Night of the Shooting Stars - Questions of Neorealism

This movie is very interesting and different from the other neorealism films.

It had its moments of neorealism, but it is mostly a non-neorealistic film. On the side of neorealism, it had historical and war content. Its main characters are on the side of the resistance. It is also raw, gritty and violent.

On the other side, the beginning is very strange. It opened like a storybook or fairytale with a beautiful starry sky and a narration. After that it goes into the actual story, but still that story element is strictly for fiction. Its letting the audience know from the beginning: this is based on real events, but this is a film, not a pseudo-documentary. Films like The Battle of Algiers are so convincing, people believe its a documentary, not a staged, fictional story. This is because of non-actors, locations, grittiness, content, and shot choices.

In Shooting Stars, there are many moments that take you out of the story and make it obvious that it's a put-together film, not a documentary. This includes shot choices, and editing. Unrealistic death scenes and hearing inner dialogue of some characters. When the city was being bombed, the resistance group is miles away, listening. For this scene there are appropriately many close ups of the people's reactions, but there are also some awkward shots of their ears to emphasize them hearing the bombs. Personally it took me out of the moment, and I found it a little funny to choose those shots for such a dramatic and important scene.

There is also the editing. The obvious "wipes" from one scene to the next is so distracting from the story. There is no way to stay in the moment with the characters when the scene abruptly changes like that. It's a device commonly used with less-serious content matter. I don't understand the meaning behind that decision. I would be very interested in the director's meanings and ideas behind this film because with such serious subject matter, some technical and artistic choices don't seem to make sense.

Bicycle Thief

I have also seen this movie before, and I enjoy it better than Rome, Open City. There are less characters so it's easier to connect with them. With a connection you end up caring about them, and want to see more of the movie to know their story.

Antonio Ricci and his family are suffering in a post-war world. The economy is poor. There is mass unemployment. The police authorities are unwilling to help. When Antonio has his bicycle stolen, no one helps him chase the thief or find him. When Antonio goes to find the thief in his neighborhood, a large angry crowd stops him. For some reason they are protecting the thief and don't care about a poor man who lost his job because of the thief. Antonio uses several ways to try and find the bicycle. He goes to an after-hours club, a church, the police, a psychic and a market. None of those places had helpful people. All the people there were angry, and telling him to be quiet.

When he finally resorts to stealing a bicycle of his own, suddenly the whole neighborhood is against him. No matter what he does the world is against him, keeping him from succeeding. All of that is made even more clear by the name of the bicycle, "Fides" meaning hope. Hope was literally stolen from him, and everyone around him is keeping him from having it.

Fortunately, his family is very supportive of him given the situation. His wife, Maria, let him sell all of their bed sheets to buy a bicycle. She is obviously exhausted and beat up from their lifestyle, but she does everything she can to help Antonio. Bruno, their son, helps him search for the bicycle for the most of the film. They do get in a fight, ending in Bruno getting smacked, but in the end Bruno stays behind and saves Antonio just by holding his hand. After all of Antonio's humiliation stealing the bicycle, Bruno is still by his side, supporting him the best way he can.

Besides all of the social-economic commentary, family values also has a big role in this movie. Through everything, the family learns how to struggle together and I think that is the only thing keeping them alive.

Rome, Open City

This is my second viewing of this film and it didn't change my perspective. I respect and honor all films in the neorealism style, but I don't enjoy watching them. The subject matter and social/political commentary is very important, but it's not entertaining to me. I'm an enthusiast of european history, especially during WWII, but these films are always very difficult for me to get into.

That being said, I did have a favorite character and that is Don Pietro. I think he is very dynamic and courageous for a priest. Under different circumstances he probably would have been just another traditional Catholic priest, but times of war always change people. It either makes people strong or weak. I believe it made Manfredi, Don Pietro and Pina very strong people. All three ended up dying in heroic ways or through heroic or brave actions. Manfredi dies via torture because he doesn't give the Nazis any information about the resistance. Poor Pina is pregnant when she is shot and killed. She died chasing after Francesco who was being taken away. It was an unnecessary death, but it was brave of her to chase after  her fiance. And of course Don Pietro died from a firing squad because he helped the resistance.

The Austrian deserter and Marina however, are very weak. The deserter ends up hanging himself because he believes he will give information to the Nazis.  Marina is weak and is persuaded to betray Manfredi by actually giving information to the Nazis.

All of these deaths are relevant to the quote about how it's harder to live well than to die well. It's challenging, especially in wartime, to be on the side of good, or to live doing to right thing. During WWII, doing the right thing almost always got you killed. But as Don Pietro says, dying is the easy part. It's easier to end your life for the right reason, than to spend years and years fighting for what's right.

I think that's the main message in this movie. Besides the wartime struggles and terrible situations all these people went through, it's also about how they lived, more than how they died.