Roma (1972): Peter Gonzales, Fiona Florence, Britta Barnes, Pia De Roses, Renato Giovanoli, Marne Maitland, Elisa Mainardi, Galliano Sbarra, Raout Paule, Paola Natale, Ginette Marcelle, Mario Del Vago, Alfredo Adami, Feodor Chaliapin, Anna Magnani, John Francis Lane, Elliot Murphy, Gore Vidal, Cassandra Peterson. Director Federico Fellini, Screenplay Federico Fellini.
Director Federico Fellini was by 1972 a noted Italian cinema director, even beloved by overseas American audiences who praised his most brilliant films, which garnered foreign film buzz. Fellini's "Roma" is his personal paean to the Eternal City, a dizzying cavalcade of sights, sounds, colors and iconography depicting the Rome he had known up until the radically changing 70's. But it must be understood that Fellini's vision of Rome is not everyone's idea of Rome (certainly not mine). How he bothered to make this movie when he already had "La Strada" "8 1/2" and "Dolce Vita" to his credit is beyond me. At the risk of sounding overly critical and negative, I will have to admit that this film has some wonderful things about it, especially how it is a sort of document of Rome in the early 70's and not surprisingly, Rome of the World War II period, which was Fellini's coming-of-age era. The scenes in which Fellini (who is actually in the movie itself) directs an untitled film and is repulsed and outraged by the change in the city he had loved in his youth is quite moving. Rome in the early 70's was as time of corrupt local and national government which fueled protests similar to the Vietnam protests in America, and even triggered the murders of politicians. American tourists and students introduced the "Hippie Movement" to Roman youth, and with that liberal concepts such as cross-dressing, gay pride and feminism. Also good are the early scenes in which Fellini first visits Rome fresh from the provinces just before World War II begins to rage. Beautiful shots of the ageless Apian Way, the grand Coliseum, the Renaissance beauty of the Trevi fountain, dozens of statuary of nudes men and goddesses and the grave majesty of the Vatican. The outdoor restaurant, in which dozens of Italian families are eating heartily and talking their heads off (though saying some pretty vulgar things) is inherently real, as is the vistas of crowded tenement buildings and dirty slums. The "talent show" is probably unnecessarily long and tasteless (it's one bad comic act after another, prompting the audience to spit, protest and even hurl a dead cat). But the saving grace of the film is the memorable and beloved scene in which we follow a group of archaeologists descend beneath a subway train station to uncover ancient murals and frescoes of wealthy Patricians of the Roman Empire, only to lose them to a destructive mist (symbolic of time and or the progressive industrialist forces of modernism). The final silent sequence of a motorcycle group circling the city is also praiseworthy. But for all these pretty scenes, the film lacks real substance. There is no denying the fact it is a movie without a plot. It's a dream-like array of imagery and sounds, unrelated scenes and incoherent narrative, often feeling like Fellini was connecting several films at once. To counter all the lovely scenes there are many bad ones, not the least of them being the blasphemous Fashion Show in which the Pope makes an appearance (Fellini's subtle attack on the Catholic Church). Also bad is the fact that women are not portrayed in a good light and nearly all the women who are not "Italian mothers" are whores, prostitutes and temptresses. The movie is long and phantasmagorical. It's a perfect follow-up to his equally absurd and sexually radical "Satyricon". Ultimately, you have to be a devoted fan of Fellini films in order to appreciate this otherwise bizarre movie that attempts to be a serious work of art.
Director Federico Fellini was by 1972 a noted Italian cinema director, even beloved by overseas American audiences who praised his most brilliant films, which garnered foreign film buzz. Fellini's "Roma" is his personal paean to the Eternal City, a dizzying cavalcade of sights, sounds, colors and iconography depicting the Rome he had known up until the radically changing 70's. But it must be understood that Fellini's vision of Rome is not everyone's idea of Rome (certainly not mine). How he bothered to make this movie when he already had "La Strada" "8 1/2" and "Dolce Vita" to his credit is beyond me. At the risk of sounding overly critical and negative, I will have to admit that this film has some wonderful things about it, especially how it is a sort of document of Rome in the early 70's and not surprisingly, Rome of the World War II period, which was Fellini's coming-of-age era. The scenes in which Fellini (who is actually in the movie itself) directs an untitled film and is repulsed and outraged by the change in the city he had loved in his youth is quite moving. Rome in the early 70's was as time of corrupt local and national government which fueled protests similar to the Vietnam protests in America, and even triggered the murders of politicians. American tourists and students introduced the "Hippie Movement" to Roman youth, and with that liberal concepts such as cross-dressing, gay pride and feminism. Also good are the early scenes in which Fellini first visits Rome fresh from the provinces just before World War II begins to rage. Beautiful shots of the ageless Apian Way, the grand Coliseum, the Renaissance beauty of the Trevi fountain, dozens of statuary of nudes men and goddesses and the grave majesty of the Vatican. The outdoor restaurant, in which dozens of Italian families are eating heartily and talking their heads off (though saying some pretty vulgar things) is inherently real, as is the vistas of crowded tenement buildings and dirty slums. The "talent show" is probably unnecessarily long and tasteless (it's one bad comic act after another, prompting the audience to spit, protest and even hurl a dead cat). But the saving grace of the film is the memorable and beloved scene in which we follow a group of archaeologists descend beneath a subway train station to uncover ancient murals and frescoes of wealthy Patricians of the Roman Empire, only to lose them to a destructive mist (symbolic of time and or the progressive industrialist forces of modernism). The final silent sequence of a motorcycle group circling the city is also praiseworthy. But for all these pretty scenes, the film lacks real substance. There is no denying the fact it is a movie without a plot. It's a dream-like array of imagery and sounds, unrelated scenes and incoherent narrative, often feeling like Fellini was connecting several films at once. To counter all the lovely scenes there are many bad ones, not the least of them being the blasphemous Fashion Show in which the Pope makes an appearance (Fellini's subtle attack on the Catholic Church). Also bad is the fact that women are not portrayed in a good light and nearly all the women who are not "Italian mothers" are whores, prostitutes and temptresses. The movie is long and phantasmagorical. It's a perfect follow-up to his equally absurd and sexually radical "Satyricon". Ultimately, you have to be a devoted fan of Fellini films in order to appreciate this otherwise bizarre movie that attempts to be a serious work of art.