Thanks to the wonderful public library collection, I’ve been able to revisit several of my favourite movies of the past. When Fellini’s La Dolce Vita was released in 1960, it was met with shock and disapproval, largely because of the risqué scenes, but also because many saw the film as irreverent.
Of course, as the writer-director Lina Wertmuller noted in an interview included with the Criterion Collection’s superb added features, the film is open to a multitude of interpretations. Though she claims to detest symbols (a view which I cannot believe she really held), I think it is impossible to view the opening and closing scenes of the film as anything but symbolic.
The famous opening in which a statue of Jesus is being flown by helicopter across Rome to the Vatican can be interpreted in several ways. I believe it is meant to ask us to consider what has happened to Christ’s message since it was first given at the time of the Roman Empire (symbolized by the aqueduct) across the centuries (including the Renaissance, symbolized by St. Peter’s and the Vatican), up to the present day, symbolized by the new apartment buildings.
The film then, in a series of vignettes, shows a world in which virtually all the deadly sins are illustrated. In each case, people are shown as empty, unhappy, and choosing a value other than Christian – sex, fame, glorification of media “gods,” art, and false religion are all graphically illustrated.
Throughout, the central character, a journalist, records what he observes, including misogyny and the objectification of others, leading ultimately to despair. All of this is a lead-up to the final scene. After a senseless orgy (shocking by the standards of the time), the participants go to a beach, where a huge fish has been landed. And here I feel that Fellini is drawing on Christian iconography, with the fish (ichthus) again a reminder of Christ. The decadent crowd, with one exception, reject the fish as ugly, though in fact it is exactly as God intended. One woman bends down and comes close to the fish, seeming to see it differently than the others. Surely this is intended as a reminder of the sinful woman in the Gospel of Luke kissing the feet of Christ. At the same time, the principal character sees a young girl inviting him to join her.
Earlier in the film, the reporter has met her and learned that she longs to return to her hometown (a symbol of innocence rejecting all that modern, decadent Rome stands for). Sadly, the reporter finds himself unable to join her, as he continues to reject Christian values, leaving him in the same unsatisfactory and unsatisfied state he has exhibited throughout the film.
Many will, of course, differ with this interpretation, pointing out that Fellini was critical of the Catholic Church (as is clearly shown in his most popular film, Amarcord), but isn’t he there rejecting the trappings of organized religion, particularly clericalism, not the moral and ethical values of Christianity?
In similar vein, he also rejected fascism, even though many applauded some of its achievements. After all, the trains did run on time!
It is true that between the introduction and conclusion of the film, Fellini presents a distressing view of the modern world, one in which he has brought to the screen all that one could want in a film: superb cinematography, brilliant acting, wonderful costuming, and a truly memorable musical score.
Some would regard the result to be seductive and merely pornographic, but Fellini goes to great pains to show the world he depicts so vividly in all its ugliness. He certainly doesn’t make it attractive or alluring.
It may be that he is overstating his case by indulging in so many pathetic and ugly scenes, but that his aim was to “sell” the values illustrated seems unlikely. Moreover, he was too careful a filmmaker to have deliberately included the introduction and the conclusion unless he wanted to frame his portrait of the modern world with a reminder of what has been abandoned by so many.
Viewers today may still find La Dolce Vita objectionable, but any realistic portrait of sin must be objectionable. The very title is meant to be ironic, and Fellini was asking the world to reconsider its values. Those values certainly are not shown as leading to a sweet life! In this regard, the film is as timely as when it was first released.