8½

Guido Anselmi is a film director who is preparing for his latest film. However with casting in progress and mere days until shooting begins, he is still unsure of his story or even his theme. He feels trapped and pressured from all sides, like he is totally out of control and at the mercy of himself and others. While he is haunted by memories of his past, his present appears to be coming apart as well. In the middle of all his affairs, his women, his attempts at art and making successful films, Guido is lost and unsure of where he is going.

And that is about a good a plot summary as I can manage I am afraid! I saw this film many years ago in an art cinema when I was even more of a movie snob than I am now; nowadays I settle to see this sort of film in my own home without feeling the need to make a special effort to appear elitist! Anyway, in order to review it I watched it again the other night and I am finding myself under as much pressure as Guido himself! Do I just go with the flow and hail this as a piece of art and therefore make myself stand out as an intelligent, contemplative film watcher or do I write a more balanced, true opinion that reflects my real opinion even if it means it will appear that I am just not arty and intelligent enough to 'get it' and will get messages telling me to stick to action blockbusters! Well, I'm afraid that the latter is the only option for me.

This is not preparing the way for me to dismiss the film because I found it curiously watchable and interesting as a very personal sort of film. I do not know enough about Fellini to be able to say this was his life on screen but it certainly had the feel of being a very intimate story that was more about Guido's feelings and fears than any specific narrative about making the film. As such it was difficult to really get into and I found it all to be a bit obscure at times, requiring the viewer to do a lot of work to keep up without offering much in the way of help in understanding the characters and their lives. It was still interesting because Guido did have some aspect that became clear if you stuck with it but generally a little help would have been appreciated. Without this help the film appears to be freewheeling without a frame in the manner that very personal films often do – the director understands the significance of every shot and he forgets that, without his frame of reference, we do not. This is best illustrated in the melting of scenes in the body of the film and the end of the film that is hard to interpret satisfactorily.

Time has not helped the film either and it does appear very dated now, with the images already in the mind of the first time viewer from other films, whether they be Woody Allen or Pulp Fiction, this has gradually become a film that is important to see because of the directors influence on cinema rather than on the merits of the film on its own. I sound a bit harsh because this is what I felt but I still did think that my time was well spent watching the movie because it was imaginative and it was a chance to experience Fellini in full flow in a very personal seeming film. On top of that, this is a very influential film and, for all my difficulties penetrating it, I still felt that it was one that I should see to try and recognise its influence and its importance to those directors who are the artists of my generation. The cast seem a bit unaware of the meaning of the whole thing as well and the only one that I looked like he had really connected with Fellini was, fortunately, Mastroianni. He really helped me get into his character and he brought a lot to the film with his performance – even when he wasn't doing anything he is still a great screen presence. The rest of the cast are not quite as good and really concentrate on being larger than life characters – only Aimee and a couple of those playing the other main women really struck a note with me.

Overall this is still considered a classic and influential film and that is the reason I came back to watch it again. However it is also a dated film that is difficult to get into because it is such a personal film; but then this is also why I found it interesting, as I tried to work out the meaning of the scenes and the character of Guido. Many viewers will wonder what all the fuss is about and, in a way, they are right because the film is mainly worth seeing for its influence rather than on its own merits; but with the well shot images, good direction, personal touches and thought provoking material it is still worth seeing: just don't expect it to live up to the high praise that many famous fans and viewers have been heaping on it for all these years.

I know this film is loved and admired by countless filmmakers and fans. I know that the film is very artistic and wonderfully well made. And I understand that all serious lovers of film SHOULD see this film. But, despite this being a "must-see" film, I didn't particularly enjoy it--but I do respect what Fellini was trying to do. For the first time, Fellini was able to capture on film the psyche and inner turmoil of a director and although the film stars Marcello Mastroianni, the film is in many, many ways autobiographical. His inner struggles with traditional morality and god, sexuality and loyalty, all the sycophants trying to get his attention and the critic as well as his own childhood (including, of course his mother AND a representation of early sexual awakening in the form of a hideous but very sexual lady who looked a lot like Divine!) all come together in a series of somewhat disconnected images. All these factors that together work together to make the director's psyche are interesting, but very surreal--like the entire film is a dream or something that is the result of drugs. It is interesting at times, but also very tiring and difficult to watch at times and occasionally a bit dull. That's because it's a very choppy movie and only a child who is very hyperactive could easily stick with the ever-changing plot. As for me, what I liked best was the opening dream sequence--it was very amusing and brilliant.

This type of self-analysis and parody was often copied in such films as STARDUST MEMORIES (to me, a blatant attempt by Woody Allen to steal or re-created 8 1/2) or DAY FOR NIGHT--though Truffaut's vision is much, much more conventional and lacks the surrealism and weirdness of Fellini. Many prefer Fellini's mad style, but as for me, while it is not as original or wildly innovative, DAY FOR NIGHT was a more enjoyable film.

Overall, while not a fun or completely comprehensible film, it's a must for anyone who considers themselves a serious fan of film.

What can anyone say about this film? It's one of a kind, and simple words can't really describe it.

The famous Italian director Federico Fellini presents us the journey of the highly surrealistic thoughts of a filmmaker, who suffers from, what we could call, Director's block. The protagonist, who seems constantly tired, is surrounded by many different people, friends, associates, priests and mostly... women; struggling with his weird fantasies of the current events of his life and memories of his childhood. All of these scenes take place in many different phantasmagoric sets, where multiple, for the most part random, conversations occur simultaneously, making him continually engaged and, in a way, frustrated.

The production design is exceptional, with huge sets and dreamlike settings, while the cinematography (Fellini's last black and white film) is very unique and teases the viewer with alternate focusing and artsy compositions. The music theme is for the most part classical symphonies from Tchaikovsky, Wagner and Chopin, beautifully edited with the rhythm of the film.

This is a drama with many subtle doses of comedy and a surreal analysis of the thoughts, relationships, affairs, fears, dreams and memories of the protagonist. Some viewers can find a bit annoying the randomness of the script and editing, where mostly unexplained things occur, but others can completely immerse in this insane trip and fully enjoy it.

If you've seen some movies of Charlie Kaufman, a good explanation of what to expect is a wedding between Adaptation and Synecdoche, New York. If you haven't seen any of those, then you can go ahead and experience something you've never had before!

Fellini's 8 1/2 opens with a stunning dream sequence in which a man is trapped in his car in the middle of a traffic jam. The doors and windows are locked and there is no escape. Other drivers simply sit and stare at him passively. The driver starts to panic as smoke begins to build up within the car. Propelling himself outside a window, he floats over the other cars and soars above the world until he is pulled down a rope attached to a tether on his ankle. The driver is Guido Anselmi (Marcello Mastroianni), a film director at odds with himself. Shot in black and white, 8 1/2 is an exhilarating, confusing, irritating, and inspired journey into a man's consciousness. It is not just a look at the inner turmoil of one person, but also a commentary on each person's struggle to make sense of their life. The film's combination of kaleidoscopic images, evocative score by Nino Rota, and amazing performances ensure its place as one of the greatest films of the century.

Guido is preparing to shoot a new film with an expensive budget. He constructs a huge spaceship launch pad that costs $80 million but he is unsure of what he wants to say. Guido's dishonesty in dealing with his marriage, his career, and the fact that he really does not want to make the film forces him to falsely mislead people as to his true intentions. He feels like a failure and is physically spent. He checks into a spa to restore his health and well being but the contingent of producers, actors, writers, and hangers on undermine his strength. His feeling of being overwhelmed by personal and professional obligations provides the catalyst for dreams and fantasies that take him back to his childhood.

Fellini shows his encounter with the prostitute Saraghina (Eddra Gale) and the guilt he has to deal with in a confrontation with the Catholic Church. Guido invites his intellectual wife Luisa (Anouk Aimée) to the set but their relationship has turned cold and passionless, and sparks fly when she has to confront Carla (Sandra Milo), his buxom mistress. Guido is misguided but he has an innocence and charm that allows us to overlook his indulgences. He enjoys his pleasures but has a conscience and feels guilty about cheating on Luisa whom he loves and is afraid of losing. He fantasizes that all of the women in his life are together in a harem where they all dote on his every whim. When they finally recognize how little he cares about them, he is forced to suppress their revolt.

As image piles on image and the fantasy becomes indistinguishable from the reality, the viewer may get lost in a maze of dazzling incoherence. Fellini, however, always returns to solid ground and the film offers not only a satire on the frenzy, the uncertainty, and the clash of egos involved with making a film but also a serious commentary on the importance of honesty in a relationship. If 8 1/2 is occasionally exhausting, the ending is invigorating, letting us know that life is a game in which each of us is on the stage performing our roles and the only sane response to its turmoil is to join hands in love and celebrate the moment.

Intellectuals have written volumes on this strange film by Italian New Wave director, Federico Fellini. I am not an intellectual, so my review will be brief. At its most basic, "8 1/2" (a.k.a. "Otto e mezzo") concerns Guido, a film director (supposedly a surrogate for Fellini himself), who is having what amounts to a midlife crisis. Guido is frustrated in his film-making, and by his relations with other people in his life. But the film's story does not proceed in a traditional, linear fashion. Fellini more or less abandons logical narration, in favor of "open form" narration, wherein the story's causal chain of events is broken.

Thus, trying to figure out what is going on in this film can be hard. Guido's fantasies, memories, dreams, and reality co-mingle in a kind of cinematic stew. Fellini presents viewers with a kaleidoscope of surreal B&W images of ordinary objects and eccentric, chattering characters which interact with Guido and with each other, in ways that defy logic, and give breathtaking meaning to the term symbolism. Followers of psychologist Carl Jung would have a field day. In style, the film is flamboyant. In substance, the film is maddeningly subliminal. And yet, even the most metallic cynic, Pauline Kael notwithstanding, must surely appreciate the rareness of Fellini's probing introspection.

Given the bizarre, unstructured content of "8 1/2", I wonder about the issue of necessity. Suppose Fellini had added an extra ten minutes to the screenplay, or deleted ten minutes. Would that have made any difference? Apart from Guido, if this or that character had been deleted, how would that have changed the story's significance? And if, as some have suggested, the film is a mirror image of Fellini's own confused psyche, can the story be construed as an intuition of his future film-making?

"Otto e mezzo" is not for everyone. Like a Zen koan, "8 1/2" invites frustration. It is above all else a celebration of ambiguity and abstraction, a cinematic experience to ponder, especially on the heels of four or five martinis ... or 8 1/2, if you really want to induce immense intellectual insight. Cheers.