How do people feel abou The Conformist
-Do people view it as a work of art on the level of films by people, such as Godard, Tarkovsky, Antononio, etc.-
Yes. I wouldn’t place it with the very best work of those directors, but it’s of the same tenor.
Are you suggesting that any director a second-rate director likes must also be second-rate? You can’t possibly accurately assess the artistic merit of a filmmaker based on the opinions that other filmmakers hold of his work.
THE CONFORMIST is so rich and so well made. A spellbinding masterpiece -- the Jean-Louis Trintignant character is so tragic…assaulted as a child….he so badly longing to fit in (with anyone or anything) he joins the fascists and is promptly assigned to kill one of his old professors (Enzo Tarascio). This grotesque quandary all but destroys Trintingnant. It’s not just about sex and politics. The great Dominique Sanda gives her most enigmatic performance as the professor’s young wife.
The photography by Vittorio Storaro rivals that of Freddie Youngs’s LAWRENCE OF ARABIA and Gordon Willis’s THE GODFATHER.
Bertolucci crafts a real work of art with this film, it’s so multi-layered with so much to behold it’s difficult to believe that such a young filmmaker (Bertolucci was just 30 when he made this) put this together. PLUS…Pierre Clementi has that brief and very unsettling cameo.
Matt:
What I’m mainly trying to say is that I mainly see The Conformist championed by people whose film tastes tend to be less eclectic and extensive, people who have fairly good tastes in film but relatively limited horizons, or maybe it’s simply my imagination.
The Conformist — a fantastic film, and I’m not a fan of every Bertolucci movie (e.g. The Last Emperor). So what if people whose tastes span territory which you wouldn’t go near with a 10 foot pole liked this movie? I’m puzzled as to why that would make a film inferior. If anything, I’d say that in this case Bertolucci succeeded in reaching a broader audience without catering to popular notions of what’s good — and that’s a great achievement, not a suspect one.
Hmmm…I seem to remember Godard saying that if an artistically driven film becomes a commerical success, there’s been a major understanding.
I have admiration for the film. I think some of its sequences rank with the best shot sequences I’ve seen. I own a copy and have watched the dancing scene many, many times. In the end, however, I think many of the visual choices the director makes are not solid, thematic, or narrative-based. Nor are they intellectual musings or even Brechtian tweaks at the audience… but they are just… cool shots. This is a hard position to justify, and I won’t be able to defend it well. I’m sure one could “make the case for the shots” but I’m not sure I’ll believe it. I definitely think the director knew what his film’s themes were, but I get the sense that he hurled his imagination and talent (not to mention his love of Fellini, and his truly awesome cinematographer) at each scene in kind of a “show offy” way, for lack of a better word. I think this is the period in film where young film makers were starting to just “go for the auteur thing.” His later films seem more naturally themselves, and I think he discovered later that he was much more of a strictly narrative film maker as opposed to a visual poet. (which ain’t such a bad thing. we can’t all be Tarkovsky. ) Like I said, I won’t be able to defend this position. It’s a gut feeling, and it is one that came on the second viewing.
Side note: The Italian school of overdubbed dialog is sometimes hard to take as well.
I find this film very addictive and mesmerizing in many ways, but I still ask myself how artistically significant it is in the pantheon of cinema when I see it being championed by vastly inferior filmmakers
Rossi, if you find it addictive and mesmizing, that should be confirmation of the film’s value. I said this in another thread: you should stop second-guessing your own aesthetic.
Two plus two:
Could you give some examples of scenes in The Conformist that merely contain “cool shots”. I guess in a way I can sort of see where you’re coming, but Trintignant’s work in this film was impeccable regardless.
That’s funny that you say that, Two Plus Two — because one of Bertolucci’s earliest films which I adore really has one foot at least in what I would call “arty” territory visually — La Commare Secca. I don’t think that the two necessarily have to be independent of one another — there are filmmakers who manage to combine narrative with very abstract imagery. I think that those camps are not necessarily separated by such a great divide, and it is possible that a filmmaker can turn up the volume or emphasize one style over another without cutting out either. In other words, there are infinite shades of grey between that a director can choose to jump into. I haven’t seen all Bertolucci’s films so someone out there can answer better than I whether, even with starting out with something like La Commare Secca, Bertolucci lost all that and went elsewhere more definitively later in life (the “strictly” narrative path)…
As for dubbing, I have a question — I can see why filming and then doing sound later can give you a bit more freedom when you are filming, is that why Italians (for one) do that?
Rossi:
Sorry. I started to try to list them but can’t. Nearly EVERY scene has some creative shot of some kind AND every scene successfully develops his themes. I just don’t buy that the shots and the themes relate. Leaves blowing… yes, but… Shadows from blinds across her striped dress…yes, but… Many, many crooked angles.. yes, but… Sorry if those aren’t enough examples. I do like the film, but I think it is a film by an artist who had loads of talent but had not developed a “voice” yet. All I can say is this: When leaves blow in a Tarkovsky film, you know damn well that HE knows why the leaves should be blowing, and that makes his films seem solid, even when they are nearly inexplicable. It’s probably just subjective. OK: That Tarkovsky “knows why the leaves are blowing” statement is kind of silly.
Spend a little time with what the film is doing and even the coolest shots mean:
Two Plus Two:
Watch some of the special features on the Paramount DVD if you can.
I like the way the film is staged and all the symbolism, but I don’t like the way the characters are written. I don’t know what to call it, I just feel there’s something mechanical and maybe a little forced about the scripting. Maybe ‘On the nose’ is a better way to describe it. The priest thinks homosexuality is a greater crime than murder, and this contributes to the artistic theme. Marcello then goes out of his way to say so explicitly, and when the priest finds out he’s in the secret police, the priest immediately and explicitly hands him a moral carte blanche. The film shows us something interesting, then it tells us explicitly what we’re supposed to take from it. And the whole analogy to Plato’s cave which was supposed to be central analogy of the film was extremely weak.
I don’t think it’s productive to debate whether the film should be placed on Mt Olympus beside all the other icons. Great film shouldn’t be discussed as if it’s an exclusive social club. We should be discussing the merits of the film.
Odilonvert: I don’t know the history on the dubbing that happened in the Italian film industry. It might have been a cost cutting measure that became a tradition. If you have ever watched the making of “satyricon” you’ll see Fellini vocally conducting a three way love scene “Okay kiss him, Okay kiss her” You can imagine why he loved over dubs! So he could really conduct the scenes while they were being filmed (even dialogue scenes). He also stated that he thought that people’s real voices don’t often match their faces, and so his films are filled with unusual over dubbed voices in addition to his celebrated collection of unusual faces. (I think faces and voices do generally match in life… but then again there’s Mike Tyson) So Fellini liked the over dubbing process. Maybe others in the Italian system liked it as well. It’s not only Italian films. “Breathless” and “La Collectionneuse” are also post dubbed, but those directors left that method behind (as soon as they could afford it?).
“By mediating between natural and artificial forms of illumination, just like Caravaggio used to do with sun-light and an oil lantern . . .Storaro’s chiaroscuro seductively modulates, engulfs, and caresses the figures to the point of enhancing them within the rich visual culture of a specific historical context. This is why the commentary in Visions of Light: The Art of Cinematography praises Storaro’s work in The Conformist (1970) for its degree of “visual coherence” . . . by intensely researching the twenties and thirties depicted in Il conformista (The Conformist, 1970) Storaro and Bertolucci were able to reproduce the colours, the atmosphere, and the icons of the art nouveau and the art deco styles in fashion, design, architecture."
Matt:
What can I say? Those images are absolutely spectacular. jaw dropping. Awe inspiring. I did say that I would not be able to defend myself, so I should probably leave it at that.
but I’ll try one last time- I just saw the Caravaggio comparison – I know both cerebrally and “deep in the gut” why Caravaggio used light and shadows as he did. I don’t feel that those shots you posted relate to (or even stand in opposition to) repressed sexuality and fascism etc. So when I watch “the Conformist” I see the shots as a separate entity from “the film.” ok. that was my last attempt.
No need to defend, I understand that reaction to the film—it’s a very consciously designed film. As a consequence of that, it’s easy to hit that surface and slide right off the film.
Well. I do own the sucker. So i’ll watch it again for sure.
By the way, I have a question about the transfer. I own the DVD myself and I noticed in the scene towards the end where Marcello is about to leave his apartment as he is talking to his wife that the screen twitches for a brief second. I’m referring to the scene where from the viewer’s vantage point Marcello and his wife are separated by a wall and Marcello’s on the right by the door. I was wondering if that’s my DVD or the transfer. Also, there’s a brief pause in the scene where Dominique Sanda is playing around with Marcello’s wife in the hotel room. Dominque looks the crevice in the doorway and it’s implied she’s looking at Marcello and just as she is about to look away and put her head down into his wife’s crotch the screen pauses for a split second, and I was wondering if this is the transfer or my DVD.
Agree with Matt. The shots in Conformist are jam packed with information. You really have to see it a few times i think. At first the editing style threw me off and i couldn’t really follow it, but the editing is what makes it one of the best genre films of its time.
The scene with the leaves blew me away. the angle is extremely odd and the camera looks like its scraping the ground but it’s not and it’s so gracefully executed
Rossi, can bands that play punk music not appreciate Mozart? Bad Religion is one of my favorite bands and the main songwriters Brett Gurewitz and Greg Graffin (who is a professor at UCLA) state the Beatles and Beach Boys as two of their favorites bands.
To say that if so-called “lesser filmmakers” appreciate a director then one must reconsider appreciating the same director is height of arrogance.
Just because one does not create the same type of art doesn’t mean they cannot see the greatness in the work of others, they just tell stories in different ways.
As for the actual Point of the thread, the Conformist is a great film, probably Bertolucci’s best, with stunning cinematography. I feel the film has the urgency of a still young filmmaker (an urgency that was gone by the time he made 1900 (though it’s also a solid film)), and doesn’t linger on story, each thing that happens truly advances the story.
I think one can see this film in the works of directors as diverse and Coppola and Zhang Yimou.
@Two Plus Two — that’s interesting about dubbing, and I didn’t know that about Fellini thinking that voices and people don’t go together. I can only think that in his vision, that’s the way it was, certainly not everyone’s opinion.
Lol regarding Mike Tyson, but maybe that explains why he became a boxer. I can’t imagine how easily he attracted bullies with that voice…
I have posted that quote in another Bertolucci thread but why not post it here as well…
“The Conformist is about me and Godard. When I gave the professor Godard’s phone number and address, I did it for a joke, but afterwards I said to myself, ‘Well, maybe all that has some significance… I’m Marcello and I make Fascist movies and I want to kill Godard who’s a revolutionary, who makes revolutionary movies and who was my teacher’.”
I’ve never had any problem with the Italian dubbing. In Italy they still dub every foreign language film in theaters, and their voice actors who do the dubbing are pretty famous, apparently. They’re also very good, since they’re not the bottom of the barrel actors and do it for a living, so I guess that makes sense.
Fellini used to tell his actors to say something, anything, because he didn’t always know what he wanted them to say and he could merely dub it in later. Crazy guy. When the dubbing is a consistent feature, rather than merely one or two instances where it’s noticeable, I think it makes it far easier to take for granted.
It is needless to say that The Conformist is a great movie as well as a great looking movie. The only comment I can contribute is that even though the movie is about political assassination the movie at times has the look and feel of a gangster movie. That is obviously because it is about a man who attempts to find his identity through a shadowy murderous fraternal organization.
Abou the Conformist
Plenty of French films were dubbed, as well, no? Didn’t Michel Piccoli of all people do Fernando Rey’s dubbing on the French Bunuel productions. It does not only seem to be an Italian trend.
Rossi
Do people view it as a work of art on the level of films by people, such as Godard, Tarkovsky, Antononio, etc., or do people see it as more of a gateway film that would be used to introduce people to foreign cinema. Is it relatively accessible and conventional in its execution. I know Bertolucci tends to divide film lovers, since he has had such an erratic career, and I can see how in some ways The Conformist can be highly pleasing to the senses thanks to its visuals, but in no way does it seek to satisfy the audience in my opinion with regard to its substance. Marcello’s hopeless existence, which is expressed very subtly I feel is more than a mainstream audience could stomach. The American distributor even told Bertolucci initially that this would never get an American theatrical release, because it wasn’t a film for an American audience. I guess I am partially interested to see how others feel, because I find this film very addictive and mesmerizing in many ways, but I still ask myself how artistically significant it is in the pantheon of cinema when I see it being championed by vastly inferior filmmakers, such as Joel Schumacher and Sydney Pollack. I wonder if I’m missing something when I notice that such second rate directors champion such astounding masterpieces as I see them. It also seems to be the darling of the mainstream Hollywood film school generation, which includes people like Coppola and Scorsese. I faced the same dilemma with Rohmer’s Love in the Afternoon when I noticed the best choice they had for someone to comment on the film on the Criterion DVD was Neil LaBute.
P.S. Maybe a controversial theory, but perhaps expounding upon the greatness of the works of others exacerbates the mediocrity of one’s own work.