BroadcastChic Excellent, a Must See

Fairaher The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

Calum Hutton It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

Ella-May O'Brien Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

popcorninhell I do not like Federico Fellini. Yes, I know for a pretentious, overly critical self-described film fanatic, saying I don't like a director who is on the shortlist for "best ever," is blasphemous. Yes I'm aware his two dozen or so movies have been plastered all over "Sights and Sounds Magazine" for over half a century and yes I know that his personal brand of self- actualizing, self-critical, self-aggrandizing films bring a diversity to the art form social commentators love to point out, and pat themselves on the back for. But regardless of the praise, regardless of the supposed honesty behind his garish pictures, behind all the Criterion Collection essays written by men and women I respect, I still cannot ignore the fact that on a deeply emotional level I am repulsed by his oeuvre.Juliet of the Spirits is a late-period work of Fellini's and the first color film he has ever directed. The film starts with Giulietta (Masina) preparing for her anniversary with her oppressive and philandering husband Giorgio (Pisu). The anniversary turns into a party promptly followed by a seance spearheaded by a stodgy Medium (von Ledebur) and her wanton neighbor Valentina (Cortese). After the party, Giulietta discovers the doors to the spirit world have all been opened. Spirits and Neapolitan friends alike push Giulietta to indulge in her inner desires and basically let loose in a lavish, kaleidoscopic, and very loud vision of a runaway id slowly tearing itself apart.Federico Fellini is famous for his, on occasion, stifling superstition; often having mediums and palm-readers on set to give him advice on everything from his productions to his rocky personal relationship with his wife Giulietta Masina. Much like La Strada (1954), 8 1/2 (1963) and (basically insert any of his films here), there are constant callbacks to the circus; a staple of his formative years. There are also androgynous characters hinting at the man's ambiguous sexuality and gaudy set design meant to address Fellini's discombobulated psyche.How can I make these assumptions about the director? Because it's so painfully obvious not just in the first fifteen minutes of Juliet of the Spirits but in every single film the director has ever put his name on starting with La Dolce Vita (1960). Fellini seems to have no interest in addressing character, plot, societal synergy, personal growth, politics or really anything other than the inner thoughts plaguing him at the time. Yet unlike the neurotic asides of Woody Allen or the austere fatalism of Ingmar Bergman, Fellini seems to never have anything particularly interesting to say. He lives purely inside his imagination and likes to let the camera linger on lavish boudoirs, delirious orgies and Masina's micro-expressions.This exercise in cinematic "honesty" proves very gratifying to a certain class of critic who like to study film form but don't want to work too hard in their analysis. Much like the mansion that Giulietta and Giorgio call home, each shot is caked with filigree so concentrated in making a literate audience swoon, but really only being an elaborate, sumptuous facade signifying...what exactly? That deep down we're all we're all carnal but because we also like pretty things we're better than the lower creatures? Nothing makes sense so just strap in and enjoy the ride? Thanks for the tip...only one and a half more hours to go.I will give Fellini credit for trying to escape the the aesthetic orthodox of Italian Neo-Realism. But while contemporaries like De Sica, Germi and Risi evolved by using broad comedy as a jumping-off point for social commentary, Fellini implodes into a solipsistic void of vapid clap-trap. He's like the hipster of the Neo-Realist counter-movement; he knows what he doesn't want but has no idea what he's really trying to say. Thus, like his character Giudizio in Amarcord (1973) he spouts nonsense loudly and often with the cinematic equivalent of a bullhorn. Contemporary critics see this barking and assume it must mean something, I say the man hasn't had anything important to say since 1957.

ElMaruecan82 The 60's were a pivotal period for Fellini where he gained on international stature and self-confidence regarding his artistic talent, but while he managed to create situations I could respond to in his earlier works, the whole time I felt sorry for Guiletta Masina in "Juliet of the Spirits" and I don't mean Juliet, but Guiletta. Guiletta is not Gelsomina or Cabiria, the inspirational misfit who carries a whole film, embodying its emotional core. Guiletta is unusually passive, like carried away by the decadence of the high-class society she lives in, and much more, being probably the least desirable female character from the casting: two realities she can't do nothing about them. I understand the point was to make her look like an outcast, but even within the whole story, something was odd in her character. She was like prisoner in a dream that is not even her own, the dream of her husband, another Fellini's fantasy, using his wife as a ... sorry, for the term, as an excuse. I respect and admire Fellini, but I'm only speaking out of my love for Guiletta Masina, who looks particularly unhappy all through the picture. She creates a disturbing contrast between the dazzling colors that Fellini obviously experiments with a certain delight (it was his first feature film in color) and the dark torments filling her heart with an angry frustration, even more frustrating because she's resigned to keep her grieves silent. But her sad eyes convey this feeling of abandon, of being reduced to a negligible entity by her philandering husband Giorgio. Of course, this is not to say that Masina wasn't "good", her performance fitted the film's subtext, but something was cruelly lacking in her character, it's just as if her soul had no passion whatsoever. She was passive, had her share of disturbing visions, lyrical envies and mystical temptations but I'm sorry, I'm a guy, I'm 30 and I'm sure a woman like Juliet wouldn't have these sort of visions, but Master Fellini would. Damn, I can't believe there would be another film making me talk like a feminist, the first one was "MASH", but this one is much worse because it was presented as a sort of feminine version of "8½", where we'd discover the subconscious of a woman, and that her name is Guiletta leaves up no doubt that she's meant to be the alter-ego of Masina. But what's the deal with a woman capable to talk to some spirits, hiding her most repressed secrets, and being pushed to fulfill her own dreams when she only dreams of peace and stability? The movie could almost pass itself for an introspective journey into the inner torments of middle-aged bourgeois housewife, but this is too cerebral for a Fellini film. And I'm only saying this because if there is one thing I learned from Fellini, it is that he's an artist, a man of images. And looking at the images, I have no doubt this is Fellini's own fantasy speaking, and it's so upsetting that I tend to see Fellini as the alter-ego of the unfaithful Giorgio, Mario Pisu even looks like a clone of Guido, Marcello Mastroianni in "8½" who was supposed to be an alter- ego of Federico Fellini. Indeed, "Juliet of the Spirits" strikes by a dazzling and beautiful cinematography in color, but that's no surprise since the images speak more in Fellini's film than any intelligent or constructive idea. And in "Juliet of the Spirits", Fellini's fans would not be disappointed, they have their share of Fellinian imagery: the circus parades, people dancing in unison, women with voluptuous bodies, curvy forms and sensual lips awakening our most vicious appetites. At first, it pleased my eyes, then it puzzled my mind, then I finally got it and could watch the film, quite relieved: "Juliet of the Spirits" is a MAN's film. It says more about Fellini's personal fantasies than anything about both Juliet and Guiletta combined. Not that it bothered me or prevented me from appreciating it, but then the figure of Masina with her sad look, and resigned face killed some of the enjoyment. I even pitied her more than Juliet, because at least Juliet was still a character. Fellini is not just an artist, he's a complete Mediterranean hedonist, a man of flesh, body, sweat and music, sensations, fruits and wine, the sangria is made of both and tastes like the incarnation of Fellini's sensuality. In contrast, Juliet is a woman who drinks water, she likes transparency, serenity ... but water is also synonym of platitude, which in the context of the film, is synonym of dullness. The word 'Spirits' implies the greater contrast with her husband who's not turned on by things from the other side, but a woman like Juliet, who looks almost asexual with her elf-like looks can be associated to this world. I'm not diminishing Juliet at all, after all, she's classy and elegant and the only character with redeemable qualities, but it's pretty clear Fellini made her look diminutive compared to the other women, hell, she's towered by every one in the film, including her mother and sister. I'm not discussing the artistic value of the film, arty at its best, and if only for being the first Fellini in color and the last to give a prominent role to Guiletta Masina, it deserves one, two, as many viewings as it'd take. But this is not "La Strada" or "Nights of Cabiria", it's more of a colored "8½" using a woman as an excuse. As Fellini's film, it's a great one, but just because it was supposed to be a gift to Masina, to be a film about her, I can't regard it with the same passion. Well, I guess the appreciation of "Juliet of the Spirits" can be translated into one dilemma, to which sensitivity do you most relate to: Fellini's or Guiletta's?

TheAnimalMother A reincarnation of the Buddha is said to have described himself as being, "like the moon upon the water...a reflection. Think of me as your self." He said. Many ancient sages have spoke and been written of seeing The One, the holy God of eternity while looking, gazing, or meditating into a river or pond. For just as God separated the light from the darkness. Fellini too has created his own deep symbolic reflections of the Unfathomable One. Some say that this film, 'Giullietta degli spiriti' is the feminine partner of Federico's previous film 8 1/2. 'An Ode To No One', and 'An Ode To One'. Like two mirrors, the two films reflect the Eternal Lovers in Their breaking, and in Their embrace. Fellini's dialogue and metaphors show a great understanding of The Self, The Divine Marriage, The Sacred Mystery. Fellini is one of the few modern artists who greatly understood the purpose and very nature of art itself. All art imitates life, sure, but human life also is merely an interpretation of that which is truly real. It is obvious by Fellini's work that he himself created his art in order to become more real, to become closer to truth. He created in order to see with more depth and to share this with others. Fellini undoubtedly understood the logic in the seemingly illogical words of the great William Blake when he said "If the doors of perception were truly cleansed, everything would appear as it truly is - infinite.". Fellini understood that all art imitates life, but even more so, he understood that all art imitates the Divine. He also understood that only through this kind of conscious introspection can one become closer and closer to our own True Infinite Nature. People who do not follow spiritual disciplines, or who do not know the work of Carl Jung, or who do not have a good understanding of ancient sacred scripture, will likely miss much of the depth in this film. However that is not to say that those people still won't enjoy it. This is the work of a Divinely inspired genius. Some watch this film and are dazzled by the great colour and flamboyant spectacle of it (And why wouldn't you be?), however truly it is the interweaving of dialogue and relationships that speak even louder than the amazing visuals. "For those who have ears, let them hear!"10/10

jzappa Fellini fascinates me because there have never been any other films like his. As with the rest of his work that I've seen, with Juliet of the Spirits, he is cotton-dry, avoiding any intimacy or tenderness, his story is very abstract and must be told in the most purely cinematic sense. Fellini's extremely talented wife, Giulietta Masina, plays the title role, a mysterious nod to her own name. Giulietta explores her subconscious, having wild dreams, and finds herself partaking in the peculiar daily life of her neighbor, sexy Sandra Milo, trying to escape from the drearily tedious days she passes as the wife of her womanizing husband who oppresses her (perhaps based on Fellini himself, the connection that perhaps can be made between the familiarization of the title role with Masina herself?).The journey Giulietta takes is a psychologically elevating one, as she comes to know herself completely by working through her desires and demons, and Fellini takes us through it with some of the most inarguably beautiful cinematography I have ever seen in my life. The emboldened colors are given to great schemes and themes and his extended takes capturing constant activity result in incredible steadicam and panning shots.The largest role played in the film however is Fellini, the key to whose mystique lies in the distance he keeps between himself and the audience. So, he continues to beguile me as it's difficult to let this movie go once it's over.