Novecento / 1900 (Bernardo Bertolucci, 1976)

[aox]

Novecento / 1900

I'm wondering what the general consensus is on this 'epic' and am hoping to generate some discussion. This film tends to bring up a lot of debate with many finding it extremely flawed and unwatchable, or a flawed masterpiece. I don't think I have ever read anything or heard anyone that thinks it isn't without its problems, or at least needs an editor. At 5 1/2 hours, it can be hard to sit through start to finish.

Personally, I love the first hour and 1/2, and I don't mind the ending, but some of the sequences in the middle drag for me. I think the performances are adequate; though, perhaps Sutherland is a bit of a caricature. I guess the politics of the film are overly simplistic at times as well. I have viewed it about 3 or 4 times by now and I always want it to be so much more than it is, especially in regards to how ambitious it is and its scope. One of the flaws for me is that despite it being 315 minutes, I don't feel like I have lived 45 years with the characters. As opposed to a film like Scorsese's Goodfellas that is only 2 1/2 hours and I feel like I have grown up with the characters; not in a pejorative way.

Also, I wish it went more into the brutality of the camps. :-k

[jackford]

Hopefully I can get into a much more in-depth discussion later, but I have to say that I quite love the film and find it very beautiful, regardless of the legnth. I can't speak for everyone else, though.

[Cinephrenic]

I've been hearing about the so-called "flaws" for years and I have to disagree. The argument tends to be on the length of the film. I don't see the correlation between its narrative flow being hampered down by its length. I film is a masterpiece and underappreciated for one thing. There is some scholarship available on this, and much analysis on the structure of the film and characters, as well as the director's view on the various cuts. Bertolucci actually likes the two-hundred-some minute cut, instead of the 315 uncut version. I have to get back to you on this.

[aox]

I feel like everything I have read has said that Bertolucci hated the shorter cut and was forced to produce it by the producers.

[Rich Malloy]

It has it's moments - though ones not quite worth revisiting for me, embedded as they are in that big bloated carcass that makes up the rest of the film. I see nothing masterful in it, not as cinema nor history nor political polemic. A cartoon.

And I hope that provokes a heartfelt defense. I'm completely willing to generously reassess this film. And Bertolucci himself, for that matter.

[Dylan]

FYI, 1900 was discussed in great detail here around the time of the DVD release. It's an interesting film, but after the first hour or so it starts to feel like a rough cut of something desperately in need of nuance and editorial polishing. Also, all of the Donald Sutherland scenes are pretty ridiculous.

The scene with Burt Lancaster and the little girl is breathtakingly disturbing, made complete with two interesting formal ironies: Storaro's dream-like camera work and Morricone's joyous accordion source music. I also love Stefania Sandrelli's scenes.

[tavernier]

Also, all of the Donald Sutherland scenes are pretty ridiculous.

I vaguely recall a review at the time (maybe John Simon's?) who said that Sutherland seemed to have been directed with a cattle prod.

[HypnoHelioStaticStasis]

The scene with Burt Lancaster and the little girl is breathtakingly disturbing, made complete with two interesting formal ironies: Storaro's dream-like camera work and Morricone's joyous accordion source music. I also love Stefania Sandrelli's scenes.

I'd like to second this. The scenes in at the outset with Lancaster are extraordinary, in particular the scene where he and Sterling Hayden reminisce and attempt to speak on an equal plane while sharing a bottle of fine vino. One of the finest scenes Bertolucci has yet made. There is such a desperately maintained civility towards these men, dictated by European classicism and their own ignorance of the other's experiences. Storaro's roving camera exemplifies Bertolucci's attempt to create an even, multi-dimensional portrait of these two disparate families (which falls apart in the second half... until the brilliant final half-hour), and Morricone's score flows with the camera movement in very nice syncopation.

Lancaster, as always, is masterful. He was a matinee idol with true soul who aged into a gorgeous patriarch. Royalty.

And I do think Novecento is a great film that falls short (perhaps, very short) of its ambitions. The scene where Sutherland explains to his fascist minions that the best way to influence the minds of powerful Italians is with violence is so obvious and histrionic that one has to step back and realize that Bertolucci is coming dangerously close to utilizing these same manipulative effects over his audience. Sutherland reminded me of Tex Avery's leering wolf character.

That being said, the extended cut on R1 is, I think, an essential work of art, muddled politics and all.

[Cinephrenic]

It has it's moments - though ones not quite worth revisiting for me, embedded as they are in that big bloated carcass that makes up the rest of the film. I see nothing masterful in it, not as cinema nor history nor political polemic. A cartoon.

And I hope that provokes a heartfelt defense. I'm completely willing to generously reassess this film. And Bertolucci himself, for that matter.

What exactly do you not like about this film... Communism? Dead cats and boys? I read the other thread as well still awaiting a conclusive argument from you. If you didn't like the film (for your personal reasons) that is fine. Everyone is entitled to it. But dismissing it as "nothing masterful, not as cinema nor history nor political polemic" seems a little bit vague. I'm not trying to stir up anything, just wondering on why the hate for the film.

[Rich Malloy]

As one who generally resides on the port side of the political spectrum, I certainly haven't a problem with 1900's politics... at least not in the sense that you seem to be suggesting. For that reason, I suspect I judge it's shortcoming even more harshly.

But as to the cinematic merit of this work, I reside in that big solid mainstream that fairly well dismisses any. And, for that matter, also dismisses large swaths of Bertolucci's (mostly subsequent) films. Do my criticisms add anything to the mountains that came before? I certainly doubt it. And given my antipathy to this film and its director - though I did dutifully labor through the restored DVD release - it seems hardly worth the effort to deride or defend.

You ask for a conclusive argument that "1900" isn't 'masterful'? Respectfully, I think the burden here is on you and anyone who might claim it is. As I said, I'm a generous guy. If you wish to rehabilitate this film or its director, I'm certainly curious as to what you might have to say. But, between you and me, I hardly think it worth the effort.

[King Prendergast]

Bertolucci needs no rehabilitation. He is a masterful filmmaker respected the world over.

[transcendent1]

Novecento's highlights are its art direction and photography. If you need a masterclass in either, viewings of Novecento will provide you a fine education. The richness and strength of Novecento lies in these elements. I don't think length, as one poster noted, is an issue for Novecento. It's long but each scene is meaningful and the rhythm is just right.

I disliked the black-and-white categorizations of the characters - Olmo as a noble Socialist. Attila (what a subtle name too, right?) as the evil Fascist with homicidal sadism to boot. Alfredo is wishy washy padrone who can't figure out what to believe and chooses the easiest path life gives him. And of course, being a Bertolucci film, their sexual lives represent who they are as human beings, especially with Attila.

I find it amusing that Leone thought Bertolucci was too cerebral to write Once Upon a Time in the West - his films are often overloaded with simplistic ideological intentions and heavy-handed symbolism. He has cerebral concerns certainly, but his films lack the intellectual complexity and subtlety to truly be cerebral. I think Tarkovsky fits the bill of the intellectual auteur far more than Bertolucci.

[paranoid-knight2008]

I liked the performances in 1900. Donald Sutherland was really scary, actually. However, while I liked the film on a first viewing, a second viewing left me feeling there could have been so much more. Even at its epic length, the film seems unfinished. What's funny about that is that I can't put my thumb on whether its because its too long, or not long enough. Haha.

Overall, I'd give the film a 6/10 because its technically marvelous, but still ... it left much to desire...