An Analysis of La Dolce Vita

by Amy Delano

“La Dolce Vita” is a powerful Italian art film that is not only an artistically interesting
film, but an important one. Following the life of Marcello Rubini, a tired and desperate
journalist, in a sequence of seven days and seven nights, “La Dolce Vita” exposes the depravity
of the world of entertainment and the upper class. Rubini seems to want nothing more than the
company of people whom he finds interesting and exciting, but is consistently rejected from the
groups he tries to infiltrate. Try as he might, Marcello Rubini is hopeless and resolved to live a
life just on the outside of what he truly wants. Broken relationships, religious imagery, and
delicate framing are all key elements to the film and help to facilitate the story. I chose this
movie because it is a movie that is impossible to stop thinking about. The three hour long
masterpiece written and directed by Federico Fellini is full of endless details making it the
perfect material for an in-depth analysis. It retains its relevance in a way that even modern
audiences would be able to relate to. Though this movie is definitely made for people who
appreciate the art of cinema, rather than simply sensational stories and elaborate cinematography,
it showcases parts of society that still exist.
Federico Fellini is perhaps Italy’s most famous director, even giving life to the word
“Felliniesque”. From an early age, Fellini had a connection to the entertainment industry. Getting
his start by writing for comics and gags for a magazine, he eventually worked his way into
writing for “Roma, Città Aperta” in 1945, which is usually regarded as one of the first
neorealism Italian movies (The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica). After this, he went on to
write and direct many other award winning films. It is clear that he takes a special interest in the
lives of performers, and “La Strada,” an important film of his, is a film that focuses on
performers and how they relate to the world and people around them. For the most part, he seems
to feel that most of these relationships are superficial, and toxic. That said, he always has a
human element to his films to show that while there may be a lot of issues, there is a benevolence
that gives audiences a glimmer of hope that things could be different. Perhaps Fellini draws
inspiration from his own life, as he had “an often troubled marriage” to his wife whom he met by
writing for a serial radio show that she starred in (Britannica). Though the famous may seem to
have glamorous lives, they seem to also have the most issues forming authentic relationships.
Fellini seems to strive to illustrate this concept in all of his films, but none are quite so well done
then that of “La Dolce Vita”.
Though this movie is not considered to be one of Fellini’s best, it was overall very
successful. Winning the Academy Award for best costumes is definitely a feather in Fellini’s
cap, but one of the most interesting successes of the film was the transformation of the name
“paperazzo.” In the film, Paparazzo is the name of an obnoxious, but overall harmless,
photographer that follows Rubini around as he tries to get stories out of the rich famous people
he associates with. To be clear, Paparazzo was harmless as he did not physically harm people,
but it was easy to see throughout the film that the incessant photographers were difficult for the
famous people to cope with. While they appreciate positive attention when they want it, when
the photographers get too close to their personal life, it is naturally unsettling and upsetting for
them. This depiction of geeking photographers led to the term “paparazzi” being used to describe
that profession permanently. Despite the fact that “La Strada” was better reviewed by critics, the
worldwide use of the word “paparazzi” makes “La Dolce Vita” into a film that has forever
changed language. Language is something that as humans we hold on to. While perhaps words
may go obsolete, they tend to inspire other similar words and the legacy lives on. Not many
people can say that an entire group of people is named after a character in a movie that you
directed.
Fellini ultimately could not have created a more perfect art film. From the extravagant
sets and costumes, to the perplexing plot line, the film clearly is meant to make the audience
think harder about what is real. These are key components of what it takes to create a good
Italian art film. The genre is dominated by interesting perspectives that are translated through the
advanced techniques and expensive production design. Though the genre borders on
experimental film, it maintains a narrative structure that an audience can follow. That said, they
are traditionally shown in smaller theaters and to people who admire films for more than just an
escapist story. Fellini takes on the role of being a passive observer, as there are very few close up
shots (Makeido). The detachment created by this technique is significant as it shows that the
characters themselves have a detachment to their own lives and feelings. This passiveness is
what Fellini seems to think is the most disappointing thing about humanity. Here Rubini is
surrounded by interesting beautiful people, viewing beautiful performances and living in one of
the most captivating cities in the world, yet he cannot seem to truly connect with anything. This
is of course not to say that Rubini was the only one in the film who struggled with this. One of
the only characters who seemed to delight in the simpler things was Emma. Though she was
suicidal, when she went to Sneider’s party, she was the only one interested in the recording of
nature sounds. She took everything in around her, and did not dismiss all of the different art
forms that were being displayed around her. Additionally, the costumes and sets are important to
first showing the high budget of the film, and second to emphasize the extravagance. What
would a “sweet life” be without all of the flair? Staying true to the genre of artistic film, this film
is perhaps not enjoyed by a wide range of audiences, but nonetheless evokes an important stance
on the depravity of humanity.
A night sequence that demonstrates this “sweet life” perfectly, is when the partiers all go
to a castle. During that time, some start a search for a ghost and attempt a seance. This scene is
interesting because of the incredible detail of the costumes and the sets, in addition to the
absurdity of what is going on. Of all the parties Rubini attends, this one seems to be the most
bizarre. There is an endless amount of secrets and different things to explore within the house.
The ghost hunting scene in particular is worth considering because on the surface level, it seems
as though it could be omitted from the film entirely. Nothing is achieved here, except for another
example of the world of the wealthy. It is possibly one of the most visibley stunning examples of
cinematography and production design, but Marcello is not even present for these incredible
shots. In fact, he is pretty much left out entirely. This is significant because it emphasizes that
Marcello is not truly a part of this world. Ghost hunting is not something that he finds to be
interesting, which is funny because he constantly is seeking to be amused. One would think that
this would be right up his alley. Additionally, this scene demonstrates the thoughts of the
partiers. They are overall portrayed as highly intelligent people who lack a meaningful existence.
This also occurs during a time where Maddalena and Marcello seem to claim their love for each
other while in separate rooms connected by an echo. However, during this time, another man
kisses Maddalena, and she seems to forget all about Marcello. It is unclear if Rubini ever finds
out about this, but it is unlikely that he would truly care about it. He loves Maddalena no more
than he loved Sylvia and Emma. He is just looking for attention and for some excitement in his
life, that he is unable to manifest by his own means.
The use of a structure that is much like that of a novel is also interesting, (Giddins) and
shows the genius of Fellini’s innovation. Roger Ebert describes the film’s structure as “a series
of nights and dawns, descents and ascents,” (Ebert) which ultimately reflects the changing
moods of Rubini. To be honest, Rubini never seems to be truly happy or in a good mood, unless
he is getting the attention he thinks he deserves. He ultimately only seems to be happy when he
is treated like one of the upper class, it is very hard for him to accept the fact that they are not
treating him like an equal. The “ascents” occur when he experiences the nightlife and is around
the people he writes about. The “descents” occur when the sun comes out and he is exposed for
who he is. Another way to look at it is in the literal sense. Marcello is often literally ascending or
descending (Burns). For example, he descends the staircase of the prostitute’s house where he
spends the night with Maddalena. Contrastingly, he climbs a tower to be close to Sylvia. These
are just a couple of the extensive examples of ascension and descension, and show once again
the genius of Fellini as he can take literal and non-literal concepts and make them palatable. One
of the most powerful examples of this is when he has a wild night with Sylvia, the Swedish-
American moviestar. Dancing with her all night, going along with her quirky antics, and basking
in her beauty, Rubini is in love with her in the nighttime, but as soon as the sun comes out, he
starts to understand what the situation really is. He is standing in the Trevi Fountain with a
beautiful woman, who is admittedly a little eccentric. She howls with the wolves, rescues kittens,
and climbs into a fountain with her beautiful dress. He doesn’t belong in her world. Ultimately, it
showcases “the endless pursuit of pleasure” (Silvestro), the film could have really begun or
ended anywhere. Each day is definitely distinct, but it ends on a note that shows that this will
continue to happen over and over again. If this had been a different kind of structure, the impact
would not have been as powerful. The genius in this structure lies in its obscurity, while it is not
strange to use such a structure in a novel, this idea had never been fully realized in a film like
this.
The broken up structure of the film also reflects the everpresent broken relationships. The
first one we encounter is between Maddalena and Marcello. Maddalena seeks him out because he
is a break in the flow for her. Constantly surrounded by people just like her, she enjoys the
company of Marcello because of the excitement. Though as mentioned before, her heart is fickle
and though she may claim to be in love with Marcello at times, ultimately, she serves her
pleasure seeking nature, just like the rest. Next, we see Marcello find Emma who has nearly
succeeded in killing herself. It is unclear exactly what has driven her to be so suicidal, but likely
part of it is her complicated relationship with Marcello. When he takes her to the hospital, it is in
a begrudgingly loving way. Evidently not the first time this has happened, Marcello is not
perhaps as worried as one would think he’d be. At the hospital, while she is recuperating, he tries
to contact Maddalena, which is an apparent signal to his feelings towards her. One of the most
important scenes with the two of them is when they are driving and they engage in an incredibly
nasty fight. They have fought before, but it had never escalated as much as it did this time.
Emma gets out of the car, and Marcello leaves her on the side of the road. For the entire night. In
this extremely dramatic moment, we see how much they have been delusioned by their once love
of each other. Marcello is tired of Emma’s neediness, and Emma is tired of Marcello’s tendency
to sleep with other women. Neither can bear to actually make the break permanent, so they
torture each other endlessly. Marcello picks her up in the morning, and they drive off as if
nothing had ever happened. Afterwards they sleep together, seemingly over their previous
argument, but the framing of the shot still seems to separate the two, indicating that no matter
how physically close they are, they will never achieve true intimacy due to their differences.
Marcello’s relationship with Steiner is a meaningful one that is perhaps the most tragic of
all. While Marcello and Steiner’s relationship with each other might not be toxic, it is easy to see
that both of them have toxic relationships with themselves. Marcello admires Steiner for his way
of life and all that he owns. Infatuated with the concept of being surrounded with intellectuals of
all types, Rubini tells Steiner of his admiration. Steiner seems withdrawn, and tells Rubini that it
is not always what it seems. Though Steiner deeply cared for his wife and children, he
recognized the intense depravity of the world that surrounds himself and his family. It is this
concern that potentially led to the catastrophic and heartbreaking murder suicide of Steiner and
his children. He cannot seem to bear the weight of raising two humans in a world that he finds
deplorable. Something Steiner treasured deeply was his recordings of nature sounds, despite
others around him not appreciating them. Ultimately, it shows that Steiner took delight in the
simple things in life, the sounds of nature, and the very sight of his children. It is easy to
understand where he is coming from, but also very difficult to accept what he has done. This
very permanent action has lifelong consequences to all that were close to him. Marcello seemed
to view Steiner as an older brother of sorts, seeking his advice and enjoying his company. When
Steiner is dead, Marcello’s moral compass is also destroyed.
Another important element of the film is the religious imagery and references. The
opening scene shows a statue of Jesus that flies over Rome in a helicopter, that is being followed
by another helicopter. The hands of Jesus are outstretched, as if to bless the land and people it is
flying over. In the second helicopter sits Rubini and Paparazzo, who hover over some women in
bikinis. The holiness of Jesus is contrasted by the lustful interest of the two media journalists
(Pollock). Another instance of contrasted religious imagery is when Rubini takes his fiance
Emma and Paparazzo to capture the story of two children who have claimed to see the Virgin
Mary, otherwise known as The Madonna. Throughout this sequence, Rubini is dismissive of
Emma and completely focused on capitalizing on the situation, which is supposed to be sacred.
Now, of course this situation seems to be more of a sensation rather than a purely religious affair,
however, it makes a mockery out of the sanctity of La Madonna, who is an important saint in the
Catholic church, the torrential downpour adds tremendously to the intensity of the sequence.
Emma and Rubini’s toxic relationship is ever present in this scene as she desperately prays to
Madonna for Marcello to love her and only her. It is an ill fated wish, as their relationship is
beyond repair. Lastly, in the very last scene of the film, Rubini along with many of the other
party goers rush outside to look at a huge, monstrous fish that has been caught. Fish are closely
related to Jesus, as some of his miracles had to do with fish, in addition to the fact that he called
his disciples to become fishers of men. This dead fish demonstrates the fact that all of these
people have dedicated their life to seeking pleasure and entertainment, and have killed any hope
for redemption - it is a “condemnation rather than absolution” (Little White Lies). Jesus’s
resurrection after his crusifiction is perhaps the most famous story of redemption, and the fact
that this huge, ugly, fish is dead points to Satan, the ultimate symbol of sin of any kind, taking
over their lives permanently. As Rubini crawls on the beach, he catches sight of a young girl. In
the intermission, Marcello had interacted with that same girl and was struck by her angelic nature
and beauty. When he sees her again, she waves and looks excited to see him. Rubini, confused,
does not know what to make of this encounter, and joins his group. As the film fades out on her
face, we see that she was his last hope, and he will forever be condemned, along with the partiers
whom he idolizes.
This damnation is brought upon him by his self-serving actions throughout his seven day
journey. His treatment of Emma is highly disappointing, as is the way he interacts with most of
the partiers - glorifying them for their achievements and talents, and not for themselves as
people. Marcello ceases every chance he has to be perceived as one of them. He tries to
orchestrate an orgy, but is unsuccessful because orgies no longer seem exciting or interesting
anymore, which is a wild concept. Orgies are often thought to be one of the most sinful,
outrageous, and exhilarating sexual acts due to their extreme nature. The culmination of
Marcello’s lack of success is his, frankly disgusting, treatment of the poor woman whom he
throws feathers on in the last evening of the film. As she lies on the ground having consumed too
much alcohol (presumably), he mocks her and treats her like an animal. This is after his
suggestion of an orgy is dismissed harshly, so part of this action feels like a performance to
shock them, make them believe that he is worth spending time with. However, no one is paying
attention to him throughout this process. Marcello seems to let out his frustrations and twisted
fantasies on a woman who cannot help but me the vessel of his frustration. Covered in feathers,
she struggles to walk, talk and do anything to make the situation more in her favor. She is
helpless, and Marcello very cruelly takes advantage of that. It is here that we see that Marcello
has morphed into an even more desperate and depraved person than he began.
With all of this into consideration, it is also important to note that Marcello himself may
not be the sole one to blame for his actions. His father most likely had a profound impact on his
life, and his actions are not so different from Marcellos. When Marcello takes his father to a
Cha-Cha-Cha club, his father flirts with Fanny, a woman who knows Marcello presumably from
his media writings, and even goes home with her. Drunk, flirtatious, and frivolous, these are all
characteristics that Marcello possesses and likely has imitated. Though it is made known that his
father did not spend that much time at home, the traits have still made their way into Marcello’s
life. Loyalty, and respect for fellow people are not qualities that Marcello grew up with. At times
Rubini certainly seems as if he understands what he is doing to himself, as he is annoyed by his
own profession and the photographers that stalk the people he associates with. However, he
consistently shows that no matter what, he is going to do whatever feels right for him in the
moment, with very little consideration to anyone else. It is of course not right to completely
blame Rubini’s upbringing for his flaws, but it is an insight to how he came to be the way that he
is.
Critics point out that though this movie may have modern meanings, it does seem to have
“passe” representations of Catholicism (Burns). Additionally, though Fellini does take on the
role of a passive observer, it is hard to ignore his fixation of the femine physique. Many, if not all
of the women, in “La Dolce Vita” wear extravagant and revealing clothes. Sex and sexuality is
explored at length and seems to be something that Fellini was working on in himself. “Robust
sensuality” is not appreciated by modern audiences due to the fact that there has been a
desensitization of such subject matter, in addition to the fact that over time, societal values
change as a whole. That said, the “sexual politics” (Burns) that are explored in the film are still
ones that are being tested and explored. Overall, this film is very highly rated among critics, and
it is difficult to find negative writings about it. This is not to say that this is necessarily Fellini’s
best work - that is perhaps more of a subjective question.
I really enjoyed this movie and I think it is an important one to watch. We are currently
living in a society dominated by social media and influencers, making this film extraordinarily
relevant. I really liked the creativity and the thought behind every shot and every sequence.
Typically, my favorite films are those with which I can connect to the characters and have an
emotional attachment to them and the outcome. However, “La Dolce Vita” challenged that for
me, as I honestly think it is one of the most brilliant and perplexing films I have ever seen, yet I
do not particularly have any attachment to any of the characters. Marcello is cold, lustful, and
self-centered. He is no better or worse than most of whom he wishes were his peers. I also really
enjoyed how each frame seemed to be a painting of its own. The attention to detail within each
segment of the movie really enhanced its aesthetic quality, and created an overall superficial
mood. While looks were important to the film, Fellini’s ultimate stance seems to be that
appearances and words alike are not to be trusted. I appreciated this film because it explored
qualities of celebrities which is often what my life seems to be consumed by, as much as I wish
that were not true. Studying cinema and television has taught me both genius in filmmaking, but
also the dangers of getting too consumed in a world of entertainment. Especially in times like
these, it is important to recognize the futility of a hedonistic way of living. I can see myself re-
watching this movie throughout my life and finding something new each time to take from the
immaculate work of art.
In conclusion, “La Dolce Vita” is a movie that seems to elude past and modern audiences
alike. With so much to unpack within the three hour long saga, it is difficult to understand all of
the intricacies and find meaning in some of the seemingly meaningless world of Marcello
Rubini. Rubini’s search for pleasure is not fruitful for him or anyone else in the film. In the end
of it all, his life is meaningless, serving as a warning to the audience. Movies shown in movie
theaters often do not have this level of artistic exploration, and lack the depth of “La Dolce
Vita.” This film is an important representation of the human condition and a reminder to take
care that we find meaning in life beyond pleasure. Both nihilism and hedonism are explored in
the film, and seem to be philosophies that Fellini does not wish to encourage, as both of these
philosophies ultimately lead to destruction of oneself, and those around you. Overall, this film is
an important study on art, philosophy, and the human condition, and one that I think any
cinephile should consider studying.
 Bibliography
Burns, Sean. “59 Years Later, Federico Fellini's 'La Dolce Vita' Still Feels Fresh.” 59 Years
Later,
Federico Fellini's 'La Dolce Vita' Still Feels Fresh | The ARTery, WBUR, 29 Aug. 2019,
www.wbur.org/artery/2019/08/29/federico-fellini-la-dolce-vita-brattle.

Ebert, Roger. “La Dolce Vita Movie Review & Film Summary (1960): Roger Ebert.” Movie
Review & Film Summary (1960) | Roger Ebert, Giuseppe Amato,
www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-la-dolce-vita-1960.

“‘Everything Is so Difficult Marcello’: Fellini's ‘La Dolce Vita.’” "Everything Is so Difficult

“Federico Fellini: 10 Essential Films.” British Film Institute,

Giddins, Gary. The Criterion Collection,

Murphy, Mekado. The New York Times, The New York Times, 19 Oct. 2009,
artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/19/critics-picks-video-la-dolce-vita/?WT.mc_id=yt
nyt414&WT.mc_ev=click.

Silvestro, Isabella De, et al. “La Dolce Vita: The Endless Pursuit Of Pleasure.” Italics Magazine,
10 Oct. 2018, italicsmag.com/2018/07/26/dolce-vita-pursuit-pleasure/.

The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. “Federico Fellini.” Encyclopædia Britannica,