Io ballo da sola

When this filmed first came on the scene, there was a lot of critics that downed the intensity of this film... of course their favorite words were pseudoartistic crap. America is not ready for this film. Look at what we embrace in our films: blood, sex, nudity, shock value. America is not ready for a film that sees the attraction towards a 19 year-old as a natural thing. American normalcy sees this as wrong, deceitful, and impure. Bertolucci did not make a film, he reflected humanity through a camera. This film dives into our own psyche seeking the desires to be pure and innocent. Only America would see this as a piece of psycho sexual fantasy into our own pedophiliac desires. Watch it people, there's a substance that you're not used to seeing in everyday flicks.

I think I saw this film at a film festival when it was newly released (or prior to release) and seem to recall a scene that was missing when I watched it again recently.

Remember when they all go over to that grand villa for the evenings party and the artist guy stays home to carve away at his tree stump with the chainsaw. I remember him sanding more and creating this lovely (and suggestive!) hole in it that later when his wife returns home and finds him caressing the hole suggestively and the two of them then make love. This time when I watch the film it just cuts to the place where she leans against the wall and hikes up her dress above the knee (what the hell is that all about?). The original was one of my favorite parts because of how that scene was enhanced with the music soundtrack... but now it's gone! So my question is: Am I right or dreaming? Anybody else remember this?

While this is not my favorite Bertolucci film, Stealing Beauty left me inspired and contented. Bertolucci's brush strokes are wide, yet meticulously placed, leading us down a sensual and beautiful path of discovery. He packs a lot of plot into a week of story and two hours of film, but it is believable because many extraordinary things can happen in a short time frame when one travels abroad. Liv Tyler did well, reminding me of my teenage years, yearning yet still undecided. This movie has one of the best (sexy!) loss of virginity scenes in recent memory.

This is not a "great" film, but it's elegant, well-shot, and staffed with superb actors & actresses that know their work & do it well.

You have all read the plot line, so I won't dwell on that. I will say, though, that viewers searching for a typical "story-conflict-wrapup" will be disappointed. This film is about life...several lives... and we are shown a brief window into those lives.

Lucy's story (Lucy = Liv Tyler) is, I believe, the least interesting -- we always observe her, and never get into her head, and yet know what she's about. But...she's 19... she knows very little... and Bertolucci knows that.

The real stories are how the others, older, react to her and to each other... lust, memory, envy, nostalgia for lost youth, jealousy, pride, recognition, understanding of the motion of life...

All of these evoke other stories that, unfortunately for all of you that want a nicely wrapped-up movie, you are going to have to make up in your own heads. But that's the beauty of this film.

While I hate to generalize, teens will dislike this movie, as will adults who think that suburban life is pretty good. It's never explained what any of these people actually DO, and I know that's an important problem for many movie goers.

But the rest of you... give it a try.

A question especially uneasy to answer in this case. The plot, of course, is very simple and even trivial: young girl loses her virginity and discovers her father's identity, gaining love and surrendering death (the never understood death of her mother), while her older admirer (Jeremy Irons) who only felt in love once - with her mother - gains love again but death at the same time. This pretty kitschy plot, together with the lack of movement in great part of the film, could make it unbearable. But it results much more ambivalent... First note that you wouldn't think at all you're dealing with a movie from 1996. Actually, when I saw it I had no idea from when it was and I estimated it to be from the late 1970's or early 80's. That has to do, above all, with the ethereal landscape-cinematography, this really magnific beauty of every movement the camera (and Liv Tyler!) make, but with the music, too. When there appears Mozart's clarinette concert, for the first time, while you see the field and the house sleeping "siesta", it can make you cry because of pure beauty you conceive... And there are many moments in this film, where music (timeless and time-switching) and picture make you feel so unsure about the era this film is telling about. "Beauty hurts the heart" says Jean Marais' character once. And actually, it does. The eroticism of this movie, for my taste, was sometimes almost painfully sad and joyful at once. Difficult to describe. Between, there are many occasions where you can find the vulgarity of the story just repelling, but then comes such a vigorous sequence again... It reminds me of some of the last Rohmer movies, in some respect, although it is much warmer and not that boring. (Rohmer's coolness, nevertheless, prevails him for falling in kitsch, something that Bertolucci doesn't avoid.) The movie, in some precious moments, does exactly do what its title promises: it steals pieces of beauty from this incredible world - but it has few awareness of it. Its explicitly "deep" parts are too immature and presumptious, but its superficiality contents a profoundness that convinced me. As a piece of art, I have to consider this movie too superficial, as a piece of " just feeling" (a word that I normally hate), I cannot let to like it. 6 of 10.