Regina Zervou Fellini needs no recommendations. He's the Magician. And Sutherland is one of a few. Plus, he diaries of Casanova are on of the most inspirational literature works of the last centuries. These alone are sufficient. But Casanova of Fellini is something more. As Fellini feels awe (fear and worship at the same time) for women, he degrades men. From Satyricon to the City of Women men appear to surrender, give up their role and the force they once exerted over the other sex. As he deals with the story of his compatriot, Giacomo Casanova, the emblematic womanizer, he lets emerge a tragic figure, a man prisoner of his dubious reputation, a solitary creature that crawls on patios and lounges of prerevolutionary Europe, among degenerated monarchs and nobles who don't understand what is to come and have fun until boredom, The wretched Fellini hero tries to survive sometimes as stallion, sometimes as metaphysical guru and . Trying to ascend socially, he keeps falling, ending his days in a kitchen of a German lord having dinner with the servants who taunt him. He, the greater lover, finally makes love with a doll. (amazing scene). Fellini stays faithful to the text, far away from the beautification of those who grappled with this story, and Sutherland interprets one of the most tragic heroes in the cinema of the 20th century.

ElMaruecan82 What happens when an extravagant filmmaker makes a movie about an extravagant individual? Well, you obviously reach the height of extravaganza… but is there anything obvious with Fellini? It starts with the title: why this juxtaposition of the two men's names? "Fellini Roma" made sense as it was the vision of a city from one of his sons, Fellini, not Visconti, De Sica or Risi. But Giacomo Casanova is a historical figure, a literate adventurer who wrote exhaustive memoirs (of undisputed authenticity) that became remarkable accounts of the 18th century customs whether in court or… intercourse, why should Casanova then be linked to Fellini as if he was belonging to him? The reason is actually startling, Fellini didn't like Casanova, he took him as a self-centered pompous aristocrat who disguised his crass appetites under an efficient mask of sophistication… so the Casanova we see is the Casanova according to Fellini's vision and Fellini is such a larger-than-life figure that he's entitled to portray whoever he wants however he likes. But this argument doesn't hold up very well because 'Casanova' isn't just a name, it became an adjective defining a womanizer, so when the director who expressed to the fullest his lust for women and life's pleasures, makes a film about Casanova, maybe it's because there's something of Casanova in il Maestro, if he doesn't mind.Indeed, for all his nobility, Casanova is a sex-addict, with a constant craving for the weirdest and most grotesquely unusual performances. Donald Sutherland, with his high stature, his shaven forehead, his false nose and chin and fancy clothes looks like a giant turkey, but within this weird appearance, he stands above his peers, as if his aura elevated him despite himself. He's a complex and paradoxical figure. There's a sort of running-gag where he keeps praising his intellectual and scientific merits, and he was a versatile fellow indeed, but no one ever cares for this aspect. His reputation always precedes him. Am I going too far by thinking that Fellini would share a similar frustration, being constantly associated with his baroque universe made of parties and voluptuousness? A way to show that even the brightest minds embraced sex, as a form of expression? Now, how about women? The film is as full of sexuality as you would expect from a "Casanova" biopic, but there is something deliberately mechanical and playful in the treatment (one of the most passionate encounters is with a doll actually) as if Casanova's sexual appetites were more driven by a disinterested quest for prowess and games than one of the ideal woman. The visit of the belly of the whale could be seen as Freudian symbolism, but I don't think Casanova had such oedipal impulses as he's not even tempted to join the tourists. We all have one mother, but we can have as many women as we want; they can have motherly roles, but that doesn't seem like what Casanova is looking forward to discovering, diversity is the key.And as to illustrate this diversity, the film is built on the picaresque episodic structure where Casanova makes many encounters with every kind of women: young, sensual, depraved, weak, fainting, chanting, pretty, freakish, ugly, the film is very repulsive but appealing in an appalling way. And maybe the greatest trick Fellini ever pulled was to confront men with the hypocrisy of monogamy, as Casanova, the Fellinian, is proved right through one simple thing: pornography. The lust for sex has reached such maturity that men aren't aroused by pretty faces and perfect bodies anymore, the uglier, the older, the dirtier sometimes, the better. Fellini and Casanove reconcile men with their polygamist nature.And this is why I recommend not only the film, but the DVD Bonus Features. In a little documentary made before the shooting, many Italian actors were interviewed about Casanova. Ugo Tognazzi said that in the pre-Revolution period, some dishes were left deliberately rotten in order to have an extra taste or smell, appealing to gourmet tastes. A classic beauty is revered and praised, but that's not what men are looking for. The documentary is followed by a visit to a nightclub and many 'Casanovas' explain their tricks: feigning indifference, being genuinely shy, showing that they care for women, they might not all act like Casanova but they have one thing in common, they know how to create desire, and more than anything, to satisfy it. You just don't earn a womanizing reputation by being impotent. The secret is to be aroused and excited by everything, it's a discipline.The score of Nino Rota has something mechanical about it, or experimental, but it fits the tone because Casanova took sex seriously, like an accomplished athlete looking for self-improvement, so a sensual music couldn't have worked. But I less enjoyed the sex, a bit outdated even if the treatment was deliberate, than the enigma of Casanova, a man who was ahead of his time because he understood, before everyone, one of the main drivers of society, sex and desire, and he expressed it to the fullest, and we somewhat envy him, although the word 'Casanova' has something pejorative about it, but in Italy, the perception is different, it's a part of the Italian psyche, and like Mastroianni said in the documentary, a psyche symbolized in the film's opening with a giant Venus' statue emerging its head in Venice before plunging again, as if it was all a dream.The Venus metaphor seems to indicate some guilt behind the 'Casanova' heritage, there's a little of Casanova in every Italian man, in every men, but maybe that's nothing to be proud of. Anyway, like Macchiavelli, the man became an adjective, something our mind can relate to with more or less shame, it's only fitting that the director who made a movie about him, also inspired an adjective. Indeed, there was something Fellinian about Casanova... so the title sounds a bit like a pleonasm.

Tim Kidner As the owner of almost all (the available ones) Fellini films - and lover of almost all of them, I would say that to enjoy his 'Casanova' you need to (in order of importance) a) Enjoy the later films of Fellini b) Be accepting of his uniquely strange psyche and film-making of this period c) Enjoy the theatric, especially of the grotesque sort d) Be a fan of Donald Sutherland and d) enjoy period costume.If you are intrigued by the film's title and the certificate 18 rating and are expecting a soft-porn or erotic movie, DON'T click on 'add to basket' - you will be disappointed and I will get upset as your one dalliance into Fellini's World will be tainted...The sex scenes are always clothed and sent up outrageously, with farcical over-humping, shall we say....Fellini is mocking his central character here. There are some bare bottoms but that's as far as the nudity goes...Much has been said and written about the problems the director faced; daily disintegration of his relationship with Sutherland, striking technicians and outside distractions, all of which made the film more fragmentary. Fellini later cited this epic sprawl as both his worst film and as his most "complete, expressive and courageous".Donald Sutherland, with his Roman nose, shaved forehead and the most elaborate of wigs, looks the very part, so much so, that his flouncing and preening are as much of a star as he is. I'm not expert in Italian (I don't understand it at all) but the delivery of his lines sound OK, but always with theatrical bravado - no subtleties here.For most, there will ultimately be times during its 2.5 hour plus running length when it gets less interesting but Fellini certainly packs an awful lot in that time. In my view, he has made lesser films, but not many, frankly but Fellini is one of my top five all-time directors, along with Bergman, Kubrick, Wilder and Kurosawa.

AaronRichmond Fellini's Casanova might not make complete sense. In fact, I'm not sure if it does: constantly I am asking myself what he is trying to display with some of the butchered dialogue and strange, often comical situations. But in the end, none of that matters. Like all Fellini films, Casanova is a long, filmic journey that seems to drag, lacking any real drive; but, isn't that the point? Casanova himself is a selfish playboy who has no idea where he is going, and ultimately fails in any goals he might have (besides a sex-contest).The film opens with a masquerade in Venice, where even the crowned woman herself, the queen, cannot make an appearance for the Casanova. The masked guests are crazed with excitement as a man is launched into the sea (I presume he drowns in the sea of women). Already we can feel the morality of a great Italian society plummeting. This theme is very well presented throughout the film. The best example could be the nun who gives a show to her boss along with Casanova (equipt with his "supercock" music box, whose off-key tunes and obvious display of sexual arousal is disturbing). Continually, Admist an abandon opera house, a beautiful scene of Casanova's inadequacy with his own mother is presented as he carries her over his back. "I'm sorry mother, I don't understand German much. What were you saying?" "You don't understand, or you don't want to understand?" Although this is much later in the movie, it explains Casanova's inability to love (as Fellini believed your first real love was for your mother). Throughout Casanova's travels, he admires certain qualities in the many women he thinks he loves: Henriette, Anna Maria, Isabella. Each of them embody the perfect woman, at least, at the time. It is not until much later in the film when he finally finds the woman of his dreams: a plastic, mechanical doll. The effect is jarring, chilling, and genius. But no matter who the woman was, his "love" always resorted in sex, both times, the women being completely out of it, and unconscious for the experience.The final scene may be the greatest every filmed by Fellini (on par with the ending of 8½). It opens with Sutherland, a much older loner whose selfishness has for once caught up with him, dwelling on a dream he had. As a younger Casanova walks along a path of blue ice (complimenting his ice-like eyes), he chases the slowly dissolving image of the women he thought to love. As soon as he sees the mechanical doll, he embraces her, and leads her in a dance. The two spin on the ice, while Casanova himself resembles that of the plastic doll, his own superficial sexuality externalized.