Talk:Amarcord

A certain style
If editing to NPOV is necessary, it's also necessary to avoid a monotonous style. The latest edit with its comment "this is an encyclopedia, not a film magazine" is fine for its NPOV but leaves us with a tedious and repetitive style in, for example, the Critical reception section: three views are presented with "He wrote," "He wrote," and "He wrote." An encyclopedia requires many things, including a NPOV style that avoids the flat, unimaginative edit increasingly found here and in other film articles. Wittgoodstein (talk) 08:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Fine, good point, do change it. Don't be a wise-ass, just, make it better. And keep in mind NPOV Luigibob (talk) 10:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh yes, i love these words: enchanted & adroitly .... Luigibob (talk) 10:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * As you’ve rightfully stressed, NPOV is to be respected. The words "enchanted" and "adroitly" are, to be sure, clumsy attempts at style. Perhaps my own attempts in the next few days to improve the article using a clear concise style will meet with general approval, perhaps not. However, please do keep in mind talk-page rules for etiquette as, ideally, WIKI encyclopedians are not here for egotistical and overbearing tit for tat, "wise ass" or not. Wittgoodstein (talk) 12:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings, it was my bad attempt to be succinct, and I guess the comment "tedious and repetitive style," yeah ticked me off. Luigibob (talk) 16:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your kind reply, Luigibob, and forgive me for not being more thoughtful in what I intended as a general critique of style - including my own faulty writing that requires endless revision - yet targeting no one in particular. Your concision, editing skills, and rapidity are both refreshing and inspiring. Wittgoodstein (talk) 18:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Not sure if I buy off on your last comment, but I made changes to the style, and you are right. Hopefully I helped the para a bit. My best -- Luigibob (talk) 11:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Famous scenes
The Famous scenes section comes across as being the favourite scenes of the section's author(s). It's not very encyclopedic. The section should be replaced by a plot summary or something. Moisejp 15:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Pretty much the only thing I knew about this movie was that someone gets smothered by a woman's bosom. It might be given undue weight, but I wouldn't be surprised if it really is the most famous scene.  Not sure how easy it would be to source such a statement, though.  :)  --Starwed 03:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * From one extreme to the other - the famous scenes were deleted and are currently not even mentioned in the overall plot. -Lwc4life (talk) 14:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree: the "famous scenes" will be re-written as part of the plot which, as it currently stands, is little more than an Imdb blurb. Wittgoodstein (talk) 13:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Revision
"Fellini's inspired indictment is all the more commendable for his vehement refusal to accept a revisionist justification of fascism."

This is POV; it also is completely ridiculous. A "vehement refusal to accept justification for fascism" isn't particularly commendable. People do this all the time. People are attacked if they DO accept justification for fascism; refusing justification for fascism is standard practice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.247.238.14 (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I beg to differ. We don’t commend someone for not eating babies since not eating them is “standard practice” in non-cannibal countries. The same applies to racism: we don’t commend someone for not being racist since not being racist is “standard practice” in non-racist societies or societies without a racist past. But we do commend someone for not being racist when being racist is considered standard practice as it was in South Africa during apartheid. We commend someone who was pro-Jewish in Nazi Germany at a time when being anti-Semitic was definitely “standard practice.” In the context of history, then, the anti-racist and his “vehement refusal to accept justification of racism” is therefore commendable. The historical context defines whether such a statement is “ridiculous” or not.


 * Fellini directed Amarcord from the viewpoint that within contemporary Italian culture fascism remained a threat. Interviewed by Italian journalist Costanzo Costantini, Fellini explained that the “film has a direct relationship with the present day in as much as it tends to suggest the danger of any intention of returning to the same kind of society. Fascism is like a threatening shadow which doesn’t stay motionless at our backs, but often lenthens in front of us and precedes us. Fascism always lies waiting in ambush within us.” (Costantini, Fellini on Fellini, London: Faber and Faber, 1995, p. 85.)


 * In Amarcord, the director’s indictment of fascism is commendable in a country where Mussolini’s legacy continues to inspire neo-fascists. The question of POV (a legitimate one) can be settled by contextualizing the statement within 20th C Italian history. Wittgoodstein (talk) 13:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The name "Volpina"
Volpina is, to me, one of the most interesting characters in the film. During a recent viewing, I was struck by the similarity of her name with the term "vulpine" meaning fox-like, and, according to one source, that's exactly what it means in Italian.

However, it also seems to apply as the Italian common name for a species of fish also known as the "flathead mullet" as well as for a species of pear.

It seems likely Fellini chose the unusual name "Volpina" for one or more of its connotations, and to ignore this fact may be to miss an important joke in the film. (That is, for Italian-speaking viewers, her name may signify many ideas that are opaque to English-speaking viewers.)

As interesting as this may be, however, it is still the result of WP:OR, and I cannot see how it could be included in the article. Are any editors willing to share thoughts on this matter? Rangergordon (talk) 08:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Fellini Amarcord further reading
Items to add to the further reading list :

Bondanella on Amarcord in on the one hand his book The Cinema Of Federico Fellini (Princeton UP), which is probably thé book on Fellini, and on the other hand his book The Films Of Federico Fellini (Cambridge UP)

Bondanella on Amarcord https://www.scribd.com/document/374575564/Peter-Bondanella-on-Fellini-and-Politics-Amarcord-pdf and see also https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/films-of-federico-fellini/amarcord-nostalgia-and-politics/D4F8123001175B3521B325FFEB3023A1

Bondanella, Peter, ‘Amarcord: Nostalgia and Politics’, in: ibidem, The Films of Federico Fellini, Cambridge; Cambridge UP 2002, pp.117-139.

Kezich, Tullio, ‘Amarcord: Distant Memories, in: ibidem, Federico Fellini: His Life and Work, New York: Faber and Faber, 2002.

Ebert's review https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-amarcord-1974 (it's not because it's in the notes it doesn't deserve spotlight in the further reading section)

Film Obsessive article https://filmobsessive.com/film/film-analysis/film-genres/world-cinema/fellini-part-2-amarcord-and-roma-adolescence-maturity-and-the-fantasy-female/

Senses of Cinema article https://www.sensesofcinema.com/2023/feature-articles/fellinis-memory-amarcord/

BFI on Amarcord https://www2.bfi.org.uk/films-tv-people/4ce2b6b4b0e0c

Poster with reviews https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BZTUyYTBkZTgtZTg4MC00MjIzLWJjZDgtN2M4YWRkNGY5MDlmXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTUzMDUzNTI3._V1_FMjpg_UX1000_.jpg 62.235.240.9 (talk) 23:24, 9 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Let's also add Minghelli's article https://www.jstor.org/stable/48618415 62.235.240.9 (talk) 23:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)