1900 (1976) User Reviews (123)

As satisfying as the best classic novels; shame about that touch of political revisionism

[Asa_Nisi_Masa2 · 9/10 · 29 January 2006]

All in all, I loved Bertolucci's 1900. By the end of it (I watched the uncut, 318 minute version and it was an effortless, engrossing, never over-long experience), I found myself feeling as satisfied as someone who's just finished reading one of those wonderful, very long classic novels. There are, however, some major flaws, not just in narrative structure but also in content, and this is why I've given it "just" a 9/10. It's rather disjointed and all over the place, like a huge, gangly foal rather than a harmoniously-formed horse.

However, I don't agree with one accusation I heard that was leveled at it, regarding its change of tone. In my view it was unavoidable and appropriate when dealing with a historic period going from the beginning of the 20th century to the rise to power of Mussolini (1922), and finally to the culmination of full-blown Fascist oppression. The "change of tone" in the film perfectly captured the profound and shocking changes that swept over Italy, as if bitten by something that had made it go mad.

My main problem with the film, however, was of content rather than structure: the over-simplification of its politics, not to mention the inaccuracy in the way it portrays the reasons for the rise of Fascism. These smack of just a little too much historical revisionism even for a tendentially left-wing person like me. But then, 1900 was made in the 70s, smack bang in the middle of a decade in which the Italian left wing had a strong hold on the country's artistic and cultural institutions. After decades of poverty, ignorance and forced silence, these institutions voiced their views with a more earnest tone than they would have had if they'd never been repressed. Pasolini, Bertolucci, Moravia and several others producing art during the 50s-70s in Italy are a prime example of this kind of voice. Inevitably, it was tinged with a political agenda – it couldn't have been otherwise, as political freedom was a new toy and everyone was so keen to play with it.

Bertolucci's film would have us believe that the rich landowners (represented here by the Berlinghieri – Robert De Niro's character's family) were responsible alone for sponsoring the Fascists. Keen to maintain the country in an archaic state of feudalism with the poor, ignorant multitudes working their estates as semi-slaves, they encouraged or turned a blind eye to the violent cruelty of the blackshirts. They employed them as "guard dogs" (as De Niro's character Alfredo refers to Attila, Donald Sutherland's Fascist bully character at one point), giving them official charges as managers of their estates and oppressors of any sign of rebellion, etc. Though this has effectively happened, a more objective historic version will take into account that for Fascism to spread so rapidly and so well, it must have had some hold on the "common people", too. Just consider that the rich landowners were a tiny, tiny minority of the population and not all were sympathetic to Mussolini – originally a Socialist himself. The rich often supported the monarchy and/or church instead (and Mussolini aspired to a lay state, not a religious one). It was indeed so many of the common men and women of Italy who responded well to the young Mussolini, who was neither particularly cultured nor a member of the elite, yet was a charismatic go-getter who could speak to the crowds in a way that made sense to them for the first time ever. The landowners and aristocrats, decadent and totally out of touch from reality (as Bertolucci's film shows so well), had no idea how to relate to the masses. In contrast, Mussolini wanted to harness the energy of the multitudes, giving them a sense of worth for the first time ever. What a cruel irony this turned out to be for all those people!

What Bertolucci's film is successful at putting across is the fact that neutrality, turning a blind eye to and staying passive to Fascism was in itself responsible for allowing it to thrive. ****SPOILERS****: Alfredo does nothing to stop Attila and his stooges beat Olmo, Gèrard Depardieu's character, to a bloody mess, despite the fact he knew that Olmo was innocent of having killed the child at the wedding party. This scene is so effective in creating a sense of frustration in the viewer. Watching that scene, it comes naturally to ask oneself: "Why didn't anyone do anything to stop it?" EXACTLY! ****END OF SPOILERS.****

Regarding the accusation leveled at the uncut version of the film containing pornographic sequences: I thought pornography's sole purpose was to titillate and arouse. Do any scenes in this movie try to achieve this? Most certainly not! Naked human bodies can be representative of so much more than just sex. They are not just about the degree of their ability to arouse or otherwise, but also about a whole other spectrum of human states and feelings. Strength, vulnerability, tenderness, compassion, closeness, distance, receptiveness and whatever else is sometimes just not possible to express in so many lines of dialogue. Why shouldn't a sexual encounter – even one featuring genitals in view – speak volumes about so many other aspects of men and women's humanity?

I could write so much more about this movie! Though not as mesmerisingly beautiful to look at as Bertolucci's 1970 film Il Conformista, it is none the less a testament to Vittorio Storaro's genius photography once again. I will probably be watching this movie many more times and discovering more layers, more beauty and even more imperfections… which is all worthwhile when confronted with such amazing material. Whoever's been comparing 1900's portrayal of Fascism with the way it was dealt with in Il Conformista isn't being entirely fair: the latter takes a far more intellectual approach (after all, Fascism was a multi-faceted phenomenon) and is a less ambitious film anyway, therefore less likely to fail.

Traumatizing

[salomejanelidze · 9/10 · 23 October 2012]

I watched this film years ago, as I wondered into the cinema, excited by seeing the name of Bernando Bertolucci. And I still suffer from memories. There are a few films out there, that have had such an impact on me. It scarred me for life. Seriously. The visions of pigs slaughter, child rape, one of the most brutal murder scenes a human mind can ever imagine and the creepiest smile of Donald Sutherland still haunt me. Besides the very disturbing scenes, the film is absolutely marvellous, depicting emergence and spreading of fascism in Italy. It is a masterpiece indeed, but scary, scary masterpiece. Definitely not suitable for children under 18. I learned the hard way.

A Long and Beautiful Movie

[claudio_carvalho · 7/10 · 24 June 2003]

A too much long but beautiful movie, showing the political changes in Italy in the Twentieth Century. These changes are presented and reflected through the friendship of Alfredo (Robert De Niro) and Olmo (Gerard Depardieau), from the end of World War I to the end of World War II, from the ascent of the Fascism to its decline and the ascent of the Socialism. Alfred and Olmo were born in the same day and in the same place, landowner and peasant respectively. As far as they grow up, Bertolucci presents the changes in the political scenario in Italy, affecting the relationship between these two friends. The film is a little exhaustive, but it deserves to be watched more than one time. Recommended to viewers who like European movies and particularly Italian history and Bertolucci. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "1900"

Under-rated epic

[David_Niemann · 10/10 · 3 July 2003]

"1900" follows the lives of two friends (although sometimes they seem more like enemies!) born on the same day in a beautiful part of Italy. Olmo is born a bastard to peasant farmers and Alfredo is the son of a wealthy businessman. We watch their lives unfold with vivid cinematography and lush visuals of the exceptionally beautiful countryside. The movie jumps forward, to the end of World War 1, and Olmo returns home after fighting. And essentially the film follows the exploits of the two protagonists as they deal with love, friendship, money, death and the evils of war.

The film unfolds like a finely crafted book, taking its time to tell its story.

Unfortunately, the version that I watched was horrendously dubbed. It was so bad my brother couldn't continue watching. I tried to look past this major fault, as I started to love the film's story and visuals, and it does get better, but I'd be extremely disappointed to find out a subtitled version doesn't exist. And to make matters worse, it was also a Pan & Scan version. This doesn't bother me too much if I'm watching, say 'Mrs. Doubtfire', but "1900" is definitely a wide-screen movie. Some scenes were practically ruined as characters are framed to the extreme right or left. For example, at the beginning where Olmo lays on the train line, I couldn't see him in the wide shot! I couldn't see what was going on. Terrible! And the version I watched came in at about 4 hours and 35 minutes. So it was a cut version, and this is blindingly obvious. The cuts are dreadful. This has to be some of the worst editing I have ever seen in my whole movie viewing life.

But for all these problems (easily solvable problems that have nothing to do with the movie itself (unless the dub is the original)) I fell in love with this movie. I didn't really notice the hours passing by; the story and the characters suck you into their world, and don't let go until the final credits roll. And even then they are stuck in your head, along with the more memorable scenes. I couldn't help but be reminded of my own childhood, even when the scenes had no context to my memories. For instance, the simple setting of workers ploughing a field bought back memories of playing in a big dirt mound in our backyard as a child, or beautifully lit scenes at sunset; I could almost feel the warmth. These memories made me feel really good, and whether it was intended or not to remind the audience of their childhoods, the film certainly had this wondrous effect on me.

I was quite shocked with some of the scenes in this film, especially the rape scene. While there is no sex shown at all (at least in this version), the crying eyes say more than any words or images could. You should be warned this film has some pretty graphic violence and contains a few explicit sex scenes. But the sex scenes are refreshingly realistic, as opposed to Hollywood's fraudulent version of sex.

The acting is, for the most part, admirably handled. Robert De Niro is convincing as the rich son with a poor peasant as his best friend. This role could have descended into cliché, but De Niro steers it clear of any such event. Towards the end of the film De Niro's performance is terrific. It's remarkable that in the same year that this was made, De Niro played a certain Travis Bickle in the seminal 'Taxi Driver.' 1976 was certainly De Niro's year! Gerard Depardieu is wonderful as Olmo. I have never seen a movie of Depardieu's where he was young, and I must say he was very handsome in his day! His performance elicits emotion without settling for sentimentality. The supporting cast do a good job. Burt Lancaster is both charming and divine, yet in one scene I was quite uncomfortable as to where it was going to lead. But he portrays this without the cliché of a `dirty-old-man' but rather a lonely man who may not remember where the line of decency may now lie. Donald Sutherland is disgusting beyond description. No, not his acting, but the character he plays. I haven't seen too many of Sutherland's films (unfortunately, off the top of my head I can only recall 'Fallen') but I'm keen to see more of his work, as his acting here is top notch. And the hunchback (sorry, can't remember his name) is delightfully endearing. Only some small characters have questionable acting talents, but in a film with so many bit parts this may well be expected.

The word 'epic' seems to imply greatly to this film. While the scope and size of the film is epic, the film relies heavily on the lives of the main protagonists. In a way this is an intimate epic, if such a thing could exist.

This is an excellent film that is highly recommended for people interested in Italian history, the landscape of Italy and beautifully crafted films. This particular version is recommended to people interested in gaining evidence that Pan & Scan is the work of Satan and that dubbing should be a sin.

If you enjoyed the films `Schindler's List' and `La Vita é Bella', then I'm sure you'll get something out of this film.

You shouldn't be turned off by the long running time of this film, you get so engrossed with the story the time just flies by. This is certainly an under-rated classic, treated poorly by some versions.

10/10 If in wide-screen, un-cut and subtitled. 9/10 If Pan & Scan, cut and dubbed.

But as I have to give one overall score, I'd have to say 10/10.

A long and good picture

[miguelvitorino · 10/10 · 5 December 2003]

One of the most perfect historic contemporary pictures ever made. Wonderful performances of the actors Robert de Niro, Gerard Depardieu, Burt Lancaster and Donald Sutherland. This film tells us a story of two mans (Alfredo and Olmo) born in the same day back in the beginning of the twentieth century - Alfredo is a landowner, Olmo is a peasant- and their relation with friendship, love, politics. ( I think this is a film about how friendship can be true in a cruel half century that was the fist half os the "novecento").

There is a Marxist view about life and about cinema itself in this Bertolucci film: the two main characters, Alfredo and Olmo, symbolize the strike between the two classes of the capitalism - the high bourgeosie that owns the land where live the proletarian. The picture tries to prove that their lives are different in the way that their different social condition can interfere. In the beginning Alfredo and Olmo are very close, because they are only child. Alfredo tries to be like Olmo. He sees in his friend the freedoom that he hasn't. He wants to be a socialist.

I recommend this picture to all who like good cinema.

A beautiful European achievement with Hollywood stars.

[wallner-3 · 9/10 · 22 June 2004]

The cast list alone is fabulous:Burt Lancaster, Sterling Hayden, Robert De Niro, Donald Sutherland, Gerard Depardieu, the best of Italian artists, the incandescent Dominque Sanda, at her prime. The production team: Bertolucci as director, the DOP is Storaro, the music by Ennio Morricone. How much would such a production cost today? $100 million? $200 million? How could you fail with such a line up? Well the film was long, and there were several versions around. It played at art houses in two parts. It was a co-production, (always an ominous sign) still there isn't a DVD available. (Although I saw a laser disc version in Jakarta some 7 years ago which I taped). Is the film beautiful? Yes. Does it sound wonderful? Yes. Does it deal with large important themes across generations? Yes. So how come it doesn't knock everybody's socks off? It should, that much I believe. Its themes of socialism/communism versus fascism across 50 years or so of Italian history don't sit well with American audiences. The two political systems are personified by two sons of the estate, one rich, one poor.Such a subtle (Or not if you are from North Zanesville)device is difficult to reconcile if you are used to a hamburger menu. Many audiences want a such a simple menu- a guy falls in love, gets married, the mob kill her, he takes revenge and kills the mob. Life is a hamburger. But we in Europe know that Life is not like that, it comes with grey areas, imperfections, flaws,nuances.

So the first disagreement is about politics. The second is the length of the movie; what actually are you watching, and where can you get the real longest possible version? That again nobody seems to know. The third is the lack of a DVD. That would make money and re-establish the film as a classic among the video stores to all the believers and make a new audience fall in love with this flawed masterpiece. Flawed, but still a masterpiece. So many people have not heard about it, so they don't know any better. There are some staggeringly beautiful shots that have lingered in my mind for 28 years- pure Storaro, many shot in golden hour- the boy with frogs in his hat, the countryside estate,the hunchback jester moaning about the death of Verdi,all accompanied by a typical Morricone oboe-driven melody with great intelligence and pride. Bravissimo!

Historic Masterpiece

[eibon09 · 10/10 · 1 November 2000]

1900(1976) begins with the defeat of the fascist regime in Italy by the allies. The film then flashes back to 1900 with the birth of Alfredo and Olmo who belong to different social classes. It follows the lives of the grandfathers as well as the growth of their two grandchildren. Alfredo and Olmo becomes friends as young boys.

Alfredo is someone who prefers to hang out with Olmo's social class then his own. Alfredo's grandfather kills himself and Olmo's grandfather dies of old age. Olmo joins the military and returns at the end of World War 1. A new helping hand is hired by Alfredo's father named Attila who later becomes a member of the Fascist party.

Alfredo goes off adventures with his new wife Ada and the Fascist regime's battles with the Socialist becomes worse. Alfredo and Olmo develops a love/hate relationship and Olmo exiles from his home town to avoid being caught by the blackcoats. The film then returns to the year of 1945. 1900(1976) finishes in 1976 with Alfredo and Olmo as grandfather figures.

1900(1976) does a good job in taking a narrative look at the first fifty years of the 20th Century. The film begins during the period of a new age. The film follows the early rise of the Socialist Party in Northern Italy. It describes the struggle between landowners and socialist supporters.

This movie also is good at showing the rise and fall of the landowning class. 1900(1976) contains a scene which describes how the Fascist Party came into being in Italy. The landowners are the ones who planted the seeds of fascism and helped it grow to almost all powerful proportions. The film begins with birth, progresses through life, and ends in death.

1900 is controvsial in its full uncut frame of 312minutes. There were many scenes deemed to be offensive that were cut from the motion picture. One such scene is the menage a trois with Alfredo, Neve(Stevania Casini), and Olmo. Another controvsial sequence is the rape and graphic murder/torture of a young boy at the hands of the fascist Attila.

The art direction is beautifully filmed with a historic touch of Northern Italy. The filmmakers presents Italy during the early to mid 20th Century as a country whose identity is always changing. The motion picture gives the viewer an idea of what it might have been like in Italy during the first half of the last Century. The actors give a realistic performance and behave like the people of that era.

1900(1976) is comparable to Bertolucci's award winning movie, The Last Emperor(1987). Both take a look at middle aged men and flashback to their childhood days. Both Alfredo and Pu Yi are Puppets of the system as they have no real authority to behold and are just figure heads. Finally, Alfredo and Pu Yi are part of a power structure that falls apart before they are able to establish themselves as strong and powerful leaders.

Bernardo Bertolucci gives another excellent directorial performance. Vittorio Storaro does a brilliant job as the director of photography. Gerald Depardieu gives one of his top performances as Olmo(this is when he was slender and before he became known for his olfish looks). Robert De Niro's performance as Alfredo is widely overlooked by his chilling portrayal of Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver(1976).

Bertolucci did back to back films with two of the greatest actors in film history(Marlon Brando{Last Tango in Paris}) and (Robert De Niro{1900}). Donald Sutherland is purely evil as the hatable Attila. The make up effects were done by the man who did the effects for Let Sleeping Corpse Lie(1974), and would later provide some of the most gory effects for most of Lucio Fulci's films during the late 1970's/early 1980's(Giannetto De Rossi). 1900(1976) is a perfect movie to view together with The Last Emperor(1987).

Despite many memorable scenes, overall far too long and unsatisfying

[rchrdshelt · 6/10 · 28 August 2006]

Having heard about this film as having a decent cast and its fairly good rating here on IMDb, I greatly anticipated seeing it despite its colossal running time. I am capable of sitting through long films and have done so with The Green Mile, Once Upon a Time in America, THe Godfather Trilogy and Titanic. However, 5 hours simply seemed too long. Having watched both Acts of the film (running about 2 1/2 hours each) separately to ensure I wouldn't get hasty, I still ended up being disappointed.

I won't get into the plot too deeply purely because that is not what the films problem is. Simplified, it is about fascism and socialism. The biggest problem is the film runs far too long. As mentioned before, I am able to sit and watch a film if it holds my attention and constantly keeps me engaged as those mentioned films did brilliantly. This film doesn't and in my opinion runs at least 2 hours too long. The problem is there are so many pointless scenes and subplots that are often forgotten and add virtually nothing to the story that they really could and should have been cut out. In particular, I found the scenes of the leads at a younger age outstayed their welcome and should have been greatly shortened. Many others throughout follow a similar trend. Another reason the film should have been shortened is that it really is telling a simple story that doesn't require such a huge length of time to tell it. In the final hour I was getting incredibly agitated and felt the story was deliberately dragging on for the sake of it. When the credits finally rolled I felt cheated and very unsatisfied.

Despite these heavy flaws, there are things that make the film slightly worth watching. First of all are the decent performances turned in by most of the cast. DeNiro, Deprardieu, Sutherland and most of the others are fine with Sutherland making his character an incredibly evil and unlikable person. DeNiro was the main actor who attracted me to this film and it seems to be a largely forgotten role of his. Although its not one of his best performances he really is brave and committed here as he features in two pornographic sequences that I can't imagine too many well-known actors are willing to engage in.

The best aspect of the film is the Vittorio Stanto's wonderful Cinematography that makes the most of the Italian countryside and many other wonderful landscapes. Ennio Morricone's score is fairly good also.

Several scenes work well, but unfortunately I was put off by the sheer amount of pointless ones that made the film as long as it was.

I would recommend seeing this film only for the performances and cinematography. I would also recommend finding a much shorter cut because I believe it may be much better if it was between 2 and 3 hours or even less.

Overall I give the film a generous 6/10

Not a Movie but a Transcendental Experience

[jayraskin1 · 10/10 · 12 July 2009]

It has been about 35 years since I first saw this movie. I thought it was a masterpiece then and watching it again, my opinion is the same. It is "Citizen Kane," "The Godfather,""Last Tango in Paris," Jules and Jim" and "La Dulce Vita" all rolled into one movie.

After a short prologue, the movie begins with the announcement that Giuseppe Verdi is dead. Verdi was the greatest opera composer of the 19th century. It is an important clue to the movie. The movie is really a non-singing opera about the first half of the 20th century.

All elements, writing, acting, cinematography, and music are superb. Its amazing seeing how young and beautiful Deniro, Depardieu and Dominique Sandra were back then. It is wonderful seeing Bert Lancaster and Sterling Haydon in one of their last works. Donald Sutherland is intense and terrifying.

Nobody can be considered a completely educated humanist or an artist without seeing this movie. It is far more than a movie, it is a poem and one of the greatest works of art in cinematic history.

Over-reaching epic with memorable vignettes.

[jckruize · 7/10 · 11 September 2002]

Gifted filmmaker Bernardo Bertolucci, along with his collaborators, probably bit off more than they could chew with this massive epic of politics, revolution, love and war, but it's nevertheless a fascinating entertainment for those with the constitution to sit through at least 4 hours (the original long version is 5 hours +!) of imperfect dubbing.

Robert DeNiro and Gerard Depardieu play, respectively, a rich landowner and a peasant, born on the same day of the new century. The story of their friendship takes them from bucolic idyll to the rise of Fascism, bloody war and its aftermath, and back again. Veterans Burt Lancaster and Sterling Hayden play their grandfathers, Dominique Sanda is the woman they both love, and Donald Sutherland inhabits the cartoonish character of Attila, their Fascist nemesis, with trademark fish-eyed malice and depravity.

Gorgeous cinematography by Vittorio Storaro and a gentle, evocative score by Ennio Morricone lend this disjointed story more appeal and dramatic clarity than it might otherwise merit. If the simplistic politics at the end leaves you cold, there will have hopefully been enough vivid and touching scenes along the way to make it worthwhile.

Watching 1900 is like walking through Italy...

[yossarian100 · 10/10 · 5 February 2003]

Watching 1900 is like walking through Italy, even more so because of the movie's length. However, this is one beautiful film with wonderful performances and great cinematography. The story is both complex and rich with detail and the characters are superbly drawn. 1900 is one of the director's finest works, more symphonic in nature than most films, and deserves a wider audience. Movie buffs will enjoy seeing some rather unique performances by Robert De Niro, Sterling Hayden, and Burt Lancaster.

Bernardo, Say Mini-Series

[bkoganbing · 7/10 · 1 September 2008]

Novecento is the Gone With The Wind of Italian cinema with enough American stars and one French one to make sure of its international market. It has the epic feel of Gone With The Wind, you can also compare it to any number of films based on Edna Ferber novels. It begins at the beginning of the 20th century in Northern Italy with the birth of two boys on the same day. One is the grandson of the local Padrone, Burt Lancaster who grows up to be Robert DeNiro. The second is the illegitimate grandson of the head man among the workers on Lancaster's estate, Sterling Hayden and the boy grows up to be Gerard Depardieu. This had to be Northern Italy or no one would have believed Gerard's baby blues in Sicily or Calabria.

Despite the difference in class which Americans have trouble comprehending, but as Marlon Brando said in The Young Lions mean a great deal in Europe, the boys grow up to be friends. But it's not only politics that pushes them apart, it's the love of Dominique Sanda. She marries DeNiro, but he can't believe she's not get a yen for Depardieu.

Like Gone With The Wind with the Civil War and Reconstruction, Novecento is set in the period from 1900 to 1945 which were tumultuous years for Italy. Until 1870 Italy was a geographical expression not a country, until the Pope surrendered sovereignty of the Papal States. Like Germany which also united at the same time it now wanted to be recognized as a leading power, Italy even got into the colonial game in Africa. Unlike every other European power it met defeat at Adowa when trying to takeover Ethiopia. That too had a major impact on the Italian psyche, something Bernard Bertolucci curiously enough did not mention.

He concentrated on the age old grievances of peasants against the landlords and the internal problems it was bringing Italy. Abusive landlords and the peasants they controlled, a feudal system that was badly out of date in the industrial age which came to Italy, a bit late, but there in time to throw a lot of peasants off the land and make socialists and communists of them. The gentry, the growing middle class, the church responded in kind with its own counterrevolution, Fascism.

In fact the film's villain is Donald Sutherland as a Fascist overseer that DeNiro hires and who basically takes over running the estate and politics of the locality. This is one of Sutherland's best screen performances, he will chill you to the bone with his cruelty and arrogance. He's essentially a thug who's been given political power.

Running a close second is Laura Betti as DeNiro's sister who marries Sutherland and becomes a true believer in the Fascist cause. At least she sees the peasant discontent and believes Fascism will protect her privileged position.

The original running time of this epic is over five hours and really should have been a mini-series. Maybe in that format we'll see the director's cut some day. It's still a powerful piece of film telling the epic story of a country for almost half a century.

Some Great Scenes, But Tons of Muddled Themes

[truemythmedia · 4/10 · 21 January 2020]

This movie is five hours and seventeen minutes long, so, naturally, this movie is a lot of things: there are scenes that are absolutely amazing, scenes that are ludicrous, scenes that are needlessly graphic, and scenes that are relatively touching, but in the end, I couldn't have told you what Bertolucci was trying to say with this incredibly lengthy piece; he touches on so many themes that, in the end, they all get lost in the shuffle, and he ends up just screaming incoherently at you about times passed. There are a few absolutely brilliant sequences in this movie, but that's not enough for me to wholeheartedly recommend it to anyone who isn't a hardcore cinephile; if you are a huge cinephile, there are some moments that are worth watching. Though this film is five hours and seventeen minutes long, I never really felt bored (granted it is split up into two relatively equal parts and I took a break to walk my dog in between). Bertolucci is a good director, this film is just a bit too much of, well, everything to say much of anything at all. I know there are many edits of this film somewhere (IMDb has four cuts listed, I watched the longest one), so if you can find a shorter cut, you might have more luck with this film than I.

The 20th Century in Five Hours

[Eumenides_0 · 9/10 · 23 September 2010]

Bernardo Bertolucci's Novecento has five hours and fifteen minutes and before we know it this historical epic ends and we're left craving for more. That's the ultimate grace of Bertolucci's masterpiece: one never feels the movie's length; it flows and involves us so hypnotically in its story that we lose sense of time. The story is so finely constructed, the actors so good, the cinematography so breath-taking, the music so exciting, that one curses the unavoidable moment when the credits roll down the screen.

Released in 1976, Novecento is, as the title says it, a story of Italy in the 20th century, from its beginning to the year of its release. Known in the USA as 1900, I chose the Italian title because this one misleading. The action starts the year Italian composer Verdi dies, so it's actually 1901 (Bertolucci knows the Gregorian calendar unlike the majority who believe in pop culture). Two children are born, Alfredo and Olmo, the first the heir of the Berlinghieri estate and fortune, the second the bastard offspring of Alfredo's father and a peasant woman from the Dalco clan. They grow together and their lives, although going in different ways many times, continue to intertwine throughout the decades, from the aftermath of WWI to the rise of Fascism in Italy, to the liberation of Italy in 1945; they're always together until their old age.

Novecento is effectively about the organisation of the labour rights movement in Italy and its clashes with Fascism. Olmo (Gérard Depardieu), returned from the WWI, sees communism as a way of uniting the peasants in the struggle for better wages and more rights and end the hunger and humiliations perpetuated by the padrones, the bosses.

Parallel to the labour rights movement's organisation is the rise of fascism, embodied by Attila Mellanchini (Donald Sutherland), the Berlinghieri forearm who organizes the local Black Shirts. In the middle of this struggle is Alfredo (Robert DeNiro), a bon vivant who only seeks pleasure and finds love in Ada (Dominique Sanda), an avant-garde woman who fascinates him with her sense of modernity. Unwilling kept away from the war thanks to his father's money, Alfredo sees Olmo's return as good news until politics and his inevitable fate of becoming the new padrone get in the way, not to mention his inability to stand up to Attila.

The film is shot in four sections, each one employing a different color palette, to represent each station of the year. So the first part, Olmo and Alfredo's birth and childhood, is bathed in bright summer colors; the WWI's aftermath is filmed with autumnal browns. The Fascist reign is grey and drenched in winter rains, and only Italy's liberation gives the movie its bright early colors with the coming of springtime. This is one of the greatest achievements of Vittorio Storaro, a director of cinematography who never ceases to amaze me. He's lent his talent to many good movies over his legendary career (Apocalypse Now, The Conformist, The Bird with the Crystal Plumage, Reds), but I've never loved the look of one of his movies so much except perhaps in an earlier, much neglected Bertolucci movie called The Spider's Stratagem. Each shot could be a painting.

The actors are also excellent here, especially the veterans Burt Lancaster (who plays Alfredo's grandfather, also named Alfredo) and Sterling Hayden, who plays Leo, the patriarch of the Dalco family. They're in the movie for about an hour, but their performances are amazing enough to leave an impression, especially Hayden's.

As much as this movie is about fascism and communism, it's also about class differences and class clashes, and this is shown in the three Berlinghieri generations. Grandfather Alfredo and Leo have a relationship based on respect and co-dependence. His son Giovanni brings technology and consequently unemployment to his lands as well as the violent Attila to keep the workers in order, and also ends many of the ancestral rights the workers had. His despotic rule marks the beginning of the peasants' consciousness that change is necessary. Giovanni's brother, Ottavio, is his opposite, preferring to travel and enjoy life, much like his nephew. Finally Alfredo simply doesn't care, pursuing self-gratification and allowing Attila to gain power and impose a reign of terror in his lands, with the help of Alfredo's cousin, Regina (Laura Betti).

Donald Sutherland has always had a gift for playing villains but he set a bar too high even for himself to surpass when he played Attila, the sadistic Black Shirt who crushes kittens to make philosophical points about communism, molests children and kills helpless old people. Fans of Sutherland who wish to see him at his darkest and most intimidating mustn't miss this film.

DeNiro, Sanda, Betti and Depardieu are also very good, with Depardieu outshining DeNiro only because he has a more demanding and visible role. Sanda is also good, even if her role is to be basically annoying most of the time. Betti makes a great demonic pair with Sutherland. DeNiro, today the most famous of the actors who worked in this film, delivers one of his typically good performances, but he doesn't reinvent himself like in Taxi Driver or Raging Bull. This is Depardieu's film.

Also worthy of note is Ennio Morricone's score, containing many of his most uplifting compositions. Bertolucci made this film to inflame hearts and rouse consciousnesses, to make viewers leave the cinemas anxious to change society and make the world a better, fairer place, so Morricone's music works perfectly with the images. And even if Bertolucci's goal ultimately failed, the movie is so well crafted its grandiose finale should leave viewers pretty upbeat and hopeful.

No review of Novecento can do the movie justice. It's a work of art, it must be watched.

Flawed, yet great

[zetes · 9/10 · 19 July 2003]

An epic about Italian political history of the first half of the 20th Century, detailing the lives of two men born on the same day. Olmo (played by Gerard Depardieu as an adult) is the bastard child of peasants and is raised to be a socialist. Alfredo (Robert De Niro) is the son of a wealthy family and will someday become lord and master of all the peasants on his land. He's a pleasant man, not cruel like his father, but he won't go out of his way to help those below him in status (including Olmo, who is his closest friend and companion). It's a huge film, and very sloppy. I would guess it would be very sloppy even in its original version (the English language version is an hour shorter at least). My biggest problem with the film is the character of Olmo. As a child (played by Roberto Maccanti), he exhibits daring and independence. As an adult, he seems like a sponge and he kind of drops out of the last third of the picture, it seemed to me. My interest dropped in the character because, first, the character does not seem to follow from childhood to adulthood, and, second, Depardieu gives a dull performance. He's handsome, but in the kind of way that makes you forget that he even exists. Maccanti, as young Olmo, leaves a much bigger impression. My second biggest problem with the film is the treatment of politics. It's no secret where Bertolucci's sympathy lies, with the communists. That's fine by me, and it's good that he has Alfredo not as the villain but as a man who turns his back and continues to live his life as a wealthy man. But there are Fascists in the film, and they are lead by Donald Sutherland. Sutherland is so evil in this film it becomes amusing. He'll do anything to get what he wants, including killing old women, children, and he even headbutts a cat! I have no real problem with showing the Italian Fascists as evil, but this is cartoonishly evil. Sutherland's character's name: Attila. No sh*t! On the other hand, I cannot help but admit that Donald Sutherland has all the most memorable scenes in the film. He may be more or less one dimensional, but I'll never forget his wicked grin, and I'll never forget the splattered blood on his forehead from that cat! Robert De Niro does a lot with his role, which is the most complex in the film, probably. His performance here matches his best work. Alfredo's wife is played by Dominique Sanda. She also gives an exceptional performance, although her character could have been (and might have been, in the full version) better developed. While I have some major problems with the overall substance of the film, there's no doubt there's a genius at work here. Several, actually. Bertolucci's direction is as good as it ever was, and his ambition seems, at least for a while, peerless. He may have had several better films, but this is as much a peak in his direction as Last Tango in Paris or The Conformist. Helping him achieve greatness far beyond what should have resulted are Vittorio Storaro, providing gorgeous, sweeping photography, and Ennio Moricone, ever the trooper with another exceptional musical score. 1900, despite heavy flaws, is indeed a great film.

Bertolucci's most ambitious production, if not perfect then with the aspirations of great art

[Quinoa1984 · 9/10 · 6 June 2008]

Here it is, finally after over thirty years of wait, 1900 (Novecento) is out on DVD for those who never got to see the full uncut version (which were most Americans, particularly those who didn't see it on VHS years ago), and it's happy to report that the picture comes in a small variety of language/subtitle options. While one wouldn't want this to be simply a report on the condition of the DVD- albeit there's an interesting interview with Bernardo Bertolucci on the 2nd disc- it would be important to note how one might feel about switching back and forth and/or committing to watching the picture in a particular language. This isn't a Leone western, after all, where it's not too horrible to watch it in simple English all the way through for its crucial American stars. There's American actors, as well as a few others, who speak English, and then a host of hundreds of extras and supporting players speaking the native tongue. In short advice, stick mostly with English (it is people like De Niro, Sutherland, Depardieu and Lancaster here after all), but for those little moments like with the children in the first quarter, try some of the Italian portions for realism sake.

Because this is, indeed, such an ambitious work, such a passion project, such a work by a director running strong off the steam of his previous successes (The Conformist, Last Tango in Paris), a work including people from all over Europe and the States, and according to the director with the original- and later admitted naive- intention of the picture being a "bridge" between the US and Russia, that it's easy to say it is a big waste. It is a huge film, covering a story that includes multiple human dimensions, character arcs, and a political canvas that is explicitly Marxist at the least in iconography if not in message. It got lauded in the US even at its *abbreviated* four hour running time, and has only recently been rediscovered. But then again it will either seem a success artistically or a mess, or maybe both depending on how much a viewer can take of Bertolucci's pirouetting camera movements and the occasional jarring scene transition.

It covers, essentially, a tale of friendship, which to me is a strength in conventional wisdom: the two sides of the coin on a farm in the first half of the 20th century, as Alfredo (as an adult De Niro) and Olmo (as an adult Depardieu) become close friends after sharing the same birthday, but lead different paths as the former is the inheritor of the land turned quasi fascist and the latter is a worker-cum-socialist. Bertolucci enriches the saga with relationships with women, one severed with Olmo and the other a very jagged tale with Dominique Sanda as moody Ada, and with a vicious villain with the ultimate fascist Attilla (get it?) played by Sutherland. For all of the pieces of the story that bulk up the picture to its current length, for the most part all of the sections are important in building up who our two 'sides' are, and how certain personal events (i.e. Lancaster and Haydens' respective deaths, the theft of a gun, the pressures with violence and their unspoken destinies) shape them as much if not more than the state of politics.

It's so rich and alive and engrossing a story, with moments that intrigue and question and actually shock (a certain scene with a cat and Sutherland had me cringe, and another with a boy had my mouth drop), that it's a shame to report it's not the pinnacle of Bertolucci's career. It is probably too long, by how much I can't definitively say; it isn't acted all around greatly (Sanda, for example, has no place being among the likes of De Niro and Sutherland and Depardieu who all deliver real top shelf work here, particularly De Niro as his mid-point between Corleone and Bickle); and as mentioned some scenes transition a little suddenly, like with a key turning point scene at a wedding that goes on to a pig killing some undetermined time later.

And yet all of these flaws are somewhat minuscule in the grandiosity of the film as a whole. It's full of tremendous cinematography by given virtuoso Vittorio Storaro, it's got that classic score by Ennio Morricone that reminds us he didn't just score gun fights, and its so frank in how it expresses its mix of sex, violence and politics that it blends the line between melodrama and realism to an unbelievable T. There's even a kind of double (or even triple) climax that goes from invigorating to bittersweet and finally really, really strange. It's ultimately the work of a filmmaker who actually used momentary carte blanche to his advantage and carved out his own piece of history. Whether or not it connected with everyone is another matter. Grade: A

Bertolucci's Communist Manifesto

[dromasca · 8/10 · 16 April 2020]

'1900' is a historical film that has a history of its own, one that probably hasn't ended yet. The perception of critics and the public about this film seems to have changed several times already during its hectic launch in 1976. Made four years after the success but also after the scandals sparked by 'Last Tango in Paris', the film has benefited from generous funding and full creative freedom for director Bernardo Bertolucci. How did he use the freedom and the funds he had at his disposal? Making a monumental film. Monumental in terms of duration, which made it non-screenable in cinema halls in its full format over five hours. Monumental with a distribution gathering on screen some of the great international movie stars of the 70's. Monumental also in style and as a cinematic genre - a 45-year historical fresco of the history of Italy, between the day of Verdi's death in 1900 and the day of Mussolini's death in 1945. Those who study historical monuments know well that even the most beautiful and the more impressive are in most cases programmatic, insist on transmitting a political or patriotic message or both, and are not a good source for discovering and presenting historical truth. This is what happens with '1900' which is a spectacular film, with many memorable scenes, with wonderful actors in generous roles, but which is deeply distorted by a much too explicit political message, reflecting the director's political ideas in an almost propagandist style.

I viewed the full version of the film, which is presented today at festivals or cinematheques in two series, each over two and a half hours. This is different of what most viewers saw on screen in the 1970s - shortened versions (there were several) - perhaps more accessible for the endurance of the viewers, but also losing much of the epic construction of the film, which has its purpose. It is the story of two boys born on the same day of the first year of the 20th century. Alfred Berlinghieri (who will grow to be Robert De Niro) is the offspring of a big land owners family in an agricultural area of Italy, whose patriarch is his grandfather (Burt Lancaster, as descending from 'The Leopard' in the role he had played 13 years ago). Olmo Dalco (who will grow up to be Gérard Depardieu) is born into the family of peasants deprived of any property and rights, who work on the estate under semi-slavery conditions. The conflicts of the grandparents are transmitted from generation to generation until the two boys born under the same sign and separated by a social abyss. The relationship between them, marked by friendship, rivalry and class struggle, will develop throughout Italy's troubled history, which includes two world wars, the rise and fall of fascism, and the popular revenge that followed.

From an artistic perspective, '1900' has many sublime moments, it can be said that it is almost a masterpiece. First of all the acting performances: De Niro who was acting here just after 'The Godfather: Part II' and 'Taxi Driver' lends to his character all the parasitic insecurity and the degenerate vulnerability of the descendant of a social class that is fighting oblivion. Gérard Depardieu creates here, I believe, his first big role, full of strength and passion. Exceptional is also Donald Sutherland, an actor who has never hesitated to take on negative composition roles, here being the fascist Attila Mellanchini, an exemplary villain. It adds much authenticity to the use of amateur extras, the inhabitants of the Italian region where the story takes place. The cinematography includes many memorable takes, in some cases serving as backdrops for scenes carefully constructed and choreographed, in the good style of Italian operas, even including songs and dances. What works well in operas on stage, however, is not necessarily suitable for a cinematic historical fresco. The excess of propaganda rhetoric finally harms the message and sounds strident and unconvincing today. There are far too many revolutionary speeches in '1900' of the kind that were more suited to Soviet films of the 1930s or scenes that touch the ridicule such as the one in which a simple peasant hero chooses death for the pleasure of whistling a revolutionary song in the nose of the fascists. The Marxist Bertolucci chose to present an explicit revolutionary vision, which was more in line with the propaganda on the other side of the Iron Curtain in those years, but as far as I know his film was not successful there or not even distributed in many Communist countries because of its naturalistic approach soaked with too much nudity and violence for the puritanistic communist censors. Only today, in perspective, from the historical distance created by time, we can enjoy the many cinematic delights of '1900'.

"I caught the frogs - you ate them!"

[rhinocerosfive-1 · 7/10 · 5 July 2008]

A four-season saga of impotent gentry, lusty communists, perverse fascists, and dead animals, at 315 minutes NOVECENTO is not exactly bloated, but not quite interesting enough to justify its immense running time. There is simply not enough event to fill five hours. It's Bertolucci's HEAVEN'S GATE: the self-indulgent monster a director gets away with once in his career, just after a stunning success like Cimino's DEER HUNTER, or in this case LAST TANGO. But every third scene is just beautiful - intensely acted, lusciously filmed, passionately directed.

What's interesting is that this simplified vision of Italian history, as portrayed in 50 years of exploitation, dissipation and failed revolution on a country estate, doesn't look or feel particularly Italian. This isn't because it's populated by French and American leads - Sterling Hayden, for instance, is utterly convincing as a Bolognese peasant. And it's not the direction per se, as there are flashes of neorealism and occasional moments of genuine Roman hysteria here, including most of the last hour. But its universal themes, methodical pace and visual style make this movie less an Italian drama than a generically European soap opera. As paean to the land it is Dutch, lit like a Vermeer and composed like a Rembrandt; as political polemic it's Russian, with Gerard Depardieu declaiming Marxism into the camera as if he's standing in front of the Winter Palace; as romance it's French, if anything, though Flaubert's disillusioned housewives were never this bland.

There are many singularities about NOVECENTO. It's certainly the only picture to feature the penises of not merely Depardieu and Robert De Niro but Sterling Hayden; it's probably the last movie to represent cocaine as a harmless diversion; I hope it's the sole film to feature a horse anus massaged until it deposits a load into someone's hands. Most impressively, to my knowledge it's the single movie to capture the whole breadth of Donald Sutherland's talent. He is charming, funny, drunken, sadistic, swaggering, boorish, pathetic, scary, and obsequious. It is a rare film role, and an even rarer supporting turn, that allows an actor so much room; it is an uncommon actor indeed who can fill it.

The same cannot be said of Depardieu's character, who unfortunately has only one face to make in the whole thing, nor De Niro's work, which is as unconvincing here as he was electrifying the same year in TAXI DRIVER. This performance ranks with his most uninspired late 90s shtick. Dominique Sanda, Laura Betti and Alida Valli are outrageously good in their limited roles, as are Hayden, Lancaster and a variety of Italian nationals. But the script wholly degenerates as the film wears on, taking an unhappy turn from pastoral eloquence to symbolist rhetoric. By the end nobody's got anything worth doing except Sutherland, and then he's dead and we've got twenty more minutes of tired verite speechifying.

But it looks absolutely great all the way through. Though his obvious influences are so various and often so pretty, Vittorio Storaro's most striking images here are of things dead and dying: a hat crowned with gigged, squirming frogs; shot ducks twisting and drowning in a canal; a fleeing fascist impaled by farm implements. Not to mention the butchered hogs and raped women and children.

Masterpiece

[JasparLamarCrabb · 10/10 · 31 January 2009]

To call it merely monumental would be an understatement. Bernardo Bertolucci's massive film is a masterpiece of movie-making. Richer even than his previous politically charged THE CONFORMIST. 1900 centers on the parallel lives of the wealthy bourgeois Alfredo (Robert DeNiro) and the peasant Olmo (Gerard Depardieu). They're the best of enemies growing up during the early part of the twentieth century. They share their dreams, their fears and even their women. Alfredo grows into his lifestyle quite nicely while Olmo becomes a revolutionary fighting the Fascists (embodied by cruel farm foreman Donald Sutherland as the aptly named Attila). It's brutal, horrifying, tragic and extremely well made with breathtaking cinematography by Vittorio Storaro and a jarring, sometimes perverse score by Ennio Morricone. There are scenes in this film that are very unsettling. DeNiro is excellent, capturing the passive, disengaged wealthy class that allowed Mussolini and his blackshirts to run amok. Better still is Depardieu, offering up the most passionate rebel on screen since Spartacus!

The large supporting cast include Dominque Sanda, Stefania Casini, Alida Valli and, as Olmo's fire breathing grandfather, Sterling Hayden. Burt Lancaster plays the tragic (very tragic) patriarch of Alfredo's wealthy family. His cameo is truly memorable. Be wary of cut versions of the film...there are many out there. The 315 minute version is surely one of the best films to ever come out of Italy.

Unforgettable - Despite Flaws

[Crap_Connoisseur · 5 April 2006]

1900 is not Bertolucci's best film. That honour would go to his one true masterpiece, "Il Conformista". It is, however, his last great film before a 1980s slide into movie mediocrity that only recently showed signs of coming to a halt with "The Dreamers". 1900 encapsulates all that was great about Bertolucci - confronting themes, stunning visuals, copious nudity and lashings of gratuitous violence. Unfortunately, 1900 also contains some of the rot that would later stain his output to an increasingly large extent.

Despite the colossal five and a half hour running time, 1900 is, at heart, a rather simple tale of friendship between Alfredo, born into nobility, and Olmo, a peasant. This friendship is set against the political landscape of early 20th century Italy, with the rise and fall of fascism and the growing influence of socialism. 1900 succeeds brilliantly when examining the central relationship between Alfredo and Olmo, and their vastly different experiences with fascism. It is far less successful at conveying the context of events, wallowing happily in stereotypes and historical inaccuracies. Bertolucci has a message and he is intent on relentlessly beating the viewer over the head with it.

The clumsy handling of historical events is not the only problem with 1900. Like many of his later films, Bertolucci strongly favours style over substance. Every effort has been made to turn the film into a visual feast, yet considerably less effort has gone into the film's plot, character development and dialogue. Characters haphazardly appear and disappear, there are various pointless subplots which detract from the film's momentum and the minor characters are such caricatures that 1900 sometimes feels more like an incredibly elaborate soap opera (with lots of animal violence and frontal nudity) than the masterpiece it is held out to be.

Despite these many flaws, 1900 somehow manages to hold your attention over the most of the running time and offers some of the most arresting and unforgettable images captured on film. 1900 benefits immeasurably from Bertolucci's inspired direction, which is effortlessly beautiful and fluid. The performances are similarly magnificent. Gerard Depardieu is especially fine as Olmo. He is engaging and utterly convincing. Robert De Niro reminds you how good an actor he used to be in the role of Alfredo. While the beautiful Dominique Sanda almost steals the show as Ada, the only three dimensional female character in the film. I particularly love the scene where she pretends to be blind at a dance. Donald Sutherland, never the most subtle of actors, is so over the top as the evil Attila that it almost defies belief. This degree of overacting would shock Christopher Walken. Nevertheless, there is something mesmerising about his creepy performance and his character is responsible for some of the film's most shocking images.

1900 is still a controversial film by today's standards. The penis fondling depicted in the infamous threesome scene may pale in comparison to the rampant sexual activity contained in films like "Nine Songs" and "Intimacy", but the shock value of the child murder and animal cruelty is undiminished. I really hope that was a "stunt kitten". I also can't say I've seen too many recent films which show an old man explicitly rubbing a horse's anus to stimulate defecation. Bertolucci's talent is such that these confronting images are captured with the same sense of poetry as those which are intrinsically beautiful.

1900 is a film that demands your attention. It may not be able to keep it over the full five and a half hours, but it comes very close. Though occasionally frustrating and uneven, 1900 is a film that is hard to ignore and even harder to forget.

1900 (Novecento)

[jboothmillard · 7/10 · 18 June 2011]

I knew that this was listed in the book 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die, I didn't realise however it was going to be so long, so I watched it as soon as I could so not to risk dozing off, from director Bernardo Bertolucci (Little Buddha, Stealing Beauty). Basically this film follows the life of two men born in the same year, 1900, the beginning of the 20th Century, in Italy, and sees their life going through the years up to 1945. Olmo Dalcò (Gérard Depardieu) was born a bastard of peasant stock with his grandfather Leo (The Asphalt Jungle's Sterling Hayden), Alfredo Berlinghieri (Robert De Niro) was born in a family of landowners with abusive but populist grandfather, also named Alfredo (Burt Lancaster). Despite the social differences, Olmo and Alfredo become childhood friends, Olmo growing to enlist for the army in World War I, Alfredo learning about the landowning business, and their friendship continues when brought together again. Fascism is becoming rife in many people, including sadistic hired foreman Attila Mellanchini (Donald Sutherland), who tortures and kills animals and people, but don't worry, he gets what he deserves eventually. The 1920's begin, and both the men get married, Alfredo to gorgeous Ada Fiastri Paulhan (Dominique Sanda) who develops alcoholism, and Olmo to Anita (Anna Henkel) who dies during childbirth. Of course World War II begins as the 1940's come along, and the two friends in the older age seem to have parted their ways, and brought back together they do not see eye to eye, and in the end Olmo witnesses Alfredo killing himself. Also starring Stefania Sandrelli as Anita Foschi, Alida Valli as Signora Pioppi and Laura Betti as Regina. Both De Niro and Depardieu give credible leading performances, Sutherland is extraordinary as the evil character, and Lancaster gets his time too, there are certainly some eye catching moments and memorable scenes, despite it being five hours and seventeen minutes long, it is I suppose worth it, a most watchable epic period drama. Very good!

An absolute must see.

[danspaceman · 10/10 · 9 January 2011]

This masterpiece of cinematic brilliance is the reason films get made. Don't let the fact that it is 5 hours long daunt you - you won't feel the time. You will instead be completely absorbed in an epic story that, despite its rather simple premise of following the lives of two men, is really like watching a novel. I can't really describe the film any other way than that - it is a novel.

There are some scenes that are hard to watch, especially in this day and age of political correctness and "you can't do that on television" attitude, but set your 21st century mind aside. This film shows life in its rawest form. Brutal at times, hilarious at others, but altogether real.

This film defines the talents of so many household names. It has become like an old friend - like that book you read every year or two. By the end, you will find yourself utterly spent and it will stay with you forever.

Novecento is one of those films you absolutely, positively must see before you die.

An Epic of Excess

[dmgrundy · 6/10 · 26 October 2020]

I've seen it said ironically that Bertolucci's analyst should really be credited as a co-director for most of his films: their working-through-or simply display-of contradictory and often problematic 'theses' (or perhaps simply feelings) on queer sexuality, masculinity, femininity, love and violence is at once a subject that entwines with narrative unfolding and a kind of immanent texture whose import it seems no one can quite fully grasp. But what does this mean when the film is ostensibly an attempt to depict the history of class struggle in Italy during the first years of the 20th century on a broad canvas? The film's sexual politics seem at once central to its 'argument' about fascism and class struggle-if not in as programmatic a fashion as 'Il Conformista'-and insufficiently connected. In the film's final third, we shift from domestic drama to collective history and to the debates on liberation day as to whether or not Communist partisans should hand over their weapons, bringing the film into the centre of current political debate on the junction faced in the Italian political landscape at the time of the film's making. And then a strange coda, returning to the central relation between the padrone (Robert De Niro) and the peasant (Gérard Depardieu) and, at the same time, a seeming shift into broader allegorical territory, as the aged De Niro/Depardieu pair stagger along by the train tracks, replaying their love/hate relationship from childhood. In the allegorical schema, the scene can be read in a fairly obvious way: because the Communist Party insisted that partisans disarm instead of expropriating landowners, the apparently 'eternal' love/hate conflict and parasitic relationship between padrone and peasant continues ("the padrone is alive"). That's to say, that conflict-which has structured much of the film-has been socially produced, and its continuance, even in the apparently modernised post-war world, is a kind of regression (literally, the world of boys fighting). But so much libidinal investment is placed in that relationship-the life-long romance of the son of a peasant and the son of a padrone-that it seems to exceed such analytical territory. ("Hole in the pocket socialism" indeed...) Likewise, the structural mirroring and doubling-the padrone and the peasant patriarchs (Alfredo/Burt Lancaster and Leo/Sterling Hayden), their sons (Alfredo/Robert De Niro and Olmo/Gérard Depardieu), the socialist lover and the upper-crust bohemian lover (Anita/Stefania Sandrelli and Ada/Dominique Sanda)-establishes a structure of equivalence that emphasizes a kind of inter-class reciprocity and dependence as much as class war, made all the more murky by the libidinal investments. Perhaps this is a 'way in' for the audience-and the critical stratum of the international bourgeoisie; perhaps Bertolucci was more comfortable filming the decadence of the upper classes and bourgeoisie/petit bourgeoisie than the peasants, who come across as noble yet wooden stereotypes. The central questions, half-a-century on, remain hard to answer: what is this film trying to say, and who's it for? It remains visually sumptuous, technically superb in its execution, ambitious and sometimes moving, sprawling and episodic, intensely memorable, perplexing, confusing, excessive in every way.

Two Kids Are Born, Sutherland's a Freak, Woman Pretends To Be Blind, Kid Gets Molested, Horse Manure Is Thrown, Two Old Men Fight In the Road, The End.

[CalvinValjean · 5/10 · 23 June 2008]

I have no problem with lengthy movies, and many of my favorites are over three hours. However, the longer a movie is, the more it risks losing its focus, and that's the problem with 1900. It is not boring, but it goes and on, jumping between characters, ideas, etc, and about halfway through you realize: "This narrative isn't really going anywhere. It's just unfolding in random directions." Yes, I know that the "point" of the story is to show the rise of Fascism and Socialism in Italy, and I've heard people say that you appreciate the movie more if you are Italian. I'm not, though I do love history, and politically am a Socialist, so I should sympathize with this movie, though it provides no real history lesson other than "The only reason for the rise of Fascism was Donald Sutherland's sadism and the only reason for rise of Socialism was that landowners were very mean." Furthermore, the movie is shot in the "spaghetti western" style: an Italian production with English speaking lead roles. This means that most of the supporting characters are dubbed into English, but MAN, is it some blatant dubbing that has a jarring effect! Thanks to DVDs, I can switch over to the Italian audio track, but then I'll have to put up with DeNiro and Lancaster being dubbed. Ugh! I don't get why this style of film-making became popular, because you have to put up with awful dubbing either way.

The movie begins with a lengthy childhood sequence that could have been reduced to 15 minutes without hurting the story much. Bertolucci is interested in establishing settings and characterizations, but doesn't know what to do after creating them. We see a worker protest by cutting off his ear. It's a visually arresting scene, but it goes nowhere. It was nice to see character actor Sterling Hayden play a memorable role, but it's a superfluous character, who does nothing except exist as an obvious parallel to Burt Lancaster's character. Now you might say: "Oh, you're nitpicking. Every movie to some extent has superfluous characters." Yes, but the longer the movie is, the more obvious it becomes that they are superfluous. But my biggest gripe with the childhood sequence is that it focuses on two kids with dubbed voices that are OBVIOUSLY not their own, and that speak out of sync with their mouth movements.

The rest of the first half of the film continues with various sequences and/or character vignettes that are often visually striking or get attention, but are not really cohesive. We get a scene with an epileptic prostitute, and a woman pretending to be blind. There's no real reason for either except that they are eccentric sequences. What exactly is wrong with Ada and why does she engage in what is borderline psychotic behavior when we first meet her? No reason is given.

The second half, however, becomes dominated by the two villains, and they are two of the HAMMIEST villains I've ever seen in a movie. It isn't enough that Sutherland's character is a Fascist; he must also be a sadistic, demented, constantly sneering pedophile who is so obviously mentally unbalanced that he would never get a job in real life. His lover (though these characters are portrayed so cartoon-ishly evil that it's tough to imagine them being capable of love) is Regina, who constantly cackles like a witch. And in case it's still not clear that she's evil, she is sexually deviant as well, and harbors feelings for her cousin, who in one scene appears to be pleasuring her in the woods (why he is participating in this scene is not really explored). These two characters go from scene to scene, killing a kid here, killing an old lady there, no real point, just to show that Fascism is bad. There is a fun scene where Attila is pelted with manure, though it goes on too long (and thank you, Bertolucci, for that random closeup of a horse's rectum! I sure needed to see that). At the movie's climax, these two are chased in a witch hunt. Bertolucci goes out of his way to humiliate and degrade his villains as much as he can, literally dragging them through the mud, and while this scene is somewhat satisfying, its impact is diminished by how long it goes on, just like countless previous scenes in 1900.

Well, this review is getting long (but what can you expect from a movie that tries to cover too much?) so I will sum it up: it would be a much better movie if it focused more on DeNiro and Depardieu's characters and their friendship, and lost a lot of the excess baggage. Sometimes you'll get obvious plot devices (a drifter randomly showing up to confess to a crime he didn't do, just so that Depardieu can get off the hook), at times there is no plot, and most of the time you'll find yourself thinking: "This scene would be so much more effective if it wasn't bogged down by so much excess."

Here is a YouTube video I made making fun of the movie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_I4BxQ5ydMM

Deeply flawed, but also quite amazing

[runamokprods · 9/10 · 10 July 2012]

So flawed that I almost feel weird giving it this high a rating. But two viewings of this somewhat bloated 5 hour plus film left me feeling the same way; The film is over-simplistic in its characters and politics, badly dubbed (with actors from all over speaking their own language, so whatever soundtrack you pick there are important characters who sound like something out of 'What's Up Tiger Lily'), and even the English spoken by DeNiro seems post- recorded, making for an oddly stiff sounding performance.

Yet for all these complaints it is somehow a near-great film. There are so many moments; images, incidents that are indelible, and in the end there's such a real emotional punch to this overview of the history of Italy from 1900 to 1945 as seem through the lives of a few people in a small town that it overcomes many of the flaws.

I couldn't defend the film from anyone who wanted to tear it down – e.g. the simple-minded jingoistic endless competition between fascism and communism as if those were the only two options in the world, with both sides reduced to cartoon like figures of evil and good.

But it's strengths are strong enough that I'd urge people to judge for themselves. You may find, like me, that all the flaws don't matter to you when a film has so many unforgettable moments. (although I suspect some may want to hunt down and kill me for the recommendation).