Individual Entry

 
 

 
La Dolce Morte: a brief review

La Dolce Morte

Above: La Dolce Morte: Vernacular Cinema and the Italian Giallo Film

I finished reading Mikel Koven’s La Dolce Morte: Vernacular Cinema and the Italian Giallo last night, and thought I’d say a few words about it.

First of all, as I mentioned before, this is an excellent study, and nothing else like it exists. Academics, for the most part, tend to shun gialli anyway, assuming them to be unworthy of serious study, but, even when one looks at things from a less scholarly perspective, there is a real dearth of available books focusing on this genre, with perhaps the only English language title dedicated to the giallo being Adrian Luther Smith’s Blood and Black Lace, a guide that is exhaustive in its breadth but, for that very reason, lacks depth.

Generally, it seems that most scholars ignore gialli because they don’t consider them to be “good” cinema, lacking the sophistication and “art” of the more highly regarded Italian films by the likes of Michelangelo Antonioni and Federico Fellini. Even those who do study giallo films tend to be dismissive of the bulk of the genre, focusing on the films of Dario Argento or Mario Bava at the expense of all others. Maitland McDonagh, for example, who was the first scholar to seriously study Argento, in her book Broken Mirrors, Broken Minds claimed that the “outlandish titles” of the non-Argento gialli are “the only interesting things about them”, effectively rejecting an entire genre, barring the output of one of its most prominent directors.

Koven’s argument is that such scholars are looking at these films in the wrong way. He points out that they were originally intended to be played to a working class, non-critical audience who had little interest in sophistication and intelligent plotting, preferring instead to be entertained by a parade of sex and violence. Viewing these films instead in terms of “vernacular cinema”, he therefore argues, removes the need to justify these films as being “artistic” (which, he claims, most are not), instead looking at them from the same perspective as their original intended audience. He builds a very convincing case for this over the course of ten chapters, establishing first the nature of the giallo and of its audience, before going on to dissect specific traits of these films - e.g. the role of the detective, attitudes towards modernity, the influence of the giallo on North American slashers. In doing so, he refers to a commendable number of titles, although there is, as usually tends to be the case, something of an over-reliance on Argento’s films.

Koven’s approach is, therefore, a perfectly valid one. The only problem is that I don’t agree with it, and at times I found his continued refusal to view these films in anything other than vernacular terms to be something of a stumbling block. In a sense, I completely understand why he did this - anyone putting together a case study, no matter how broad the scope, must set certain parameters or run the risk of waffling - but it should be remembered that this book really only shows one side of the coin. Koven is, I’m sure, absolutely right when he argues that, say, The Case of the Bloody Iris (Giuliano Carnimeo, 1972) was only ever intended to be watched as trashy entertainment, and that applying the sort of analytical methods that academics also apply to the films of Fellini and Antonioni is ultimately a poor fit. At the same time, though, to pass off the entire giallo genre as being “only” vernacular cinema is, in my opinion, unwise. I’ve already written at length about the films of Argento and a few select others that I believe can be analysed, at least partially, as art cinema.

To tar the entire genre with the same brush is therefore, in my opinion, problematic. There are certain traits that constitute a “typical” giallo (e.g. lots of sex and violence, screaming women and gallant male rogues saving the day), but what applies to The Case of the Bloody Iris doesn’t necessarily apply to Profondo Rosso (Argento, 1975). In looking at these films from a completely vernacular perspective, you run the risk of doing exactly what Koven accuses those who try to fit them into an art cinema context of doing. Yes, plenty of academics look down their noses at these films because they don’t fit the framework of a Fellini, but, if you try to put them in their own little box and claim that we shouldn’t even try to analyse them as art films, then you’re essentially just playing into the hands of the snobs, becoming apologetic for their very existence. (It’s a bit like what Stephen Thrower said in Beyond Cinema: The Films of Lucio Fulci: his argument was that talking about “justified” and “unjustified” violence was ludicrous, because, if a horror fan tries to defend his favourite gore scene in such terms, he is merely playing into the hands of the censors and automatically on the defensive.) By removing the need to justify them as “artistic”, on some level you prevent them, and their study, from being considered respectable at all.

I don’t want to give the wrong impression: I liked this book very much. It was an enjoyable read with a coherent argument maintained throughout, and I would like to think that it will pave the way for studies of the giallo from a variety of different perspectives. Ultimately, though, it only represents a single viewpoint, and one that, whatever the author’s intentions, seems a little one-sided in its focus.

Update, December 19, 2006 05:58 PM: Fixed dead link.

 
Posted: Saturday, November 25, 2006 at 1:05 PM | Comments: 4
Categories: Books | Cinema | Dario Argento | Gialli | Reviews

 
Comments

1.

Nice to read your opinion on this.I think you have some good points there.Though I haven't read the book.I already read about it.

My question to you is this,is this book easy to read for someone whose native tongue isn't English?
I now know what is meant by "vernacular" but is the book in general difficult for non-English speakers?I would really like to know since I'm thinking about buying this in the near future.I hope to find it a bit cheaper than Amazon's $40 though (think I will).

Thank in advance Michael.

Hugo

Posted by: Crystal Plumage, November 25, 2006 10:18 PM

2.

Hugo,

Speaking as a native English speaker who sometimes struggles to understand the unnecessarily obscure vocabulary used by academics, I found this book to be very readable. My opinion is that Koven writes very much like a fan of gialli (which he obviously is) trying to make the somewhat academic material accessible to everyone, and as a result I don’t imagine that you’ll have any difficulties with it.

Here’s a brief quotation from it, which should give you some idea of the style:

In the world of the giallo, the police are rarely able to solve the crime - these films are not police procedurals after all. Often the only person able to solve the crime and bring the killer to “justice” (whether for trial, hospitalization, or entombment) is an amateur detective. In this chapter, I explore the amateur detective, the giallo’s everyman hero, who must seek help from some other kind of agency - a witness, a private (professional) detective, or even someone intimate with the killer. These “helpers” are occasionally “false helpers,” who appear to be assisting the hero in solving the crime but in actuality are misdirecting him or her. In almost all cases, the false helper is the killer.

As for the price, the book certainly isn’t cheap, but it’s slightly less expensive if you order directly from Scarecrow Press: $34.

Posted by: Whiggles, November 25, 2006 10:24 PM

3.

Thanks,and thanks for the link.
I also found it at a Dutch site for about the same price.
I will order it in the near future (probably in the new year).

Hugo

Posted by: Crystal Plumage, November 27, 2006 10:07 PM

4.

i'm torn over reading books on films but i've spotted this book recently didn't know it existed. generally not that interested in opinions on films beyond "this might suit you" because i think there's a barrier to come up against that's relative to some individuals opinion simply being held too preciously by others unable to find a way or reason to search for their own view. so a recommendation is something that would need to come from a face-to-face discussion - because a one-way form of communication about something artistic can be frustrating.

yes, film is artistic intrinsically, i feel, no matter how commercially based, simply because it's an expression of individual and familiar creative ideas blended to contain ideas in philosophy through it's dialogue, visuals, sounds. these films, being (as they were) commercial films for local audiences, churned out and worn into the ground as long as the audience stuck around, are disposable on one level but not necessarily on all levels.

if there's thought behind it, if it references other work and finds its own additional voice, then it follows the basics of how creativity works. "art" though, is a subjective term with a definition given by individuals, but entirely dismissing or relabelling art as trash (or vice versa) doesn't go deep enough to explaining why to appreciate or dismiss something - too terminal to allow others to contradict the arguments too, which in turn contradicts the desire that appreciating creativity automatically suggests because it avoids the individual journey from the flipside of the individuals perspective that is almost automatically expected from the artist.

Posted by: logboy, April 13, 2007 4:16 PM

Comments on this entry and all entries up to and including June 31st 2009 have been closed. The discussion continues on the new Land of Whimsy blog:

http://www.landofwhimsy.com

 

 
 
Back to...