In my cinema studies i learned how this movie is considered a masterpiece of italian modern cinema and watching it (more than one time) just didnt help understand why. This movie is also compared to Godard and the Nouvelle Vague style, same Nouvelle Vague that welcomed the movie when it premiered, while italian critique of the time didnt appreciate it as well. Bertolucci was 23 when he did this movie so it is understandable that the work isn't totally flawless, but, how it happened many time in film history (especially italian) some movies are overrated just because an important critique applauded it or, like in this case, cause of the future work of the director. Let's talk frankly: if the young Bertolucci after this movie would have left the movie director career no one, i mean NO ONE would even know about the existence of this film. Let's talk about the film.
I am not going to analyze every aspect nor the story in its entireness cause it would take too much time. First of all the comparison with Godard; more than a familiarity it is an imitation to me, and sometimes i found that pretty lazy. The famous "glasses scene" for example: it reminds of Godard sure, but it feels like it's just thrown out there with not much thinking behind it. The dimension of joke, of the godardian irony, isn't the style, doesn'fit in this movie (that is more like ideologic/political and romantic); some compared FabriZio and Michel (from "a bout de souffle") while in my opinion they have nothing in common; Fabrizio has an high opinion of himself, he goes around lecturing his friends about communism like it is the only thing that really matters, he is always serious, when not with that sad/empty/unhappy look on his face. Fabrizio is in "great pain" cause truthfully he knows that marrying Clelia would be the easiest and more comfortable thing to do meanwhile he's in an affair with her aunt (and that's creepy cause Stendhal, the author of the novel that inspired the movie, wrote that 120 years earlier, i understand the "not caring of social/moral values" but times are changed my friend, in sixties people already know about the risk (for the child) of sexual relations with blood relatives...). Fabrizio is just boring and rethorical , nothing make you empathize with him. On the other hand Michel Poiccard from Godard's "A bout de souffle" is an interesting character, he fully lives his life, takes his chances, and even though he is a thief, a killer, a no good he still has an appeal on the viewer (that paradoxically is repeatedly made fun of and insulted by him);
While Fabrizio is a Stereotype of the politically engaged youngster that (in the end) don't even practice what he preaches, Michel is a guy that know what he wants and he spend time acting for that, instead of lecturing people and make up political/romantic nonsense. About the style similarities: i think that Godard style is coherent with HIS OWN movies, his own scripts that game he engages with the viewer, the irony, the joke; this same style taken and used out of context on one hand hardly fit, on the other hand i think it even deminishes the style itself, making it look (like in "before the revolution") just an editing error. The locations: One is in Paris, great city full of lights, movement, one is in Parma, a miedieval, close minded, country side little city...and that says a lot.
P. S. I don't appreciate a bit the view of women that this movie would like to give: just objects, things that are there to please/make feel important men, the one that has the right to choose his doll, while they are there waiting (stepping further and further away from Godard)
In the end it is not a bad movie, i gave 4 stars as a personal judgement and i understand who likes it but in the complex i didn't appreciate it much. Sorry for my english.
0 out of 1 found this helpful