Una secuencia fluida, inconexa y a veces caótica de escenas donde se detalla la diversidad de personas y de sucesos que acontecen en la capital de Italia, la mayoría basada en la vida del di... Leer todoUna secuencia fluida, inconexa y a veces caótica de escenas donde se detalla la diversidad de personas y de sucesos que acontecen en la capital de Italia, la mayoría basada en la vida del director Federico Fellini.Una secuencia fluida, inconexa y a veces caótica de escenas donde se detalla la diversidad de personas y de sucesos que acontecen en la capital de Italia, la mayoría basada en la vida del director Federico Fellini.
- Dirección
- Guionistas
- Elenco
- Nominada a1 premio BAFTA
- 3 premios ganados y 3 nominaciones en total
- Fellini, Age 18
- (as Peter Gonzales)
- Young policeman
- (sin créditos)
- Widowers' Member at Teatrino
- (sin créditos)
- Toll Booth Agent
- (sin créditos)
- Sitting Man at Trastevere
- (sin créditos)
- Musical Director
- (sin créditos)
Opiniones destacadas
We shift from a portrayal of Fellini as a schoolboy with dreams of going to Rome, to a depiction of Fellini as a young man, moving to the city he always wanted to live at. There's also scenes of early 1970s theatre attendance, the almost ritual-like eating habits of the Romans, and then we move onto a documentary-like part of the film where we get to see Fellini's camera crew struggle as they try to capture the hustle and bustle of the entrance into Rome via a major highway, filled with drifters, animals, trucks, hitch-hikers, bikes, and more.
The constant changing in scenes and stories is a bit messy, and could possibly confuse those not understanding what Fellini is trying to do with the film. At some times, I found myself questioning whether what we were being shown was a realistic dramatization of Fellini's past experiences, or some kind of farcical take on Roman culture (see the religious clothing fashion show scene!). The film is quite intriguing, taking in the sexual revolution of the era and putting it up against a city full of tradition. We are also exposed to some of the city's dirty little secrets, such as the surprising popularity of their whorehouses.
It can't be denied that there is something endearing to "Roma" that allows Fellini to get away with a film that doesn't really give you much to take home with you, other than an idea of what Rome was like for someone in 1972, and what kind of life was lead to come to those perceptions. It is somewhat self indulgent, but Fellini does put across the impression that he has something to show you, something he'd like to share with you, because he has loved it for so long, and it still fascinates him on a daily basis.
I don't know whether I would call Roma a masterpiece, yet it is the work of genius. Fellini growing up under Fascism in Rimini, near the river (more of a stream really) Rubicone which Caesar crossed with his legion marching on Rome. Later, Fellini as a young man arrives in Rome at the outbreak of WWII. And Finally, Fellini in the early 1970ies introduces us to Rome. There is a plot! A very clear one. What's wrong with those who say the film consists of unconnected vignettes? But you have to live here for at least a decade or more to find the plot in Fellini's Roma.
Chaos is an Ancient Greek word, but it describes Italy to a "t". A chaos organized only in the imagination of arrogance of fascism and of the church, and of everyday ignorance.
"May I ask you a question" Fellini asks Anna Magnani attempting to interview her around midnight at her Roman doorstep. "No, I don't trust you, Federi, go to sleep" responds the famous actress. Should we trust him to tell us the truth about Rome, the Church, fascism and ignorance?
One thing is certain: the man had a genius for making any person, place or thing a "Fellini subject": no matter where his camera pointed, what emerged on celluloid was a "Fellini image."
In "Roma" the shot could be a routine traffic jam; with Fellini not an ordinary one. Along the standard highway appears darkly hooded figures--one holding a silhouetted parasol--while a bonfire casually smolders, emitting clouds of black smoke.
It's no longer just a normal freeway but a Felliniesque creation mounted on the surreal palette of a genuine stylist.
Contemplate the quality of his characteristically rapid-paced dialogue, and you'll discover it's less communicative discourse and more self-indulgent chatter.
All the Fellini trademarks are there: big breasted women, clownlike characters, rude Rabelaisian remarks, all to brassy street band accompaniments tooted on worn, cheap instruments.
In some ways "Roma" picks up where "Satyricon" leaves off, minus main characters. It's all an extremely personal vision--and not a little bit weird, rather like temporarily inhabiting the domain of a slightly warped mentality.
Recalling my own visit to the Eternal City, I don't recall experiencing anything like this purgatorian collage. Then again, I suppose what we see is pretty much the result of who we are.
Made just a couple of years after Antonioni filmed his "Zabriskie Point" in Los Angeles, Fellini never "did the foreign thing," opting to remain working on his home terrain.
For Fellini fans and others with an interest in film history, "Roma" occupies a valid place for observation, notation and appreciation.
"Roma" consists of three parts. In the beginning, young Federico, the student in his native Rimini, learns about Rome from movies, plays, works of art, and from school history lessons. Then, as a young man, he arrives to Eternal City, strange, loud, and confusing on the outbreak of World War II. The third part takes us to the beginning of 70th when Fellini, the famous master is creating a visually unforgettable, full of life and history portrait of Rome consisting of several vignettes that take us back and forth in time and director's memory.
I think the reason I enjoyed "Roma" is that its vignettes have so much heart and love, irony , and interest to the master's favorite city, its past and present, to its streets, palaces, and cathedrals, and to its people, their laughs, smiles, and tears. Some of the stories are amusing (variety show, first Federico's dinner in one of the outside restaurants where everybody knows everybody) while some are very emotional.
A powerful scene takes place in an underground tunnel where subway construction workers discovered an ancient palace filled with beautiful frescoes of Ancint Rome period that later slowly fade out and disappear before our eyes taking with them a mystery of times long gone.
I loved the fashion show of nuns and priests; I liked the sequence with the prostitutes on display both are typical Fellini's surreal scenes, funny and sad in the same time.
In improvement from "Satyricon," this time, Fellini, did not have any central characters presented in every vignette; and result is more satisfying: this is one of the best documentary style movies that I have seen. The main character in all its stories is Rome and that's the only character we need here.
Gracie Federico!
¿Sabías que…?
- TriviaAnna Magnani's final screen appearance.
- ErroresPeter Gonzales Falcon's hairstyles are all in the longish 1972 mode, even though the portions of the film in which he appears are supposed to be taking place thirty or more years earlier, at which time men's hair was cut much, much shorter, and would never be worn as it appears in this film.
- Citas
Narrator: This gentlemen is a Roman. A Roman from dawn to dusk. As jealous of Rome as if she were his wife. He is afraid that in my film I might present her in a bad light. He is telling me that I should show only the better side of Rome: her historical profile, her monuments - not a bunch fo homosexuals or my usual enormous whores.
- Versiones alternativasOriginally released in a 128 minutes version. Later cut to 119 minutes.
- ConexionesFeatured in Film Night: The Secret World of Federico Fellini (1972)
Selecciones populares
- How long is Fellini's Roma?Con tecnología de Alexa
Detalles
Taquilla
- Total a nivel mundial
- USD 807
- Tiempo de ejecución2 horas
- Mezcla de sonido
- Relación de aspecto
- 1.85 : 1