La Terra Trema (Luchino Visconti, 1948)

Well, after having seen quite a few neorealist films within quite a short time, I’m not surprised that I was intuitively expecting a sad/more natural non-resolved ending. And that is what I got.

La Terra Trema (The Earth Trembles) centres on the Valestro family in Sicily, where Antonio, a fisherman sick of working for someone else, revolts against the wholesalers, prompting his family to mortgage the house in order to buy oars, nets, etc. However, after what first seems a prosperous night catching barrels of anchovies, Antonio and his brother and some of the other family members go to sea in a storm and come back with a damaged boat, having lost everything. Thus, the spiral of misery ensues, as the older brother leaves (to try and get a job somewhere else), the grandfather goes to hospital and the family begins to be shunned by the others in the village. 

It’s a film about pride and your place in the world. Antonio wanted to set an example and although that is admirable, after he loses everything he isn’t willing to swallow his pride and return to the same job working under the very same people he revolted against − until the end that is. The film ends with Antonio and his two younger brother going out with the crew on a boat − no real conclusion but reflecting how life really is − full of ups and downs and cycles, not always happy endings. Some of the characters in the film, including Antonio and his sister, talk about marriage and we can see how in those times, in different cultures, love was not enough to marry. It’s kind of sad but the images speak truth. We do in fact see those moments of banality or just when the camera lingers for a while longer but all in all it is a very realistic film. It becomes more engaging as the film progresses and you begin to empathise with the characters, joining them on their journey, where everyone is a spectator in life.

Here is the opening of the film:

3/5

8 ½ (Federico Fellini, 1963)

Wow, what an interesting/weird film (and I mean that in a good way). Initially I didn’t know what the film was about but it all sort of fell into place by the end. (From the music in the DVD menu, I got the sense that this is a sort of circus atmosphere, like Fellini’s La Strada, which I also really enjoyed). Actually, there was fantastic music throughout with a few well known classical pieces that really got the drama going. 

So anyway, I thought there would be some neorealist elements to this film but I was wrong. I mean, there were some hand-held camera shots in the fantastic opening sequence in the car (when he’s trapped in the car, with people in surrounding cars frozen and watching him almost like they’re watching a film, before Guido goes flying up into the sky). But overall the film is definitely a departure from neorealism − I would say it is closer to surrealism at times. It is definitely a fictional, imaginative piece, however, it felt like a documentary at times and it’s interesting how Fellini manages this. I felt there were also so many similarities to Godard, especially how the camera and voiceover narrated some of the parts. The film also makes reference to cinema itself, particularly when the producer is speaking to Guido and talks about the “ambiguous reality” of cinema and how it is “50 years behind the other arts”. I think the film suggests something about the nature of memories and film itself − art itself.

Also, I just have to mention, the main character, a director named Guido (played by Marcello Mastroianni) − well, I was quite struck by this handsome actor. He reminded me of George Clooney cross Robert Downey Jnr cross Johnny Depp (now that’s a compliment). He was so stylish and suave like a James Bond character, and at one point when he is looking at a girl, the music stops and we know this guy is at the top of his game. And it wasn’t until after the film I research his filmography and surprise, surprise he was in Visconti’s Le notti bianche − another great film. He played a similar role too, as a kind of womaniser, although I liked him more in this film.

The whole movie is like a dream, as they describe it on the DVD cover, “a shimmering dream, a circus and a magic act”. It definitely was. I now see how the working title for this film fits in: “The Beautiful Confusion”. So weird yet intriguing, the whole film was like a hallucination. I didn’t understand every moment but that’s ok. There was no real plot, it was about a director who is making a film but doesn’t have any ideas and the film is filled with his memories, flashbacks and dreams, sort of fuelling his inspiration. There is a scene when he is with a harem of girls (who are all the cast in the film, as well as his wife, Luisa) and flashbacks to his childhood (taking a bath, dancing with the woman Saraghina, who the Catholic priests tell him is a “devil woman”). It all makes for melodramatic film unlike anything I could’ve expected. There were lots of pans and very quick, sort of clumsy sharp close-ups (although I imagine there were purposely done in that way).

One of the first scenes, when everyone is at this large outdoor gathering, lining up and drinking water − well it all makes sense now because at the time I was not sure what was happening but clearly it was the cast and crew (this gathering is also echoed in the final sequence when everyone is lined up holding hands in a circle around what looks like a circus ring, next to the spaceship prop). This final scene actually features the music from the DVD menu that I mentioned above, the circus music, perhaps suggesting whether this all was just a dream. In any case, it makes you think twice about the nature of reality in a truly unreal way.

4/5

The Silence of the Lambs (Jonathan Demme, 1993)

Now this is the type of film I’m talking about when I mean a great thriller film. Combining horror, crime and bit of psychology, The Silence of the Lambs was one of those enthralling thrillers (which seem to be increasingly rare) and it’s no surprise that it won five Academy Awards. Now I’m looking forward to watching Hannibal and Red Dragon (the sequel and prequel), though naturally, I’m not expecting them to be as good as the original film.
 

The notorious character of Dr Hannibal Lecter was really what made this film so appealing, as well as the performance by Jodie Foster. Foster plays Clarice Starling, a trainee FBI agent who seeks the help of Hannibal, an imprisoned cannibal, to find the serial killer known as “Buffalo Bill”. Hannibal, who is played brilliantly by Anthony Hopkins, is a complex, intelligent psychiatrist himself and thus, he makes the interactions between him and Starling quite challenging and mentally exhausting for her. But, interestingly, a kind of relationship forms between them − sort of mutual trust and respect. This aspect of the multifaceted personality of Hannibal is what intrigues me about him. Compared to most other serial killers depicted in films, he seems almost sane − well, until he takes a bite out of one of the policemen’s faces − then once again he repels you.

Foster’s portrayal of the FBI trainee was also really good to watch. She was determined to be a strong, female force in the agency but there were times, particularly when she was with Hannibal, where glimpses of her weaknesses shone through. She is, in effect, like one of the young, delicate lambs in the slaughterhouse she saw as a child − an experience which she recounts to Hannibal (despite being told not to discuss her personal life with patients).

Anyway, I also have to mention the ending, which I thought was a great, refreshing way to conclude a film like this − Hannibal remains on the loose and even calls up Starling, telling her is “about to have an old friend for dinner”. Nice.

4.5/5