It seems to be in the nature of man to be a receiver of practices and understandings. As children we receive a language with which to communicate. As we grow, we receive an understanding of mannerisms, skills, and traditions with which we learn to cope with the world around us. Eventually, we realize that we have even received our understanding of what it means to be a human being. Although we look around and notice that people in different cultures have received different understandings of being, this receptivity, nevertheless, seems to transcend cultural barriers.

Certain individuals are for some reason ³better² at receiving than others. By better I mean that they are more sensitive to that which they can and do receive. They are sensitive not only of the world around them but to the effect it has to that which occurs within themselves. These individuals eventually seem to overflow with an understanding which transforms into ideas. This overflow in turn manifests itself in an effort to channel and communicate that which the individual is most sensitive to. The result of this channeling we call art. And the individual who receives and channels is called an artist. The role of the artist and the work of art is in a certain sense to give coherence to and clarify the practices and understandings of being of a certain culture or tradition.

At first glance, this understanding of art seems to establish a discrepancy between the role of the artist as an individual and his role in the culture to which he belongs. If the role of the artist is merely to articulate already existing practices and beliefs, how does one account for the artistıs individual style and for those works of art that appear to be highly original? Furthermore, how does originality shine through in a medium that forces the artist not only to be sensitive to ideas and the like, but also to seemingly irrelevant factors such as economic and political ones?

Using the example of Federico Fellini, an artist who is both extremely sensitive to his environment and unique at the same time, I will try to provide a different angle on this apparent inconsistency. In order to do this I will examine four of his works: 8 1/2 will be used to illustrate Felliniıs sensitivity to the plight of the modern individual and artist; Amarcord will show his profound understanding of Italian society and politics; and, finally, Le Notti di Cabiria and La Strada will show that the presence of another individualistic artist, Giulietta Massina, does not hinder the directorıs ability to create a personal work of art. I will attempt to analyze how and why these works succeed in mixing Felliniıs originality and his personal identity as an artist, with his function as one who ³characterize[s] the existence, circulation, and operation of certain discourses within a society.²1

Before discussing the films, though, one more issue needs to be addressed. It can be argued that a directorıs art is lessened by the enormous number of contingent factors of film production, which may alter the directorıs original intention. His art, it is said, is a constant compromise. He is compelled to deal with not only the other artists necessary in making a film, but also with economic and political forces which inevitably effect the outcome of a film. In this view, the art of film making is contrasted with writing or painting, where the artist is alone before the page or the canvas. This solitude, however, is illusory. The painter or writer is as much affected by his world as anyone else, and his art does and should reflect this. The writer may arrive in front of the typewriter alone, but he brings with him his experiences and influences; if not, he would have nothing to write about, nor a language with which to write. In this sense, all art involves compromise. As for intentionality, I propose that it is insignificant when art is seen as receptivity and articulation. The directorıs position actually forces him to be more receptive, in that he needs to be extraordinarily sensitive to all the forces at play during production.

The directorıs individuality does exist, though. And it stems from two things: First, it manifests itself in what he is most receptive to and that which he ends up articulating. There are so many different aspects of even a single human problem, that unless a good director is consciously copying another artist, it is unlikely that he will not be saying something new. The second way originality manifests itself is the necessarily unique way the director approaches the struggle with the limitations of his medium to achieve his ends. In this way, he is exactly like other artists, only the limitations are of a different nature. Just as the writer struggles and works with his language and his readers, the director struggles and works with his cast, crew and technology. Furthermore, although in a certain sense these are limitations, they are obviously also that which allows for the creation of a work of art.*

With 8 1/2, Fellini showed a remarkable insight into the problems of not only of an artist, but of people in general in our society. Guido, the protagonist, is a film director who is experiencing a tremendous creative block. Fellini did not choose to tell about a director to make an autobiographical film, he did so because his personal experience as a director helped maximize his insight into the characterıs life. The films themes, however, do not deal primarily with the problems of directing. Instead, 8 1/2 is a film about a manıs problems in dealing with the passage of time and aging, his relationships with women, and the complexes that arise from a catholic upbringing.

Let us cite a few examples of the way one of the above themes is communicated. Almost every character in the film is concerned with time: the producer gives Guido the gift of a watch, possibly symbolizing his request that Guido take time into account in the creation of his film; the actresses gossip about their peersı ages; Mezzabottaıs relationship with a younger woman constantly brings up the issue of age; Guido is concerned about the fact that the actorıs chosen to play the protagonistıs father are not old enough. All of these examples reflect Guidoıs own struggles with aging and dying and his worries about not having any creativity left in himself.

This, as well as the other themes dealt with in the film, is a problem we are all familiar with. However, we can easily imagine a writer of novels telling about them with far less originality than Fellini displayed in his film. This is due to Felliniıs unusual way of portraying the effects these problems have on the main characterıs psyche and fantasy life. In this film we are constantly being brought in and out of two worlds: The world of Guidoıs thoughts and memories and the world of film making itself. The story moves from ³reality² to one of Guidoıs memories, for example, without any clear demarcation.

Moreover, this is done with an acute perception of the structure and limitations of the film medium. Fellini shows us the role of the struggle between the desire to mediate something and the limitations of the means available to us, by making a film about that struggle. In other words, 8 1/2 is also a sort of meta-film about the problems of film making. Guido needs to deal with everyone around him, both in his personal and professional life, before he can make his movie. An analysis of these problems of creativity allowed Fellini to make a wonderfully creative movie. Fellini has in this way perfectly illustrated the necessity of struggle in artistic creation. As Bondanellaıs explains, ³The content of...8 1/2...dramatizes or visualizes a failure of artistic expression, and this projection of the failure of artistic expression paradoxically becomes a self-reflexive artistic creation itself.²2

In Amarcord, Fellini deals with Italyıs political problems in such a unique way that it is difficult to even notice that it is a political film at all. It seems that a film is usually dubbed political on the basis of the narrowness of its subject. If a film deals exclusively with a specific philosophical or social issue, the viewer can easily understand the directorıs position and then possibly apply it to his particular situation. For this reason, many so called intellectual films seem detached and therefore their creators come across as less receptive to their real social or political circumstances. These films, however, make interpretation easier insofar as they isolate their subject matter. Fellini, on the other hand, does not merely try to convey his ³ideas² about politics. Instead, he is receptive to a social situation which, in its completeness, necessarily encompasses an eraıs political circumstances.

In Amarcord, Felliniıs insights do not delve into the phenomenon of fascism itself. Instead, Fellini shows a keen understanding of the mentality that allows such a political system to arise in the first place. Each character in the film, in his attitude toward the every day situations he encounters, embodies a personal disposition which somehow has a place in the politics of the time. Thus, fascism is not shown to be an abstract conviction with its roots in intellectualism. Instead, it is an inevitable consequence of personal and social tendencies. Fellini did not need to deal with specific ideology since he ³believes that the average Italian during the fascist period had very little familiarity with political ideologies.²3 For example, despite the fact that Gradisca is totally uninvolved in politics, her unrealistic idealism is a reflection of the mentality that allowed fascism to flourish in Italy.

Once again, Fellini was able to look for references within himself for a film that deals with broad social issues. He used his own non-ideological mentality of politics and mixed it with his memories of his youth to tell about ³that aspect of us which is stupid, shabby, weak-willed: an aspect which has no party affiliation, of which we should be ashamed...²4 Thus, the characters in Amarcord portray a very real involvement in politics, but not in their explicit ideologies. Instead both their and Felliniıs political side is exposed through the way they cope in their every day existence. Fellini thus goes farther than any ³political² film possibly could in that it shows how even a lack of involvement in politics can and does have powerful political ramifications.

Thus far, using the examples of 8 1/2 and Amarcord, I have dealt primarily with Felliniıs role as a receiver of practices, emotions, and social situations. I have also touched upon the effect of technology and other contingent factors of film production on the ability to communicate individual ideas. However, there is yet another important issue that needs to be discussed. It may be argued that although it is true that the artistıs role is to articulate and focus understandings of being, this cannot be an individual endeavor due to the presence of other artists necessary in film making. Earlier I discussed the presence of others in the making of a film only in terms of their direct relationship to the director. I argued that the work of others was necessary both in order to execute the directorıs ideas and to provide certain limitations which forced the director to be sensitive to outside forces. In these respects, I compared the cast and crew of a film, as well as its producers, to a language and its functions to a writer. Words are both a tool and a limitation, insofar as they are finite and limited in scope. It is this limitation that makes writing a feasible task, for it provides the possibility of structure and cohesiveness. Similarly, film directing is only possible through the overcoming of certain obstacles, human, technological, or economical. The fact that there are more factors to be receptive to often makes film a richer medium.

But now we must discuss the presence of other artists, using the example of the actor--Giulietta Masina. If the actor is also an artist, then according to my earlier arguments, he or she must also maintain a certain degree of individuality. The question then becomes, how is the actorıs individuality compatible with the directorıs, if their final work of art is the same film. When one sees films like La Strada. Le Notti di Cabiria, or Giulietta degli Spiriti, one is tempted to ask, whose artistic originality gives the film its ³personality², Massinaıs or Felliniıs?

The answer is obviously both, but I will try to explain the many reasons why this does not conflict with the idea that a film is a directorıs individual creation. Once again, in order to do this, we have to see individuality in terms of receptivity. For this purpose, once again it helps to compare the art of film making to a less complex form of art--sculpting wood, for example.

When learning to sculpt, the first thing one learns is not to set oneıs mind on a particular form. One must first have a broad vision of what one wants to create. The artist then carefully chooses the wood that suits these broad purposes. The wood is chosen according to its grain, its hardness, its color, etc; in short, its personality. But once sculpting begins, the artist necessarily becomes sensitive to the individual demands of the particular piece of wood he is working with. He begins in one direction, but the grain hidden inside the block of wood alters his course. The artist begins to form a relationship with the wood, and his sensitivity to its singular features guide his every choice. The final result may hardly resemble his original intention, but the sculptureıs final form will clearly reflect the artistıs sensibilities. Thus, an original work of art is born, for not only is each piece of wood different, but the way each artist deals with its demands varies tremendously. In contrast, it is the type of wood without grain, without personality, which yields the mass produced, inartistic objects we encounter every day, in spite of, or rather because of the fact that the creator of such objects has more actual control of the outcome. Thus it is once again receptivity, not control, which yields originality.

I can hear the objections coming--²One cannot compare Giulietta Masina, an extremely talented artist, to a block of wood!² But I maintain that the analogy is a perfect one, for it illustrates the existence of originality when the medium itself is exerting a powerful directional force. Notice, Giulietta Masina is not being compared to the gouge, or the tool used to make a sculpture, but to the piece of wood that becomes the actual sculpture itself. If anything, this overstates the role of the actor, but let us remember that this is only an analogy!

Let us show how the process of directing a film is similar to that of sculpting. Bondanella explains that Felliniıs films before La Dolce Vita express in a certain sense Christıs doctrine of loving oneıs neighbor.5 If this is true, then this can be seen as one of Felliniıs initial broad ideas (i.e. the initial ³form².) In order to execute this form, the director has to choose his material. Fellini chose his wife to play the leading roles in two of these early films: La Strada and Le Notti di Cabiria. Fellini says, ³...there is always--and especially in the films with Giulietta--a little creature who wants to give love and who lives for love.²6 In la Strada, it is Felliniıs choice to express himself ambiguously which best illustrates his receptivity. This illustrates his understanding that it is not in precision of control that art is born. Bondanella explains that Fellini achieves the true poetry of this film precisely through the ³ambiguous characterization of the protagonists,²7 among other things. Just as the meaning of the filmıs ending is left largely to the viewerıs imagination, so is Gelsominaıs personality left to both the viewerıs and Massinaıs interpretation. Just as in the sculpting example, Fellini realized that to try to impose too much of his own will on the interpretive value of the film would actually be a limitation. When we as viewers watch Gelsomina go through her struggles, we are each able to see different things in her. The feminist will notice her social condition, the philosopher will see her and Zampanoıs existential crises, and the Christian may see how Gelsomina influences Zampanoıs salvation. Of course, this is largely due to Felliniıs ingenious way of telling a multi-faceted story, but it is also his ability to leave certain things as they are, and to let their own nature shine forth. Fellini may have directed Masinaıs movements and dialogue, but the more subtle effects she has on the viewer were only in his control in so far as he was able to choose her as an actress. The believability of the story lies largely in its flow--nothing seems forced or unnatural. For example, Masinaıs sensitive facial expressions and overall look are her own and are only slightly manipulated through make-up and direction.

In Le Notti di Cabiria we witness similar phenomena. Let us take a very short but powerful image to analyze the creative mechanisms at play in this film. In the last sequence, after Cabiria has experienced the trauma associated with losing everything that gave her life meaning, she wanders the streets alone. Here, she encounters a group of people joyously playing music. At first hesitant, she soon is brought into the mood of the musicians and she experiences a glimmer of hope. At this point she looks directly into the camera, and therefore at the viewer, who is suddenly invited to join the scene and is brought in to share her ³enlightenment².

Incredibly, this is all done with a simple glance, so let us speculate as to how this burst of creative genius took place. Supposedly, it was Masinaıs idea to include this unconventional technique in the filmıs closing scene. So one is tempted to ask, if it was Masinaıs idea and Masinaıs facial expression which dominated the sceneıs brilliance, what was Felliniıs role as the films author? Once again, I donıt want to argue that Fellini was independently responsible for what happened, for he clearly was not. However, he was independently responsive, if the reader will excuse the pun. It must be noted that the film was made at a time when such meta cinematic references were extremely uncommon, and looking into the camera would have been advised against by any film ³expert.² One could easily imagine another director brushing off the suggestion and thinking it unprofessional or naive. It was precisely Felliniıs openness to this new idea which illustrates his receptivity, and it was his sensitivity to the particular and unique situation which allowed his genius to shine forth.

If it were true that, contrary to what I have said, creativity and originality lay in control, then we could easily imagine a future where robots would take the place of actors. Then, just as compressed sawdust is used instead of wood to easily manipulate structure, the director could manipulate every aspect of his ³characters². However, this is fortunately not a growing tendency in modern cinema, for people have the sense to realize that generic faces (and any generic outside force) will inevitably create generic films. The director, who uses a medium which attempts to duplicate a certain reality, must be sensitive and receptive to the beauty which already exists in that which he wishes to photograph.

©1999, Tao Ruspoli