NOTE IMDb
6,9/10
1,4 k
MA NOTE
Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueA multitude of characters face personal problems while having dinner in a roman restaurant.A multitude of characters face personal problems while having dinner in a roman restaurant.A multitude of characters face personal problems while having dinner in a roman restaurant.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Récompenses
- 3 victoires et 5 nominations au total
Avis à la une
I was amazed after the very five minutes. this is not the kind of movie for people who don't care about others or those who are selfish and self-centered I'm sure that people would hate this piece of art, you'll see a whole world inside of few lives. the wise, the magic in every character, some jokes, problems, lies, some fantasy... its just hard to describe. I was eating popcorn and thinking when finally that waiter will take my order. if you have a child's-like imagination, or just you were in some hide small family "restorante" in Italia you'll maybe lived this movie. its perfect for those days when you feel like the world sucks
9.8/10
9.8/10
10ljian
It's one of the best movies I have ever seen! Impressive! What can someone do with a small budget but with great imagination. The hole action is flowing naturally.
I gave 1 to this film. I can't understand how Ettore Scola,one of the greater directors of Italian cinema, made a film like this, so stupid and ridiculous! All the stories of the people involved in the movie are unsubstantial,boring and not interesting. Too long,too boring. The only things I save in this movie are Giancarlo Giannini and Vittorio Gasmann. Hope that Scola will change radically themes and style in his next film.
The current score of this film (6.7) certainly does no justice to it and is indicative of what years of Hollywood-made movies does to what one expects from a movie.
This film does not have a coherent story, it does not take the viewer from point A to point B and thus does not offer any real "character advancement" or real "scenario". I believe the lack of those things causes the condemnation of most viewers since to most a "film" is a "story".
Well, Scola shows that it ain't necessarily so. This film could best be described as a series of "pictures" of characters and their situations. By taking us from table to table and shifting our attention from one to the next, he manages to portray the great deal of diversity of possible human positions/conditions/situations. The hall of the restaurant becomes a mosaic of people from all corners of the social structure and they have all kinds of fears, aspirations, hopes, sexual interests, political or financial anxieties, doubts or troubles.
Scola uses maestrically the twists of his characters moods and their dialogue in order to occasionally insert his own social or political comments, thus giving more substance to the film. He does so without showing that he wants to do so however, and the remarks might easily be passed by the uninterested or the uninitiated totally unnoticed.
The human conditions depicted in the film although presented in a light manner are no joke: The increasing distancing of a mother from her adolescent daughter, the illegitimate love between a professor and his student, the anxiety and lack of self assessment of a bank clerk, the anger of a grown-up daughter towards her supposedly un-loving father (and many more) are all deeply touching human conditions which Scola presents with a soft, warm, and at the same time lively manner.
The "gist" of the film is that by constantly moving from table to table and from situation to situation he slowly takes us through the collective proceeding of the "solution" or every case -either positive, negative or neutral- and when the film ends, you feel an undeniable sense of closure, of communication, of warmth, of collectiveness, of life. Scola makes us feel like we were sitting together with his characters, on their tables, and makes us understand what is the true meaning of sitting around a table with other people. It is the explanation of the "symposium" as one of the characters explains, too, in the film and Scola explains it in the most humane, warm and caring manner.
This film is nothing less than a masterpiece.
This film does not have a coherent story, it does not take the viewer from point A to point B and thus does not offer any real "character advancement" or real "scenario". I believe the lack of those things causes the condemnation of most viewers since to most a "film" is a "story".
Well, Scola shows that it ain't necessarily so. This film could best be described as a series of "pictures" of characters and their situations. By taking us from table to table and shifting our attention from one to the next, he manages to portray the great deal of diversity of possible human positions/conditions/situations. The hall of the restaurant becomes a mosaic of people from all corners of the social structure and they have all kinds of fears, aspirations, hopes, sexual interests, political or financial anxieties, doubts or troubles.
Scola uses maestrically the twists of his characters moods and their dialogue in order to occasionally insert his own social or political comments, thus giving more substance to the film. He does so without showing that he wants to do so however, and the remarks might easily be passed by the uninterested or the uninitiated totally unnoticed.
The human conditions depicted in the film although presented in a light manner are no joke: The increasing distancing of a mother from her adolescent daughter, the illegitimate love between a professor and his student, the anxiety and lack of self assessment of a bank clerk, the anger of a grown-up daughter towards her supposedly un-loving father (and many more) are all deeply touching human conditions which Scola presents with a soft, warm, and at the same time lively manner.
The "gist" of the film is that by constantly moving from table to table and from situation to situation he slowly takes us through the collective proceeding of the "solution" or every case -either positive, negative or neutral- and when the film ends, you feel an undeniable sense of closure, of communication, of warmth, of collectiveness, of life. Scola makes us feel like we were sitting together with his characters, on their tables, and makes us understand what is the true meaning of sitting around a table with other people. It is the explanation of the "symposium" as one of the characters explains, too, in the film and Scola explains it in the most humane, warm and caring manner.
This film is nothing less than a masterpiece.
Once again Scola manages to produce high quality cinema, needing for it no more than a good cast of actors and his magistral talent. Rather than the usual Hollywood menu of vulgarity, violence and sex, "La Cena" manages to present in its less that 2 hours, a wide array of dramas in the course of a single dinner evening in a common restaurant. At each table the guests will be immersed in a particular drama (mother vs. daughter, old professor with young student lover, etc.) which are autonomous in themselves but that seem to be part of a larger script. That is achieved thanks to the masterful camera movement that weaves itself among the tables and connects all the independent dramas offering us an orchestrated picture of the restaurant's whole microcosm. Well worth seeing.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesThe name of the restaurant in which the film takes place is "Arturo al Portico".
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
- How long is The Dinner?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
- Durée2 heures 6 minutes
- Couleur
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 2.35 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant