Several “great” films from Europe near 1960 have a common theme: the vanity of what society regards as the “good life”. La Dolce Vita is an example, as also are ”L’Avventura” and “Jules and Jim”. In style, they were innovative, but in message they repeat what had been said many times before, e.g. in “Rules of the Game” and “Children of Paradise”. These and many other films acknowledge and lament how the privileged classes, especially those who have the luxury of idleness, and who misconstrue cultural sophistication to be wisdom, are in fact quite impoverished – superficial and despairing. To me, these movies become a bit tiresome in their smug despair, refusing to explore any avenues of hope. I would compare it to the bankruptcy of Epicureanism, bourgeois decadence, or the aesthetic stage of Kierkegaard. I would also refer to Agur’s plea: “give me neither poverty nor riches” (Prov 30:8).
There is a kind of person who prefers, in their pride, to self-indulgently exult in misery, rather than open themselves up to a hope for healing. We know from Agur, and many other scriptures, that it is their pride that is at the root of their downfall. I prefer movies that not only expose the superficial, but actually attempt to discover something beyond the superficial – as in Bergman, and more so in Tarkovsky. And, even better, movies that send a strong message of hope and redemption, such as those of Yasujiro Ozu, Satyajit Ray, Robert Bresson, the Dardenne brothers. Their movies follow the example of Job, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, and the lament Psalms; they are realistic about the darkness, but they shine beams of light into that darkness.
La Dolce Vita (F. Fellini)
The Marcello – Emma relationship is at the crux of this movie: the woman’s full commitment to a genuine love, and the man, Marcello, refusing commitment to anyone or anything, in the vain hope of finding something better. His predicament is characteristic of the life of wealth and cultural sophistication, critiqued in the movie as empty and dead. In this stratum of society, everyone is bored and disillusioned. It is similar to what is presented in “Children of Paradise”, except with a more definitive negative stance.
Is this movie primarily a critique of Marcello, and his associates, in their arrogant rejection of all that is good and real, in their refusal to ever make commitments? Or, is it more a critique of traditional institutions and society – that all is vanity, unworthy of commitment? We should probably see both of these critiques.
In the closing scene, the grotesque dead fish is probably a symbol of the church (i.e. Roman Catholicism), which had once been meaningful and helpful, but is now an ugly corpse, an object of pathetic curiosity. Marcello is then beckoned by a girl, who represents angelic innocence, but he is unable to hear or accept this call to potential deliverance. She then turns to face the camera (similar to the closing of “400 Blows), as if also beckoning the audience. In this, at least, there is a glimmer of light and hope.
Jules and Jim (F. Truffaut)
First of all, there is the theme of the captivating attractions of Catherine. She exults in her power to possess her lover(s), and she exults in the idea of exercising total unconstrained “freedom”. She refuses to be “understood”, because she sees any kind of predictability as a constraint on her freedom. She is therefore driven to prove this freedom by impulsively irrational behavior. She demands total faithfulness from her lovers, but she refuses to respond in kind. She can be faithful to no one or no thing that would restrain her freedom. She is the Queen, and she walks to a different drum. It reminds me of Kieslowki’s “Blue”. Jules and Jim are each captured by her charm and beauty, especially her charm. And, as Proverbs 31:30 says, “charm is deceitful, and beauty is vain”. She is like the adulteress of Proverbs, whose way is the way of death, and her lovers are like the naive, simple-minded youth who falls prey to her deceptions.
A sub-theme is the contrast between this kind of romantic love, and the true friendship between Jules and Jim. The latter is meaningful and lasting.
In this movie, the darkness is in the destructive lust for an absolute freedom, the attendant exercise of power over others through charm and charisma, and the destructive captivation of those who succumb to the charms. The glimmer of light is in the alternative possibility of self-giving friendship.
L’Avventura (M. Antonioni)
This “Adventure” also concerns the lives of self-centered and superficial people of privilege. They desire to find satisfaction in others, but refuse to give themselves to others. They become at times conscious of guilt and remorse as well as vanity, but none of them find any escape or hope of redemption. The main character, Claudia, is on an “adventure” of developing a new identity for herself, by taking on the role of her lost friend Anna, continuing Anna’s struggle to “find herself”. In the end, she gives herself to the emotionally adolescent Sandro, as if there is nothing better available in this world.
The following two movies in Antonioni’s trilogy, La Notte and L’Eclisse, also present the vanity of modern life, and the lead women characters’ failed attempts to find fulfillment in love-relationships. These three movies are totally dark and despairing, as I had also concluded about “Children of Paradise”. To identify evil, but to suggest there is no hope for deliverance, is only a very small step away from embracing evil. Either position is nihilistic surrender. One can admire this movie for technical and artistic quality and innovation, but its message is poison for the soul. It is charming but deceitful. To admire such works for their artistic sophistication is like admiring Adolf Hitler’s rhetorical skills. If one recognizes evil genius, one must also recognize it as ultimately evil.