As entertaining as the āhot sinsā are, sometimes itās good cinema to follow the book fool, mostly free of these popular sins, but just living a quietly unenlightened life. Society and the other book fools look up to him, but he hasnāt found the way to happiness.Ā
Incidentally Iāve also seen LāAvventura by the same director, although Iām not sure if I have a preference between the two. Theyāre both solid filmsā¦. This isnāt better or worse than a Greta Gerwig film; itās kinda the 1961 version of āNights and Weekendsāā¦. Although obviously I understand what theyāre saying because itās subtitledālike Shakespeare, I could understand Greek if only it were subtitledāI have to say that itās a nice touch that the movie isnāt solely driven along by dialogue. Itās a movie with physical intelligence, you know.Ā
ā¦. It certainly has a quiet charm. Itās definitely not a plot movie, itās rather character-driven or perhaps thematic, in a sorta roundabout kind of way; you canāt really say, easily, the theme is X, but they have interesting conversations, teachable momentsā¦. Itās not about sweeping away pleasure or getting swept up into pleasure, but it is rather pleasant. In a dependable way.Ā
ā¦. I guess you could say itās closer to the stereotype of āEuropeanāālazy afternoons in old cities eventually bleeding into evening partiesāthan the stereotype of āItalianā, you knowāpassion.Ā
ā¦. Oh, I hate technology sometimes; but I am devoted. Again:Ā
This relates more to my division of things on LT than here, and I understand that you could disagree with this, but I have to say that, unlike ballet & opera, art films like this are more part of popular media than scholariness/humanities studies (and you know that there are three cultures and not two, since you canāt study Marvel movies in your Shakespeare class), you know. Itās just that art films are the popular mind being āgoodā, you know. Obviously there are many different sorts of things that are popular, or were popular, or are written in one or another sort of popular style, some of them more classically good than others, although I do draw the dividing line somewhere, you know.ā¦Ā
Anyway, being classically good is one of the things that you can be, although here we are clearly dealing with āgoodnessā mixed with a dash of cinnāof cynicism, you know. I actually got the two lead actresses confusedāha ha ha, I am your brave leader!ābut I did kinda get that itās a sad movie, in a rather quiet way, you know.Ā
Edit: And, incidentally, itās an art film (I term I refuse to define and do not use precisely) because itās by Mr Subtle Director, not because itās not made in English in California. I donāt know how many blockbusters are made in Italianāprobably noneābut obviously itās possible for a popular/non-intellectual film to come from outside the USAā¦. Iām not saying that the public has no bad habits: never watch movies in other languages; excessive loyalty to franchises; watch movies to gain valuable factoids about car brands and/or fictional science; and just plain ole, killing time. But this is still a movie, and not āa bookā, right, and so I think it is popular in a way that even a middlebrow literary novel (say, an unknown girl trying to get compared to a Dead Russian), is not. (Incidentally, itās easier for girls to be More intellectual or whatever, so long as it doesnāt involve, well, conducting people from one scene to the next.) Though obviously anything can be intellectualized. People watch baseball to brush up on their statistical analysis and fictional calculus, am I right? Actually science is a great example of that, intellectualizing the simple: you can write the most scientific things about the simplest organisms (or, if this is better, the simplest processes), since thatās all we pretend to be able to understand, right. And, of course, intellectualizing is also what I do, in my own eminently charmable way.Ā