8½

After 8 or 9 unsuccessful attempts in the past, at long last I somehow managed to sit through & stay awake for the entirety of this unfathomable bore but at what personal cost. A towering feat of cinematic boredom that arguably has no equals, this avant-garde surrealist comedy-drama turned out to be exactly what I presumed it would be: too far up its own ass.

Co-written & directed by Federico Fellini, the story of 8½ concerns a famous filmmaker who no longer remembers the film he wanted to make. The idea came from Fellini's own creative block during production and through all the pain that he underwent, he decided to make a story that captures the similar frustrations so that the audience can suffer just as much as he did.

On a serious note though, the film does acquaint the viewers to an extent with the struggles of creating art and the personal sacrifices that the process demands. It's an exhibition of what a director's job actually looks like and how regardless of his professional & personal issues, he's expected to deliver. It is aimless & convoluted like the film within the film coz it is the film within the film.

Overall, 8½ is a tedious, overlong & self-indulgent exercise that left me indifferent to everything it had in store and while I see the brilliance of its metafictional construction, the drama remains an insufferable eyesore filled with characters as bland & uninteresting as they can get. And the dream sequences are even worse. In short, this film is nothing more than a mere tick mark on a checklist for me.

Fellini's films is one of the main reasons I came to love movies in the first place. I first saw 8 1/2 several years ago. I remember it quite clearly: I went to see it with a small group of fellow students at a friend's house. It was at the beginning of a now already long-since destroyed relationship. It was a cold day in early January. As the film started, a girl who was there, who happened to be a make-up artist and hairdresser by profession, remarked on the odd juxtaposition in the opening scenes of hair-styles and dresses from different eras, the 30's and the 60's. Surely, this was a strange anachrony?

My friend calmly remarked: "Time doesn't exist."

Heck, I won't pretend to know just what he meant by that, perhaps it wasn't as profound as it sounded. In any case, after that, no one spoke. For the next couple of hours, I certainly lost track of place and time, as I was hypnotized, mesmerized and amazed by the images on the screen. Since then, I've always kept a copy of it within reach (even though I am one of those people who can usually never hang on to my possessions for any length of time), and it has lost none of its power to continually amaze me. I've seen it more times than I can count, and yet, it must always be seen again. It's a movie about which everything seems to have been said, and yet, everything still remains to be said. Thanks to the wonders of DVDs and MPEG encoding, I can keep it one mouse-click away whenever I'm working on my computer. I must admit that by now, its already from the outset discontinuous and jumbled content has been spread all over the place for me. Unlike Woody Allen, I'm not anal. I've never had a compulsion to have to watch movies straight from beginning to end, without interruptions. Of course, that's how I watched 8 1/2 the first few times, but now it seems that I'm always chopping it up, skipping at will between my favorite sections, always moving around it and rearranging it in new and unexpected ways. I hope Fellini, in his Heaven, forgives me for it, because it seems to me that I'm in a way just continuing what he began. 8 1/2, even in its purest state, does of course blow the traditional temporal narrative, with a defined beginning, middle and end and a causal relationship between its parts, to complete smithereens, and in the jumbled landscape that is left behind, nothing can ever be as it was before, as what we are left with is a completely new world, of new possibilities and new kinds of beauty. It's a story of dream-logic, held together by different kinds of connections that transcend temporal sequence and causal relationships. It's a film that never begins, and still has always been there.

It's a movie about the most glorious success that can only be brought around through complete failure. It's about how we can only find ourselves when we let go of ourselves - and discover that the only place we can fall is into ourselves, our true selves. It's the ultimate self-referential masterpiece, and the ultimate piece of self-reference, as it is, of course, about nothing except itself.

It really is, in my opinion, the best movie in the world, and by now I can't even imagine a world without it. That's really all I want to say.

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.

I certainly wouldn't be saying anything new if I said that "8 1/2" is one of the most unique, fascinating, and personal pieces ever committed to film. It has consistently hailed as such, and its influence on film is far reaching and undeniable. It is certainly not one of the most entertaining movies of all time, and is actually quite long and difficult. But it is an incredible piece of filmmaking, and a gripping look at the difficulties of creating not just a movie, but art in general.

Guido (Marcello Mastroianni) is a popular movie director who is working on his new film. Along the way, he struggles with his screenwriter, producer, wife, and mistress. Each presents a different problem and obstacle. More and more difficulties arise, not just in his attempts to complete the movie, but in his own mind.

Guido, although flawed, is completely fleshed out, and draws sympathy from the audience. Yes, he is an adulterer, but he loves his wife. We see all of his personal desires and agony. We see how he suffers when he struggles with his desire to create the ultimate piece of art, one that offers something to everybody.

The movie is technically wonderful. The movement of the camera, the lighting, and the direction in general is top notch. The movie mixes in dreams with reality to create a dreamlike world, and put us closer into Guido's own mind.

Somebody who is looking for a movie as a two hour piece of entertainment will not enjoy this. But if you enjoy a movie that truly satisfies when it is finished, this is for you. It is quite long, and somewhat loose, but that is part of the interest. Moviemakers, or artists in general, will find that this film has a great deal to offer.