first level of work, that is, he carefully screened the subjects to be photographed. I'll give one or two examples to illustrate this.
1. Fellini's choice of actors is always unexpected and grotesque, and his bold choice actually penetrates the hearts of these actors' personalities, forcing them to "recreate the role". There are a dozen examples, from the actor who played tarzan ape to the once bad boy enrico Glori (the admirer of Nadia who danced striptease in the film); from Annibale Ninchi,who played the playboy role in Dunanthae's play; to anita Ekberg, who played the sexy actress Sylvia. But along with the above-mentioned actors who played the panicked and mentally disturbed roles, there were other completely different types of actors; these actors, like the characters in the documentary, played in their own roles, exactly like real life, extremely natural, and this obvious feature constituted the naturalistic element of Fellini's complex cinematic linguistic structure. I'm referring to real people like Laura Betti (the real-life actress who plays the blonde – the singing actress) in the film, Leonida Repaci, Anna Salvatore (the guest at Steiner's house), and so on.
2. Fellini insisted on using expressionism[1] An art genre that emerged in the early 20th century and was popular in Europe and the United States, emphasizing exaggerated techniques that expressed the artist's self-feelings and subjective feelings to express social customs and social environment. This expressionist expansion can be divided into three categories: pure humor (such as the small details in the film: the eccentric hats worn by the ladies, the cloaks of color and style that are out of place); the expansion of the typical "atmosphere" of decadent cinema and literature (one can see almost everything in the suburbs of Rome, from the high villas to the slums of the dark streets); and the third is the extension of the pure expressionist, formalist scenes, such as the spectacular "apparition scene of the Virgin" we see: the empty suburbs under the night A scene of brilliant lights appeared, and the crowd stood there with umbrellas in the heavy rain, waiting for the miracle to appear.
It should be noted that even in this outward manifestation of formalism, there is a certain number of almost documentary naturalist shots, almost reminiscent of certain scenes in Fashion Weekly. This is the first level of work. With regard to the second level, namely live shooting and editing, I would also like to say something about the characteristics of this aspect, unfortunately, as usual, I can only express it in approximate terms.
1. The movement of the lens and the camera always creates a special aperture with a blurry effect around the subject, this hazy picture, although irrational, is more attractive, so that the cut-in of the picture is as far as possible and the world around the object loses its rational connection, thus creating a strong mysterious color. Whenever a paragraph begins, the camera is almost always in motion, but this is by no means a simple movement, but a series of movements to achieve formal symmetry and harmony, as we describe in our review of literary works. But it is often found that in the overall motion of the camera—whether it is zigzag or subordinate to the movement that needs to be inserted in a certain plot—a very simple, almost documentary-style shot suddenly emerges, like the insertion of an oral narrative... For example, the scene when the American female star arrives at the airport.
2. Fellini's passage shots, with a wide field of view and often a slow, detailed description, are like a page in Proust's novel. But we can still find that, in this case, corresponding to this, it is often juxtaposed into a lens with the same wide field of view but with the opposite meaning. For example, Marcello and Steiner meet in church: the camera describes the greeting between the two at a slow pace, Steiner praises Marcello's article and asks about his writing progress, which makes Marcello feel extremely uncomfortable, and then Steiner comes to the organ and plays Bach's music, Marcello feels embarrassed and uneasy, and before Steiner has finished playing, he turns away. At this point, the passage quickly ends with a long shot of an empty church fighting back—in an instant, a woman flashes in the church, but the viewer barely has time to keep her silhouette in the retina. This situation also appears in the scene where Marcello says goodbye to his father: in this scene, the plot layout, structure is well organized and accurate; Fanny stands on the balcony, watching the father and son talking downstairs, and the son asks the father to stay and stay with the father for a good day, but the father insists on leaving. At this point, the rigorous narrative structure is suddenly interrupted; there is a long shot of the father leaving in a taxi, and the son is left alone on the empty road.
These are only general, simple descriptions and generalizations of certain features of Fellini's cinematic language, and even then we can already see that Fellini's work, stylistically, at least on the surface, is perfectly worthy of the great work of European decadence. It can be said that "La Dolce Vita" has all the marks of decadent works. For example, there is a pleasing voice in the work (the first feature of decadence at this time), and in Fellini's work, correspondingly its pleasing vision, so that the picture does not exist for functionality, the function of the picture is pure, that is, to attract the audience with a charismatic picture; second, Fellini constantly uses semantic expansion (which is the second feature of decadent works), and in his film, the meaning of no picture is simply to play the role of a tool, It always encompasses multiple meanings: exaggerated, lyrical, magical, or extremely realistic realism; that is, semantic expansion.
As mentioned above, if we continue to look at the level of Fellini's filmmaking style and the work of collecting vocabulary- writing materials, it is not difficult to find that the vocabulary used by Fellini has all the characteristics of a decadent vocabulary: it is colorful, the words are unique, grotesque, the description is detailed, and because of the use of different interesting, different levels of expression, thus forming a "chaotic" language style, this structure is characterized by: sometimes it is the intentional expression of inner emotions, sometimes it is simple, Impulsive colloquial expressions that match the orderly and soothing structure.
In this way, we are confronted with a work that we can accurately call neo-decadence. If valuable literature—in this particular case, neorealist cinema—is influential enough, then we can call historical decadence obsolete and obsolete, and then we should explore development and innovation. Unfortunately, the glory days of neorealist cinema were short-lived. Conservatives quickly curbed its development and abandoned it. Now that the form has eased, and there is some agreement with the critics' comments on Fellini's style, the Communists themselves recognize the value of decadent works, so they try to find positive and progressive elements in Fellini's films. However, when I say this, it does not mean that I have any prejudice against the Communist Party. I have declared, openly and unequivocally, that Fellini's work represents a strong return to a work that has the character of European decadent literature, and at the same time it is a good interpretation of the ideological meaning and stylistic character of such work. You will of course notice that from my description of the characteristics of Fellini's linguistic form, it can be seen that the writer Garda [2] Gadda, 1893-1975, the Italian writer, whose novels expressing contemporary Italian society are called the model of "modernism". The depth of the influence on him, or rather, the many similarities between them. Perhaps, you will be surprised, why I did not mention Gada's name before this, and what confusing comparisons do I want to make? In fact, like Fellini, Gada from time to time likes to paint satirical, sonic words in his works and is complacent about them; like Fellini, Gada trampled on semantics and created terms that constitute subjective language, which are characterized by witty, absurd, humorous, powerful, profound meaning, but also distorted meanings (although there is no lack of passages that express the truth of reality, although the vocabulary is somewhat confused); it can be said that, like Fellini, Garda's syntactic structure is extremely elaborate, but not with regular intervals; like Fellini, Garda's vocabulary is rich and chaotic, unimaginably chaotic.
Although the two have many similarities, there are essential differences between them. Sorry, I would like to express my point here quickly and in a nutshell, but the basic difference between the two of them is simply that the "chaos" of Gada appears on the surface of the interior, while fellini's "chaos" is directly expressed in the description of the appearance of the external world.
Another indisputable fact is that in terms of political stance, the two of them also have something in common, although this common ground is general and high probability. In fact, both authors have largely embraced the state system, the church, and they have no controversy over state institutions, almost seeing state institutions and institutions as absolute, immutable facts, but where they themselves go out of the ordinary is an exception, that is, the manifestations of their anarchism. This anarchism is expressed in Garda's works as grotesque and sarcastic, and in Fellini as a lyricism and depiction full of charm. They also have a difference: although both are extremely naïve, this naivety is embodied in Garda at the level of morality and ethics, while in Fellini it is the kind of unrestrained, free and unrestrained wandering.
It is this commonality, the perverse form of non-conformism and non-conformism, that leads to the similarity of the styles of the two authors, which, I repeat, is only superficially similar. Otherwise, we cannot explain why Garda's depiction of the inner hearts of the characters, of reality, is so deeply sculpted to such an almost unbelievable degree that Fellini's "direct" narrative of juxtaposing things side by side on the same platform is like a crude bas-relief. The fact is that Garda has a rational system of thought in his consciousness, because his cultural cultivation was formed before the advent of the Italian "no party intervention", during the fascist period; his entire literary literacy bears marked by obvious positivism, not by any locality, not only because his works have a high european quality—referring to more European characteristics, less strong local colors, less Croce [3] 1866-1952, the philosophical ideas of Italian philosophers and historians. ......
Fellini, on the other hand, grew up during the period of fascist rule in Italy, and he despised the folly of the fascist system with great contempt but at the same time knew nothing about it: although he had taken the anti-fascist position for granted at that time, even now he remains, firm and democratic in his approach. Fellini's cultural literacy was formed with local characteristics from the beginning, contrary to Garda: Garda accepted the social system as the highest norm of moral civilization, and the social system was mysterious and unknowable for Fellini. Fellini's lashing out at this institutional myth, which in our society can be seen even by those who are highly myopic or politically indifferent, uses the power of myth; his political position is based entirely on personal fantasies, anxieties, and joys, and these emotions are released in a unique way, a precious asset in the director's heart, almost mysterious and unknowable.
This cultural work, which has both the characteristics of the 20th century, as you can see, and the characteristics of decadence, is to reject reason and criticism and replace it with technology and poetic expression.
Nevertheless, as usually happens, although the author rejects the ideological nature of the work, the ideological nature still exists, and the author describes this idea in great detail strictly according to his careful conception and skillful skill.
The ideological nature of Fellini's works is similar to that of Catholicism. In a shallow sense, the only recognizable or almost recognizable problem is that in La Dolce Vita there is no dialectical relationship between sinful acts and innocent manifestations; I say they have no dialectical relationship because the author reconciles the two with a beautiful, harmonious charm. It is precisely because of this irrational Catholic thinking in Fellini, and in a sense, almost naïve and naïve, that his style of work has no internal vision, no difference in moral values. We call fellini's expression a style of "direct expression without scruples." Because in the final analysis, Fellini has a "naughty boy" in his heart - for this "naughty boy", Fellini is willing to resign himself to it, let him show extraordinary cleverness and cunning - this "naughty boy" is a simple person, so he is good at stacking and not good at connecting, not good at coordination, but he is good at complicating things, yes, this is certain. This gave rise to Fellini's Baroque style, but it was a minimalist Baroque style.
In this Baroque style, characters are added one by one, events occur one after another, detail after detail, but the story never changes, and the author does not evaluate things; therefore everything is in a state of peace, partly due to Fellini's irrational, childish and lyrical style, partly because fellini's non-critical attitude towards things.
From my personal point of view, I, as a cultural person and a Marxist, have a hard time accepting Fellini's guiding ideology of creation with melancholy marks, which is the idea of the duality of localism and Catholic doctrine. Therefore, in this critique of La Dolce Vita, only those who lack vitality and are dull— such as those who lead the Vatican institutions, as well as the Roman fascist clergy and the Milanese capitalist moralists, are so ignorant and ignorant that they do not understand the substantive meaning of La Dolce Vita. In fact, it is a work of extremely high value and novelty that people have seen in recent years from the Catholic standpoint, because the world and social situation it presents are a reflection of real reality, and it is an immutable and eternal reality. Despite the despicable and alienating situations in the film, the film always exudes a beautiful hope that can be expected at any time, and even almost can be said that it is already within reach, it flows around everyone, from one person to another, from one action to another, from one picture to another...
Still, I have to say what I like about this film, not only because I like it, but sometimes I get deeply moved by it. So why, this requires a shift of position and another perspective, that is, to look at the world from a blank virgin land that has not yet been reclaimed. If you look closely, you can see that I have the remnants of decadence (and so much!). Fellini, on the other hand, is a factor of realism (and so much!). ）。
I have described Fellini's extremely meticulous and conscientious method of creation, which follows both the rules of creation and the desire to realize the essential will, believing in instinctive enlightenment, but I think it should be added that in his method of creation, there is also a mixture of his desire for reason, that is, some positive factors will often break into his works, which I call a factor of Marxist significance.
But I can't say from this that the significance of his film is here. Fellini's work is much more than that. The timeless significance of his work is reflected in his pioneering innovations. In addition, his work is highly valued because it embodies the ideas of an ordinary Catholic believer: optimism, love for others, and kindness. Look at the Rome he depicts. It is hard to imagine who could portray a Roman society devoid of thought and emotion so vividly as he did! It's a perfect portrayal of a life-threatening, anxious world. Let's take a look at these many figures that pass before our eyes, some of the humble little people who live in the ordinary atmosphere of the capital. These people are cynical, narrow-minded, selfish, spoiled, conceited, despicable, cowardly, subservient, stupid, unhappy, fearful of life, indifferent to politics, and so on. This shows the life of the Italian petty bourgeoisie, flaunting something in their living environment, apparently consuming their lives in an atmosphere of obvious melancholy and sadness. In such a petty-bourgeois society, there is a mixture of unrelated and indescribable monsters, some belonging to the upper class and some to the lower level; to the upper class is the nobility, and to the lower class is the proletariat, which in its own way injects a fresh vitality into this society. But how can we see the frank purity and vitality of the petty bourgeois masses of People in Rome, who roam the world in this bustling City of Rome, where there are careerists, where scandals are constant, where there are film lovers, who are addicted to superstitious activities, and who are fascists. I think it seems difficult to identify the true face of these people.
Nevertheless, the characters who appear before us are all full of vitality, each one is very simple, they can always show their passion and energy, this scene is really wonderful, almost sacred.
Please, you are not sad, no one is pitying others, all of them feel contented, very comfortable, even though they actually live badly, everyone lives a good life but lives contentedly, even though they are unconscious and bear the energy of death.
I have never seen a film like "Sweet Life", where everyone lives so happily, and although they also suffer from sadness and pain, they can always interpret these pains and sorrows into joyful scenes, such as performances and carnivals.
For this reason, the author really needs to have an inexhaustible source of love, even if it is of a blasphemous character. The neo-decadent Fellini is filled with this love, which is love that treats all people equally. If, because of the limitations of this irrational love, his La Dolce Vita did not become a great film, then he at least made a good passage of a great work.
Published in the Italian magazine Journalist on February 23, 1960
|Chinese edition in fellini: "Sweet Life" (Shandong Pictorial Publishing House, published in January 2003, translated by Ai Min)
< h1 toutiao-origin="h3" > correlated</h1>
exegesis
↑1
The art genre that emerged at the beginning of the 20th century and became popular in Europe and the United States emphasizes the expression of the artist's self-feelings and subjective feelings
↑2
Gadda, 1893-1975, Italian writer, whose novels representing contemporary Italian society are known as the model of "modernism".
↑3
1866-1952, Italian philosopher and historian
Pier Paolo Pasolini (Pier Paolo Pasolini) was an Italian writer, poet and post-neorealist director.
No Newer Articles