Cinema Insieme
presents
Rome, Open City [Roma, Citta Aperta]
dir. Roberto Rossellini (1945)
Monday, March 8 at 7:00 p.m.
The Pearl Company
16 Steven Street, Hamilton
http://thepearlcompany.ca
Admission: $10 pp (film, Q & A, wine & cheese reception)
Period:
WWII - during the 9 month Nazi occupation of Rome in 1943
The Fascist dictatorship has begun its fall, although many sympathizers still remain. The Nazis have occupied several Italian cities and areas. The Italian Resistance movement is carrying out a clandestine battle against the Nazis, as they did against the Fascist dictatorship. Based on real life events, this landmark film focuses on the hardships and struggles of ordinary people and their fight for freedom. Rome, Open City, considered the mother of the Neo-realist film movement, ushered in a new film style that influenced audiences and directors throughout the world.
Characters:
Italian Partisans
Manfredi (engineer, Resistance leader)
Francesco (typesetter, friend of Manfredi, Pina’s fiancé)
Pina (played by Anna Magnani; engaged to Francesco) The Young Boys:
Don Pietro (Partisan parish priest) Marcello (Pina’s son)
Agostino (sexton) Romolo (leader of boys’ movement)
Lauretta (Pina’s sister) Marina (dancer/actress, Manfredi’s girlfriend)
Nazis
Major Fritz Bergmann
Ingrid The Police Commissioner of Rome
Captain Hartmann
-----------------------
FILM DESCRIPTION & REVIEWS:
Film: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0038890/
Review: http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/36504/Open-City/overview
Other Reviews:
J.L. Godard: “…all roads lead to Rome, Open City”.
R. Ames: Rome Open City “is a key film in the history of world cinema … its primacy in the neo-realist movement is unchallenged”.
Rossellini: “We were emerging from the tragedy of the war …. we were all its victims.
I sought only to depict the essence of things."
“Rome Open City is a film about fear, everyone’s fear, but above all my own."
Last night's film experience was somewhat schizophrenic in that the first half of the film was a day in the life of people living in war time. At the point at which Pina was killed it took a very black turn. From then on it focused on the Nazi's heartless interrogation methods and murders. It felt like we were set up for the shock and awe of war.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, the depiction of the torture of the partisan leader as witnessed by the priest appeared to be a reference to the torture and crucifixion of Jesus as witnessed by his followers.
That was a powerful movie - perhaps the most authentic WWII movie of all insofar as it was made during the war. It actually reinforces the legitimacy of the Hollywood stereotype of the Nazis. With the priest as its central hero - walking the talk without a bunch of pious bumph - it also foreshadows the "Liberation Theology" that developed in Central and South America decades later.
ReplyDeleteCongratulations on organizing this excellent series!
Our CINEMA INSIEME evening at The Pearl Company last night was dedicated to a film that is often considered the milestone of Italian Neorealism. After the film there was an interesting exchange of ideas that I think call for further commentary. It was said that Rossellini portrays the Germans in a stereotypical way. Throughout the film it was easy to see that the Nazis, along with the Fascists, are the enemy. The German commanding officer, Major Bergmann, and the she-Nazi Ingrid, are clearly ethical and sexual deviants, who move with ease from a room where a Communist leader is being tortured to another where drinks are being poured and card games are in progress while someone plays relaxing music at the piano. It is difficult to sympathize with these characters. We may pity them for the kind of decadent behaviour that they represent and feel that they are instruments or puppets of their superiors. However, the point Rossellini may be making in this black and white portrayal of good and evil, is quite complex and ties into the essence of the style we call Neorealism. That is, the thirst for reality at this point of Italian history is such that there is no longer any middle ground. One should recall that the word “rhetoric” came up in the film and it was attributed to the Italians. Well, after twenty years of Fascism and a considerable amount of rhetoric conveyed by Benito Mussolini and his government, we are at a point in Rossellini’s film were the “mask” comes off and the “face” of reality is finally seen. Manfredi (the Communist tortured to death) and Francesco (the printer), along with Pina (Francesco’s fiancé, killed by the Germans), represent this lucid view of reality. There is no rhetoric about what Manfredi, Francesco, Pina, and Don Pietro are doing and the side they have chosen to be on.
ReplyDeleteTo the historical comments made, we should add the following: while the Germans entered other European countries as invaders, in Italy they were allies (remember the military alliance “The Pact of Steel” between Mussolini and Hitler); and this complicates the situation enormously. It is as if these two countries, Italy and Germany, were married and now are going through a very messy divorce. Hence, the claiming of territory and getting your hands on everything that you feel is rightfully yours after investing years in a unity that has now ended in separation. After Mussolini’s arrest (July 25, 1943), General Pietro Badoglio and the king of Italy Vittorio Emanuele III took Mussolini’s place at the head of the government. They took forty-five days to decide what to do from this point on. While they promised they would not abandon the Germans, it became obvious that a part of Italy would side with the Anglo-Americans (Canadians included). During these forty-five days of indecision, the Germans had ample time to occupy as much of Italy as they could and eliminate anyone who refused to side with that part of Italy that continued to hold the alliance with the Nazis. Thanks to German occupation, Mussolini escapes from his prison in the Apennine Mountains (September 12, 1943), and Italy is divided in two main “armies”: the Nazis and Mussolini’s Fascists on one side and the Anglo-American forces aided by the Italian partisans on the other. So the tragic result was a painful civil war that called many Italians to reclaim their country and ultimately their identity. The film ends on a positive note: the children walk back to the city (the main character in the film) as if to reclaim what their fathers had lost. As was mentioned in the comments made during our discussion, Don Pietro is executed outside the city, as if to imply the future outcome of the war.
The professor's comments are always interesting. However, one must realize that of Badoglio's '45 day reign' of indecision, the historical fact is that Badoglio wanted some assurances from the Allies that Italy's interests would be protected against the Germans. It was during these negotiations that Badoglio pledged continuing support for the Germans while plotting to betray them in the end. The ironic thing is that Hitler did not believe Badoglio and the Allies did not support him, leaving Italy's soldiers, some still fighting alongside the Germans and others opposing them, in a confused and confusing state.
ReplyDeleteAs for the film. It is a powerful statement against the fascism. But for me it is also a film that hints at the infatuation with Communism that was to take root in Italy in the 50's and 60's. The criticism of fascism morphs into an invective against materialism and the lauding of left wing ideology which at this early stage was still preaching utopian benefits for mankind.
As for Rossellini's reluctance to not 'milk' the emotional aspects of life and simply presenting reality as 'neorealism' is wont to do, consider these contradictions which are meant to sap our emotions and channel them into Rossellini's view of the world: 1. The role of Romoletto, the young resistance fighter who presumably lost a leg to fascism and is bent on avenging his country by turning the youth into ruthless freedom fighters; consider the role of Don Pietro, the saintly Priest whose only mission in life is to minister to the oppressed Italians downtrodden by fascism. His ultimate fate, conferring heroism to the tortured colleague and sacrificing his own life to the Nazi murderer elicits strong emotions in us. Finally, how about Pina, the pregnant, religious and moral commoner, shot down in full daylight while trying to save her man....that scene alone hooks us into the emotion of the film. Rossellini doesn't have to dwell any further into her death. He has already done his job.
A great film.
First of all, I am very happy that everyone enjoyed Open City. I wanted to show it at Cinema Insieme because it is such an important and instrumental film for many reasons, and I was confident that the audience would love it. As I indicated (and as Dermot notes) "Open City" is one of the first authentic portrayals of WWII (every story was based on a real event). It is also the "mother" of the neorealist movement, which showed the world a new, more honest and genuine, approach to filmmaking. I could also mention how prophetic the film is. Consider what Hartmann states about the failure of the Nazi dream: “We have covered Europe with corpses. And from these tombs, hate is inexorably born; hate, everywhere hate! We shall be destroyed by hate.” I could go on. I think you can understand why I am quite moved that this 65 yr. old film still manages to inform and touch viewers.
ReplyDeleteCPC: Yes, indeed. As I mentioned at the film, Pina's death changes the tone of the film, which up until then had brief moments of comic relief. Let me point out that Pina is connected to all the characters in the film (Manfredi, Francesco, Don Pietro, Marina etc.). When Pina is murdered, the network of characters symbolically starts to fall apart.
Larry: I agree wholeheartedly. Rossellini does not have to dwell or "milk" a scene in order to make a powerful statement. What I tried to point out was the difference between Rossellini and De Sica. Though they are both neo-realist directors, they are also quite unique. Rossellini has stated: “I show things, I do not demonstrate them." But let me mention what Martin Scorsese has said about the two neorealist filmmakers: "Rossellini, with his scientific temperament, directed facts." De Sica “directed emotions ... expertly.”
In closing, "Open City" is without a doubt a monumental film that has had, and will continue to have, influence on filmmakers and viewers for many years to come.
Response to Larry Di Ianni’s comment about Communism:
ReplyDeleteI agree to some degree with the comment about the film hinting at Italy’s infatuation with Communism and the lauding of left-wing ideology in opposition to the materialism represented in the character Marina and also Pina’s sister who, interestingly enough, is an actress. For a number of reasons, Marina is unable to see the value of what Manfredi preaches. And what he preaches is not necessarily to be branded Communist ideology, but can be seen as a clear view of what the necessities of life are and taking hold of them, no matter what political party is in power. Many of our viewers noticed a strong Christian tone in the film and saw in Manfredi a representation of Christ. While Marina does not want to be hungry or poor ever again, Manfredi is preaching that “Man does not live of bread alone.” Moreover, I don’t know if I would go as far as saying that the Italians were infatuated with Communism; obviously some were and did have utopian ideas of a revolution and the dictatorship of the working class. However, Antonio Gramsci and later Palmiro Togliatti (the head of the Communist party in postwar Italy), as far as I know, had no intention of organizing a revolution at the end of WWII so that they could establish a working class dictatorship and create a classless society. If my memory does not deceive me, Togliatti’s “progressive democracy” was all about collaborating with the opposition and possibly discerning and correcting the distortions and injustices in the framework of capitalism. Paul Ginsborg provides a pretty accurate explanation of the political situation at the time in his book A History of Contemporary Italy (1990). If any of our viewers are interested in a good and informative read, I would suggest Ginsborg’s book.