Linkshoch Wonderful Movie

Evengyny Thanks for the memories!

SnoReptilePlenty Memorable, crazy movie

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

lasttimeisaw Fellini's cinematic vitality was undeniably on the ebb in his later years of filmmaking, and when a director's name can blatantly headline in the film's title, a common demonstration is that he has the autocratic power over his work without any compromise, so it is a good sign for the director's devotees, but sometimes, it is also prone to backfire often due to the auteur's unbridled ego. And FELLINI'S CASANOVA is an exemplar of both cases. Fellini is quite antipathetic towards his center figure, the Venetian gadabout Giacomo Casanova, maybe partly originates from jealousy, it is a man who is an emblem of libidinal licentiousness (with women), any heterosexual man has the right to be envious. So loosely based on Casanova's autobiography HISTOIRE DE MA VIE, Fellini unleashes his uncurbed visual creativity to conjure up a series of spectacular mise-en-scène with a hankering for irony and symbolism, often in the form of a theatric piece. The opening gambit, a Carnival in Venice, is onerously undertook to be stupendous and eye-opening, and it is really hard to resist the enthralling allure in Casanova's each and every episode, sex activity is presumably the norm in it, but his on-screen virility brings some visual fatigue pretty soon (due to an R rating) and his action fades into mechanical repetition (certainly, the change of head-wear is a great diversion). After all, the avant-garde production design (using plastic bags to imitate a choppy sea), the 18th Century exquisite art decoration (whether accurate or not), the outlandish period costumes and flamboyant make-up (especially during the lavish banquet set) usurp the crown as the legitimate attention-grabber. With garnishment like Nino Rota's stirring score and literature reference such as Tonino Guerra's La Grande Mouna, 2 hour and 35 minutes is not that long at all. It is also a career-defining role for Donald Sutherland, although never really being heralded (so does his lengthy and unceasing career), under some visage alteration (a fake nose and a shaved head) his Casanova is not devilishly handsome, may not even physically resemble his character, but he exerts his devotion thoroughly through his bulged eyes, which fixate on his preys with torrid resolution, simultaneously sinister and passionate. Fellini is in no mood to give Casanova a hagiography treatment, so chiefly, Sutherland's effort has been unfairly debased to ridicule and grandstanding, Casanova is much more than a womanizer who is unable to love, willfully, Fellini refuses to disclose the other side of his life, such as a bold adventurer and a luminous writer. Female objects are never the focal point of the film, they are the objects of desire in the menagerie for our hormone-driven protagonist to conquer with intercourse, only the Angelina the giantess (Sandra Elaine Allen) and Rosalba the mechanical doll (Leda Lojodice) shed dim light on certain pathos for the fate of Casanova besides their eye-popping presence. Altogether, FELLINI'S CASANOVA is majestic on scale, burlesque on appearance, biased in its stance, but never an awkward anomaly in Fellin's absurdist cannon.

Eumenides_0 In Fellini's Casanova, the viewer follows the legendary seducer, played by a young Donald Sutherland, jumping through several episodes in his life, in a whirlpool of memories, impressions and sex. This film is a journey that takes us to a Venetian prison, to French palaces, to a London frost fair and to the Swiss Alps. And the people Casanova meets, from a giant woman to dwarfs, from magicians to artists, are amazing. It's Federico Fellini's vision of Giacomo Casanova's life and it's completely unique.The film's themes aren't love or the art of seduction, as the name Casanova tends to evoke, but lust and desire as basic human urges. Fellini didn't like Casanova; for the Italian filmmaker he was just a soulless lover, a greedy social climber interested only in adding points to his score of amorous conquests and serving the nobility. So viewers will only find a sex machine moving from coitus to coitus, with little concern for the women he beds.The narrative, like in many of this director's films, is fragmentary, and Fellini and his co-screenwriter, Bernardino Zapponi, freely adapted Casanova's autobiography. In defense of Fellini, though, Giacomo Casanova's The Story of My Life contains around 3,500 pages, so a few cuts were necessary. Of course in a Fellini film the narrative isn't as important as the visuals and the way each scene is constructed. Visually, this is a beautiful movie. It's not only a masterful achievement by costume designer Danilo Donati, who deservedly won an Oscar for his work here; it's also unique because of the stylistic choices Fellini employs. For instance, for a scene of Casanova rowing in a little boat in the middle of a sea storm, Fellini chose to use black plastic sheets to replace the water; this choice may seem meaningless until we realize that artifice, appearances and illusions are running themes.Another interesting stylistic choice is the way Fellini shoots exterior scenes. Usually landscapes are covered in mist or snow, the sun barely visible. Our vision is limited to the foreground while the horizon remains hazy. By contrast, the interior scenes, the magnificent ballrooms, gardens and bed-chambers, where most of the action takes place, are exuberant, a sensory overload of colors, sounds, shapes and movements.Donald Sutherland, one of the most underrated living actors, shines as Casanova. He is practically unrecognizable here: with his hair cut, wearing a prosthetic chin and nose, and covered in make-up, Sutherland displays a strange, androgynous look. He's also, apart from the women he seduces, the only handsome person in the film. Fellini must have handpicked the ugliest actors in the world to populate this film, who, with their rotten and missing teeth, wrinkled faces and long, sharp noses, are in total opposition to the beautiful world that surrounds them.The action takes place during the Enlightenment, but reason doesn't make an appearance here. What for some was one of the greatest eras of human achievement, for Fellini was an era of debauchery, aloofness and superstition. Suffice to say that an aristocratic woman asks Casanova to impregnate her so she can pass her soul, through a ridiculous pagan ritual, to the fetus. Casanova and his contemporaries are vapid people who believe they're exceptional. Only Casanova, gradually, loses his illusions and the ending is a moment of epiphany for the seducer who, aged, only has his memories to keep him company.There's a small caveat: Donald Sutherland's voice was originally dubbed by Italian actor Gigi Proietti, so his fans may want to look for a version that has the English audio. I wouldn't consider this a major loss, since this is one of those films where the dialogue is practically irrelevant. Sutherland's body language expresses a lot more than the platitudes his character tends to spout. But viewers used to actors' original voices may find this off-putting.Fellini's Casanova is long and requires more patience than attention. The narrative's aimlessness may quickly induce boredom if the viewer isn't used to Fellini's style. Fellini makes up for this by giving every sequence some humour and titillation (the sex scenes may not be the best but are certainly the funniest ever filmed for cinema). In this regard this movie is very similar to Amarcord, which also seems like an endless collection of unrelated gags. Perhaps this film isn't one of Federico Fellini's essential masterworks, like 8½ and La Dolce Vita, but it's a sexy, tragicomedy still capable of entertaining and inspiring awe.

zolaaar It's certainly important to note that Fellini thought that the historical Casanova was a scumbag, a crook even a fascist. In his film, the character appears as a scatterbrained, melancholic, mechanical tragic figure: like a marionette, a Pinocchio who never turned into a human. The story starts in Venice, Casanova's home town, with a Fellinesque carnival scene, where a statue of Venus is pulled out of the canal. This effigy with its protuberant, blue eyes is an equally powerful initial motif like the Christ figure in La dolce vita. And there we have the comparison: both films show similar dreary worlds of vices. Like Marcello, Casanova strays from one orgy to the next, screws around randomly. Donald Sutherland is remarkable, and it is intriguing to look at his unimpressed, incurious, lost soul wandering between the splendid masks and suits of the high society which makes Casanova basically another picaresque tale and like La dolce vita and Satyricon totally excessive in every aspect. And this shows Fellini's strength and weakness. The principal fault is probably the main protagonist himself. Casanova was not only a woman 'eater', but also a literarily educated man, mathematician and politician with knowledge in economy, science and occultism. Just like the French ambassador who watches the screen Casanova copulating, but leaves before he is about to say something, Fellini refuses the opportunity for the historical character to defend itself. The direction on the other hand is, as usual, masterful. What remains is a clinical, highly reserved character study, spectacular, but cheerless.

Philip Van der Veken With his "La Dolce Vita" and "Amarcord", Federico Fellini is probably one of Italy's best known directors. But that the man has made a lot more movies than only these two, isn't something that everybody seems to know. And even though not all his movies were famous masterpieces, they almost always have something to offer that makes it interesting to give his movies a try. That's why I watched "Il Casanova di Federico Fellini", based on the autobiography of Giacomo Casanova.Telling what the story in this movie is about isn't exactly difficult, although it's not easy to bring it well either. If you want to keep it simple than you could say that this movie is about nothing more than Casanova's sexual escapades. In his quest for fame and fortune, he travels through Europe, visiting all the royal courts, seducing as many women as possible. But the entire movie seems to be one big hallucinatory circus as well. I truly believe that's the best way to describe it, because you don't know if you should take it very serious or not. You can see it as something very disturbing, but the irony and completely over-the-top make-up and costumes almost seem to forbid you to take it all very serious. Even the sex-scenes seem like one big farce. And the acting only makes that feeling stronger, although I must say that I appreciated Donald Sutherland in his role as Giacomo Casanova.In the end I believe that this movie will make it very difficult for the average audience to judge it. Either you love it, either you absolutely hate it, as there almost seems no way in between. Personally I don't really know what to think of this movie. I liked it, but not to such an extend that I would recommend it to my friends. Not that they would understand what I like about it (most of them prefer a lot easier movies), but even if they preferred the not so average movies, I wouldn't be able to explain them very well why this is a definite must-see. I guess this is the kind of movie that you should only give a try when you are already familiar with movies other than the average American blockbuster. I am one of those people and I quite liked it, but it wasn't the best example of 'weird' cinema that I've seen so far. I give it a 6.5/10.