CASANOVA ‘70

Italy, 1965, 125 minutes, Colour.
Marcello Mastroianni, Virna Lisi, Marisa Mell, Michele Mercier, Enrico Maria Salerno.
Directed by Mario Monicelli.

Marcello Mastroianni had made a big impact in Italian cinema in the late 1950s with La Dolce Vita and consolidated it in the first half of the 1960s with 8½, Divorce Italian Style, Marriage Italian Style, Yesterday Today and Tomorrow. This film was made in the mid-60s by veteran writer-director Mario Monicelli.

Monicelli was still writing films at the age of ninety-one in 2006. His wide range of films include popular comedies like Lovers and Liars with Goldie Hawn and Mortadella with Sophia Loren.

This film was an update of the Casanova story, focusing on a major played by Marcello Mastroianni who goes to a psychiatrist to discuss his problems. However, the psychiatrist has an agenda of his own and twists the consultations with the major. A number of popular Italian actresses at the time, led by Virna Lisi, are in support.

The film was written by Suso Cecchi d'Amiko, a veteran writer of many of the outstanding films of the Italian cinema including The Inquiry, and many of the films of Visconti including The Leopard, Sandra, The Outsider and Metello.

1. Why was this film made for Italian audiences? Was it made for international audiences? What would be the different response? Why? What was the basic reason for making this film? Its satire? The updating of Casanova to the modern age? How humorous was this? How serious?

2. Comment on the opening of the film with its light-heartedness. The solemn situation of a Paris army parade, the sexuality, the male? What did the film portray about the personality of Casanova? Marcello Mastroianni’s personality?

3. How successful was the structure of the film? The commentary about the hero, his anguish and problems, the visit to the psychologist and the subsequent diary, the exploits of the modern Casanova and retribution with the reprisal of the characters we had met at the beginning? How effective was this for the enjoyment?

4. Was the hero a character and a personality in the film, or a caricature? His masculinity, his talk about himself, preoccupation with potency, the impact of social conventions and traditions on him? His major concern about his sexuality? The irony in the fact that the hero could only be potent and loving with the atmosphere of danger?

5. How important was the need for the hero to be liberated? His kinks, the inhibitions because of his upbringing, would he ever find true love?

6. The satire on the situation with the police and their attitude? His relationship with his girlfriend at the start, his invading her room? The way that this was used again at the final court-case?

7. The satire on the psychologist and his treatment of the hero? His getting him to talk about his dream - the humour and significance of the flashbacks and their insight into the hero and his inhibitions? The odd behaviour of the psychologist, later taken up in the court-case and his anti-women attitudes? What value did the psychologist have for the hero? especially in his diary?

8. What attitude did the film take towards the women? The girlfriends? The lion-tamer? Gigliola? How attractive a heroine was she? Her initial reactions to the hero? Her final reactions? The prospect of a happy marriage?

9. How satirical was the presentation of the diary? How did it help the hero? How did it satirise his problem? How did it satirize the modern Casanova?

10. Did the film change dramatically with the introduction of the Count? The irony of his attitude towards the hero? The irony of his death? Did this add to the plot or was it merely the occasion for the final court-case?

11. The satire in the court-case and the stances and points of view put forward? How effective satire was this?

12. Had the hero progressed by the end of the film? The irony of his love for Gigliola? The need still, to be daring? (Gigliola’s phone call and attitude towards her husband?)

13. How successful a comedy was this? How successful would it be for Europeans to laugh at themselves and their attitudes? For wider audiences?