Truth in Image: a scene analysis of Fellini's "8 1/2"

Examining the work of an artist is in many ways is a close examination of their life and their emotions. A truly honest piece of art will bestow upon viewers an intimate knowledge of the creator’s personal life. Federico Fellini’s 1963 film “8 ½” is a film about precisely this. It is about a film director in creative crisis, unable to summon the ideas or make any of the decisions necessary to complete his latest project. In many ways “8 ½” is a film about itself, the product of Fellini’s creative block turned into a film about a womanizing director, bearing almost all the traits of Fellini himself, unable to control his personal life or his creative drive. There are numerous moments of truth in the film, scenes that make it apparent where the protagonist, Guido’s, personal life and creative process become intertwined. Perhaps the most prominent of these would be the scene in which Guido is being forced by the movie executives to make casting decisions, watching one screen test after another of actresses attempting to portray the real women in his life.

The main focus of the scene is the tension between Guido and his wife, who knows about Guido’s infidelity, yet remains silent. The scene follows Guido’s harem fantasy, where he can have any woman he wants. Coming out of this fantasy, the scene opens with a close up of Guido, still deep in thought. The first portion of this scene concentrates on Guido’s desire to avoid the oncoming experience, which he knows is sure to be unpleasant. Guido stares downward, saying “If only you could be patient a little longer, Luisa.” This plead is only heard by Guido, who realizes his plea is in vain stating “But perhaps you’ve had it.” Guido realizes that this oncoming moment could mean the end of his marriage, as his wife is going to be faced with the truth hidden within screen tests, soon to be viewed. His attention shifts as he hears a voice, coming from a man seated behind him, reading the newspaper. The man expresses his desire to help Guido, however he proceeds to declare that Guido is attempting to solve a problem that “has no solution”. The man is speaking about Guido finishing the film, but his comments have an undertone and connotation related to Guido’s concerns regarding Luisa.

The next shot is of Luisa and three other women seated together, separate from Guido and the rest of those in the screening room. The women sit making small talk but this is not what s important about the scene, it is instead the body language of each of the women. Luisa sits in the foreground of the shot, while the other women surround her in the background. Luisa stares forward, biting her nails and furiously smoking a cigarette. It becomes apparent that Guido’s presence is very prominent in the room; each of the three women glances upward in Guido’s direction, whispering and giggling to one another. However, Luisa does not look back, she continues to stare forward ignoring her friends and Guido both. Despite her attempts, her friends can sense her discomfort, asking if she is well. Luisa assures them that she is fine, but does it in a dismissive manner, which reveals her words to be untrue. The next shot is a wide shot revealing the entire room and more importantly it shows where everyone sits in relation to one another. Guido sits in the far back of the screen room, while Luisa and her friends sit down in the front. The tension between Luisa and Guido is so strong that it can be felt from all the way across room.

Returning to Guido’s point of view, the man behind him continues to discuss Guido’s futile situation. The man reads a quote from the newspaper regarding self-analysis and proceeds to state that if more people where to read such a quote that they would realize their own folly. Based upon the reaction shots of Guido, intercut throughout the man’s dialogue, Guido already knows how deep he is in. The man serves as Guido’s nagging conscience, in the background reminding Guido of all his problems. This is confirmed as Fellini takes the audience into Guido’s mind. Guido fantasizes about having the man executed, hung from the rafters of the screening room. Guido doesn’t want to think about his inability to solve his numerous problems; he wants to escape from the impending decisions he is going to have to make. After his fantasy Guido’s attention returns to Luisa, who still ignores him. One of the women turns back to look at Guido, stating that he is seated by the door, “always ready to run”. Seeing this Guido nods in agreement, making it obvious to the audience that he wants out of this situation as soon as possible. Upon that note the movie executives enter the room. The executives shout to Guido that he must make his decision immediately; they have given him as much time as they can and he must cast all parts at this moment. At this point it is too late for Guido to escape; the lights fade and the film begins to roll.

This marks the second portion of the scene, which follows Luisa’s reaction to all of the screen tests. The first test is for the part of the mistress. The actress on screen is looks very similar to Carla, Guido’s real life mistress, something that Luisa recognizes. Off screen we can hear Guido’s voice directing her rather impatiently. His words give insight into his perception of his real life relationships. All of his directions are related to the actress’ body, telling her to “sway her big hips”. Guido’s depicts the mistress as an idiot, prattling on the phone over sparkling water, and it is clear that Guido is interested solely in her feminine body. Luisa watches this silently, chewing at her fingernails and shifting uncomfortably in her seat. The next test is for the part of the wife. This is the hardest for Luisa to take. The actress isn’t as physically attractive as the mistress; slim and sophisticated as opposed to voluptuous. However, Guido prompts the actress to portray the wife as an independent and well-spoken woman. He goes so far as to take a line that Luisa said to Guido earlier in the film and having the actress repeat it. The discomfort is so great that Luisa has to light another cigarette to occupy herself. The final blow comes when Guido instructs the actress to repeat the line a second time, this time wearing glasses identical to Luisa’s. Having the most intimate problem of her personal life, put on a big screen and displayed to an audience is too much for Luisa to handle. As soon as the tests change to the next actress vying for the part of the mistress, Luisa leaves her seat and exits the room.

Fellini uses this scene in a way that truly expresses honest art. The images that Guido has produced are so personal and intimate that it pains both him and his wife to watch. His creative block has constricted Guido, forcing him to draw upon his personal problems for inspiration. While Luisa may not like what she sees and hears, it is the truth. Guido’s depiction of the mistress is completely in sync with his feelings for Carla; she is unintelligent and obnoxious but Guido cannot resist her seductive body. While Guido may not be sexually attracted to Luisa in the way he is to Carla, he respects Luisa as an intelligent and articulate human rather than an object. All of the confusion of Guido’s work and personal affairs are projected on screen for all to see. He cannot figure out how to end the film, because his own problems have yet to be resolved. Fellini stretched the boundaries of film, making an autobiographical film about a director attempting to make an autobiographical film. Guido represents Fellini perfectly, dancing and dodging his way through the problems of his life and through the process of creating a film.

Reality Vs. Realism

Film is an art form with a wide potential, serving many purposes. While some use it as a means to document, others use the medium to express the subconscious and intangible. While both the Italian Neorealists and the Expressionists of the 20^th century captured something about the human condition, they took drastically different approaches. Inspired by the poverty left in Italy following the Second World War, filmmakers Vittorio De Sica and Cesare Zavattini created films reproducing the everyday life. At the same time Luis Bunuel, Federico Fellini, and Ingmar Bergman were directors making films that examined what Bunuel characterizes as “the marvelous world of the unknown”. In truth, the difference between the Neorealists and the Expressionists is not so much one in filmmaking, but rather a different definition of reality. The reality of the Neorealists is rooted in the harsh, war-ravaged streets of Italy while the expressionist reality was one without limits. In the eyes of the expressionists if the human mind can conjure it, it is reality.

The personal films of the expressionists can be characterized by interest in the mysteries of the unconscious. Bunuel is no exception. All of his films contain a close look into the psyche of the characters portrayed. In his 1950 film “Los Olvidados”, Bunuel depicts a group of young boys living a life of crime in Mexico City. In many ways the film is a rebuttal to the Neorealists. The film depicts the slums of Mexico in a very stark and realistic manner, showing the pack of boys living in the streets and stealing to survive. Bunuel depicts the lives of the boys just as any Neorealist would have. However, he goes a step further, breaking the barrier between the physical and visceral by entering the dreams of the main character Pedro. During the dream sequence Bunuel is able to convey so much more about Pedro’s state of mind. After witnessing a murder Pedro is ridden with guilt, but cannot speak to anyone about it. It is a realist’s choice for Pedro not to speak his mind but an expressionist choice to express his thoughts through imagery. Shifting into slow motion, the images of the physical world become tools for Bunuel to depict the workings of Pedro’s mind. In his dream his mother’s voice questions him, probing his thoughts. Pedro sees a chicken; an image that evokes his respect for the life of animals, which is changed by the murder. And he is finally haunted by the image of the murderer Jaibo, emerging from beneath his bed like a demon clawing his way out of hell. The use of these images becomes a powerful and more effective means for expressing emotion.

Bunuel uses imagery to the extreme in the short film he made with Salvador Dali, “Un Chien Andalou”. He breaks the conventions of cinema by foregoing a conventional structure, time, and space. Instead the film pieces together a serious of jarring, abstract images, such a razor slicing open a woman’s eye or ants crawling from a hole in a man’s hand, and incites an emotional response from the audience. The film depends entirely upon the connotations each individual viewer attaches to the images.

Federico Fellini, also known for blurring the line between the physical and abstract, explores dilemmas of the soul in his film “La Strada”. While this film does not implore the techniques used by Bunuel, it cannot truly fit into the category of Neorealist. The storyline is natural and the events logical yet the characters and situations cannot be called normal. The film tells the tale of a childish young girl, Gelsomina, being sold into the servitude of a cruel circus strong man named Zampano. Fellini takes a close look at the complex emotions that fill their relationship. Zampano is a washed up strong man who makes his living doing the same thing over and over, using his muscles to break a metal chain. Gelsomina is a naïve and kind girl, with musical talents, whose sole purpose is to serve Zampano, who treats her like a piece of property rather than a companion. Zampano’s treatment of Gelsomina stems from his growing resentment towards her; she is the opposite of everything he is. She is young and unshaped by the world; she has multiple talents, and is well liked by all. The film follows their journey together, witnessing their conflict reenact itself over and over. Zampano eventually breaks the girl’s spirit by subjecting her to the horrors of violence and murder, scarring her mentally. Stranding her alongside the road he ultimately becomes the cause of her death. The film ends with Zampano weeping for what he has done.

Fellini makes it apparent that Zampano did not need Gelsomina for financial purposes but rather for love and companionship. Zampano felt that he didn’t need anyone, until his destructive behavior lead to the death of the kindest person he knew. Through a repetition of Zampano’s abuse and Gelsomina’s good-natured response Fellini explores the emotions that a man like Zampano could never put into words. Fellini’s juxtaposition of characters creates a visual display of unsaid emotion.

Perhaps the best example of the differences between Neorealism and Expressionistic filmmaking is a comparison between De Sica’s “Umberto D.” and Ingmar Bergman’s “Wild Strawberries”. Both films tell stories about old men dealing with the course their life has taken. De Sica portrays his main character through the realist’s lens, focusing on the present moment, while Bergman explores the past, present and future of his character. Both films capture truth about the characters but it is a different truth.

De Sica explores the seemingly simple and insignificant, transforming it into something else, which can hold the interest of its audience and insight reflection among viewers. In his essay “Poetry and Cinema” Bunuel sights a specific scene in the film. “We see the maid go into the kitchen, light the fire, put on a casserole, throw water several times on some ants that are advancing Indian file across the wall, take the temperature of an elderly man who feels feverish. Despite the trivial side of the situation, we follow her movements with interest and even with a certain suspense.” By experiencing the moment the audience is able to connect with the characters on screen in a different fashion than Bergman connects with his audience. However, this is ultimately an fractional connection.

In “Wild Strawberries” Bergman gives the most well rounded look at the life of his protagonist, Isak Borg, possible. As Isak makes his way to a ceremony in his honor, his trip becomes a journey through his past. The film makes the jump between time, showing Isak’s youth, the loss of his love, and the further chain of events that has left him unhappy. On top of this, Bergman also enters into Isak’s dreams, showing the audience Isak’s worst nightmares. Bergman uses the image of the coffin to fill Isak’s thoughts. Isak fears that his old age has rendered him useless and that no one will remember his life. After showing the audience the Isak’s inner contemplations, Bergman uses his actions in the present to show the change that Isak is desires to make. By doing this, the audience is more invested in Isak’s story.

Neorealism seeks to remain founded in authenticity and the waking reality, capturing time and place perfectly, finding drama in daily routine. However, Bunuel said that “Nonrealistic reality is incomplete, conventional, and above all, rational. The poetry, the mystery, all that completes and enlarges tangible reality, is utterly lacking.” What Bunuel and other expressionist filmmakers have tried to capture is the reality of the mind. Expressionists see no difference between the real world and the dream world; both are intricate parts of the human experience.