A response to Cinema Paradiso

I thoroughly enjoyed reading all of the posts and each of them gave me new insight of what the movie was attempting to portray or reveal. One of the post-ers (andrewfilmblog1) made an interesting point that like many films, Cinema Paradiso focused on the main character. However, I disagree because this was not stressed enough. This film was unique because rather than following a plot line, the story followed the protagonist. It was so focused on the realistic portrayal of life that the ending seemed anticlimactic. In life people do not necessarily come across epiphanies or stages of enlightenment as easily as they are portrayed on the silver screen. But even then, I would have to disagree with andrewfilmblog1. The ending was satisfactory.

The last scene of the movie in which Salvatore plays the reel of spliced love clips succintly ends the life of Salvatore. Actually, it ends the life of Toto by bringing it to a complete close and combines the identities of the successful film director with that of the passionate and curious young boy. I enjoyed Dobbsblog's analysis of Toto's separate identities and the combination of these elements. Toto becomes lost in his love for Alfredo, Eleanor, and the movies, all of which are resolved with the final reel. Many have argued that this final montage of lovers was anticlimactic or unsatisfactory. However, all of Toto's confused identies are able to merge through this film. Alfredo because he realizes the sacrifice he's made (both physically and emotionally) to foster Salvatore's growth, Eleanor (and his other "casual" lady friends) because the love that he had been experiencing this entire time was nothing more than reenactments of the Hollywood drama he so enjoyed, and the movies because he finally sees that his life transcends the rigid plot form of films.

There were a few statements that I saw that claimed there were two storylines within Cinema Paradiso, one following the growth of a young boy Toto and the other a romantic love story. However, I see only one, and that is the tangible, passionate pursuit of magic of the movies. The love interest "side story," if one could call it that, is nothing more than a manifestation of the protagonist's love for film. She is merely as aspect of a movie that is never fully understood or experienced. I noticed that many posts did not seem to state this. The reason for the infatuation with Eleanor was because this blonde-blue-eyed beauty was something that was never experienced by anyone in the town. The priest, having always censored the sensual portions, prevented the citizens from indulging in the romantic aspect of Hollywood. This deprivation of an element so common in the movies forced Toto to desperately search for this missing piece. He needed to complete the puzzle, take the whole Hollywood experience, and the church was stopping him from doing so. Eleanor was merely a fraction of Salvatore's passion for movies.

Cinema Paradiso does not follow the Hollywood formula. In fact, it completely disparages the concept, especially through Toto's painful experiences. Alfredo lost his eyesight while showing cliche classical films and Eleanor leaves the main character despite the perfect Hollywood method of "getting the girl." The director makes it clear that he does not want his film to be just "another great film." The spliced love clips in the last scene reveals to Toto the foolishness of trying to adapt to the movie world. The collapse of his theater, the death of Alfredo, and the procession of aging townfolks reveal the results of the fantasy world of movies. Salvatore finally comes to term, balancing his passions for movies and his responsibilities that he had escaped.

The Perspective Movies Bring Us

Sometimes, I feel a sense of enlightenment, a sense of emotional growth, a sense of spiritual fulfillment that manifests an unstoppable drive within the depths of my soul. But other times, my mind is tossed back and forth, strangled by the vapidity and incoherence of it all, a waste of time that, oddly enough, forces me to reevaluate the world that surrounds me. The moment I finish a film, I am inundated by one of two choices: either the film affirms my original beliefs of the world or it alters my conceptions of it. With this being said, there are two types of films that create the eventual ultimatum mentioned. One is the average, flashy, blockbuster flicks that rake in millions of dollars, a moment’s time of your pleasure, and only returns a feeling of discontentment in the end. I see movie-viewers who only thirst for films of this type as pure hedonists or escapists. I am not discounting this practice, but it is less laudable than the other. On the other hand, there are those films created not for external fiscal reasons, but for the purpose of art and exploration. These motion pictures are the ones I crave for, ones that utilize their resources to experiment with various motifs and symbols and themes and styles - I can go on and on! It is only with works of cinema art that attempt to reach out into the human psyche and soul that I am satisfied when the story comes to a close.

Recently I had the opportunity to watch two very interesting films. The first is the ever-popular cult classic Fight Club. Its use of a very nihilistic theme complemented by peculiar characters and dark humor creates an entity that is completely new and original. I had never seen a film like this that reveals the world as a stark and desolate place. But even through this mayhem (cough * project mayhem * cough) the main character is able to find a balance between the materialistic lifestyle that consumed his soul and the destructive nature of his repressed ego, ending in an oddly happy and satisfying note… with large business buildings exploding all around him. The other film was a pleasant surprise. Having been extremely bored and confused by The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, Amelie was a shocker to me. I had the preconceived notion that French humor nor themes would affect me in any way. How wrong I was. This movie’s unique style of avoiding a general plot but focusing on the characters and the themes showed me an integral piece of the puzzle that composes my life. Sometimes, my life seems to have no purpose or a guideline – it meanders endlessly in awkward directions and random paths. The movie perfectly captures this feeling of life as it is, without boundaries or rules and just as randomly as life really behaves. Instead, character development is the essential factor of life. Despite the disjointed environment, the people remain a dynamic force who push forward and evolve.

Benjamin Walter, an early 20^th century writer, wrote an interesting piece called The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction that argued the loss of “aura” in films. When transferring the acting onto the big screen, the empowering force of actually being there is lost. This “mechanical reproduction” weakens the poignancy of films, or so he claims. However, today we live in a stage that utilizes computer graphic imaging, blue screen technology, and other techniques that no longer necessarily have any aura to begin with! Do animations have aura? I am not quite sure how Walter would respond to that, but I refuse to accept his belief that films lose their force in the process of being converted. Rather, I feel that each movie is able to contain the entirety of the emanating aura and contain it all in a box, condensed, so when I am introduced to the screen, the amassed force is released upon me all at once. A movie viewing experience emits aura in itself, and they are the perfect tool to reveal the inner truths and potencies of the world’s capabilities, molded by the imagination of the filming crew.