Parthenope

I don't really know what to think of the film really. Is it a smack of Catholicism? Is it a tribute to Stephania Sandrelli? A tribute to the absurd, beauty, incest, intelligence? What irritated me the most was that there was a cigarette in almost every scene, as if it had the main role. Yes, at that time there was a lot of smoking, but is that really what you should focus on to show that era? I don't understand how it can be so important to show addiction in various forms in a film these days. It's the same in many films, even how they glorify drugs in the films that are made. Is this really so important to portray? Who should take responsibility for this? The screenwriters, the director or the actors? I think everyone should take responsibility for this and be able to say no to drug glorification. Applies to cigarettes, drugs and alcohol. That will be my assessment of the film. Take it or leave it.

The main issue with Parthenope is that it adds nothing new to Paolo Sorrentino's filmography. Too many familiar scenes, too many obsessions already portrayed, too many mannerisms endlessly repeated. While it's true that cigarettes have become a signature of the director, when every actor-from the beautiful lead to the extras in the background-keeps lighting one up, it quickly becomes cloying, if not outright ridiculous. I truly enjoy Sorrentino's cinema, but the excitement I felt leaving the theatre after watching The Consequences of Love is now only a faint memory, faded like the summer youth that once was.

Why would you watch this movie? Probably based on what we know that is said about Sorrentino and his perfect eye for the breathtaking visuals. Indeed, with the first shot in the movie he makes it clear - showing a carriage and the "Captain" floating on the sea with the view on the stunning coast of Napoli!

Not its beauty, but the Napoli itself is one of the key topics. If this city could be personified, it will definitely be a beautiful woman. Only, just like a person, Napoli is much more than a beauty and it definitely has its dark places.

It personally touched me that one of the key topics (and a key question) is also (what is) a study of Anthropology. Anthropology, formed of two Latin words, meaning a person and science. No other study could have been better for this movie, rather than a study of the most complicated being in this world. I will save you from spoilers and let you think of what Anthropology is before the movie answers it for you, but keep in mind that it is shown by the biggest "superpowers" of Parthenope and especially in her brother Raimondo, who in my opinion was the one that taught that to Parthenope.

The third matter that made me absolutely passionate about this movie was the precise choice of words and creation of dialogues. Her love interests were mostly people who had the most beautiful way of expressing their emotions. Listing to their dialogues made me feel like I've read a book.

I highly recommend watching this movie, although it may have some bizarre moments that can make you feel uneasy. But if you are open to understanding and accepting the strangeness, it will definitely let you "get carried away."

After watching the movie in theaters, i can say i didn't get the best experience while the movie was trying so hard to be an "art" movie.

Let me first go through what i liked. For sure the cinematography was up top. We got a chance to take a closer look at Napoli, also giving aesthetically satisfying shots. Secondary, I enjoyed the music a lot giving lots of Italian vibes, and sound effects were used efficiently. They knew where to use sounds.

Here comes the part where I hardly liked and understood. The plot. Seriously, for the whole movie i was thinking what this movie was trying to explain. Without a proper story to tell, the movie was more than 2 hours long. Later while reading other reviews I was able to catch a glimpse at the plot but that shouldn't be the way you understand the subject rather movie should clearly emphasize its purpose. Also characters were not introduced properly so they fell short, Gary Oldman comes in, says a few fancy sentences and leaves etc. If I want to dive deep about the plot and characters, the review might be a little long.

To sum up, even though an aesthetically satisfying movie, it feels null, boring and leaves you empty handed with absolutely no clue about the story with disconnected scenes one after another.

"As complete as she is-with all her goods and her ills-do you know who she reminds me of?... Naples"

• Eça de Queirós, The Illustrious House of Ramires, mutatis mutandis.

"The most beautiful gift is not the most expensive; it is the most fragile." Marques Rebelo, O Trapicheiro.

As the lights of the nineteenth century faded, Eça de Queirós-the great Eça-painted, through the face of Gonçalo Mendes Ramires, a symbolic portrait of Portugal that, as any good symbol does, contained everything, even when it sometimes seemed to contain nothing at all. Last year, Paolo Sorrentino, the great artist of contemporary cinema, painted with the face and body of Parthenope the symbolic portrait of Naples: yet another of his masterpieces, unveiling a city and a woman that, in the blink of an eye, are one in the lyrical conception of poet Sorrentino. Naples, or Parthenope- a name that evokes the mythological siren whose body is said to have given birth to the city-is not merely a backdrop, but a pulsating character. And Parthenope, the protagonist (portrayed with an ethereal melancholy), is its incarnation: born in the waters of the Mediterranean, like Venus, like Naples, she carries within her the contradiction of the sublime and the grotesque, of desire and death.

Sorrentino, heir to a Fellini-esque sensitivity for both beauty and the bizarre, does not fear excess. In scenes such as the party in Capri-where beautiful faces and bodies dissolved under golden lights-Parthenope, in her melancholy, asks her millionaire admirer: "Lei non pensa che il desiderio sia un mistero e il sesso il suo funerale?" [don't you think that desire is a mystery and sex its funeral]. The phrase echoes like an epitaph, laid bare to reveal the fragility and preciousness of desire and youth: desire as an unfathomable mystery, and sex as the funeral ritual of something that will never be consummated. It is in this interplay of opposites that the narrative unfolds, between the sculptural beauty of Naples' landscapes and the harshness of its forgotten alleys, where the protagonist walks with Roberto, an ambiguous character who unveils to her the other side of the city-a Naples both raw and poetic, where the contrast between the opulent luxury of grand houses and the simplicity of neglected corners becomes a metaphor for the city's inherent duality. Every step, every exchanged glance, carries the tension between the ephemeral and the eternal, between the urgent and the trivial. There, in the interplay of shadow and light, "the irrelevant merges with the decisive," as if chance itself became the silent arbiter of destinies. But is there any sense in speaking of chance? In song, Riccardo Cocciante tells us otherwise-everything was already foreseen.

"Beauty is like war: it opens doors," declares the alcoholic writer John Cheever (portrayed by Gary Oldman) in his brief, ghostly appearance. Drunkenly, he murmurs about the "scent of dead loves," a fragrance he claims to detect in his hotel room, surrounded by bottles of alcohol. So many dead loves in the city, in Parthenope's life. Here, her beauty is a weapon-a weapon that invariably wounds those who wield it: capable of granting access to privileged worlds, yet also imprisoning one in gilded cages. But Parthenope is a woman-city that "sfugge sempre": she flees, escapes, refuses to be deciphered, and always has a retort ready to disarm her interlocutors. What mysteries lie hidden within her?

The narrative delves into a universe where every image is meticulously sculpted to reveal the mysteries of existence. Amid this tapestry of contrasts stands Cardinal Tesorone, with his imposing and perverse figure, his grotesque nature and skepticism-a link in a Neapolitan religiosity divided between the sacred and the profane. His discourse, laden with solemnity and irony, resonates in the scene where, clad only in the adornments of San Gennaro's treasure, he attempts to seduce the city of Parthenope-or perhaps merely the delectable Parthenope herself-with the lubricity of a faun and the cynicism of an old man. Il tempo che scorre insieme al dolore.

In every dialogue, in every exchanged glance, the question echoes: is it possible that by trying to master desire, love ultimately imprisons its own freedom? And in this eternal ebb and flow between wanting and being, the protagonist remains undefinable, always escaping, constantly reinventing herself-as if the very city of Naples refused to be confined by labels or predetermined destinies.

In the twilight of her existence-be it amidst the effervescence of a Capri celebration or in the solitude of a dim alley-Parthenope presents herself as the synthesis of all the opposites that coexist in Naples: the sublime and the grotesque, desire and death, fragility and strength. It is this paradoxical combination that renders her portrait so unforgettable-a mirror, perhaps, of a city whose soul, despite everything, continues to pulse with an indomitable vitality, defying time and destiny with an irony that, in the end, remains its sole certainty.