Viaggio in Italia
Okay, I
admit it. I did not get this film. Someone will have to explain it to me
because I am lost.
“Viaggio in
Italia” is a Rossellini film about an English couple on a journey to Italy.
That is in fact the English title of the movie, “Journey to Italy”. The English
couple is no other than Ingrid Bergman and George Sanders as Katherine and Alex
Joyce and that should be enough to generate some interest. Both have a very
impressive track record and their sheer presence should be enough on its own. It almost is. I love the scathing sarcasm of
Sanders and Bergman is great when she is pissed at somebody and in this movie
they have ample opportunity for both.
My problem
is that I do not understand the context.
Alex and
Katherine has been married for some years and are now in Italy to sell the villa
of an uncle. They have hardly arrived in Italy before they manage to annoy each
other enough to realize that they actually despise each other. The reasons are
trivial, really. Katherine is disgusted and hurt by Alex sarcasm and Alex in
turn is bored and put off by what he sees as Katherine’s refusal of him. For an
hour and twenty minutes they go around poking at each other when what they
really needed to do is having a good long talk. I suspect Rossellini wants to
oppose Northern European distance to Mediterranean openness. Certainly the two
of them seem afraid to be frank with each other and when they are they are
immediately rebuffed by the other. Especially Alex in classic Sanders style is
knife sharp.
So, instead
of talking they find their own pastimes. Katherines visits all the sights of
the Napoli region. Art museums, catacombs, volcanos and Pompeii. The fumaroles
in the volcano are pretty awesome, the art is spectacular and Pompeii is, well,
truly awesome. I have been there and it is mind-blowing. But I fail to see the
deeper meaning. Is it an exposé of Italian culture? Is it something about
showing that life is bigger, much bigger, than small minded bickering? No idea.
Alex heads
off to Capri to get laid. Unfortunately his lady friends are just that, friends
and there is a great scene where the particular girl he has his eyes one tells
him that it is going so much better with her husband. That is a great long face
Mr. Sanders! Failing that he tries clubs and prostitutes, but it is not really
working. At least he realizes that this is below him.
Returning
to each other you would think that they have found out that they actually need
or maybe even love each other, but no. Pure acid between them. Divorce time,
hatred, misery. They get stuck in traffic, watch a religious spectacle.
Kathrine is getting sucked up in it, they find each other and are reconciled.
Just like that. Bum.
???
In Chinese
I would say “Ha-ba…”.
Here are my
lame suggestions to what just happened.
1. Religious intervention. They needed
a miracle to save their marriage and just got it. Deux ex machine.
2. Life is bigger than bickering.
Seeing all that greatness around them made them realize their troubles are
peanuts.
3. Sucking up enough Italian spirit
made them shed their northern inhibitions and find their love.
4. They knew all along they loved each
other, they just need to realize it.
5. They are bipolar and jump from one
extreme to the next. Five minutes later they are going to hate each other
again.
6. The plot is just idiotic and gives
us a surprise ending when we thought these two would just settle this and get
on with their lives.
7. The Catholic Church does not really
believe in divorce so their condition for allowing filming a procession was
that they stayed together.
I suspect
the answer is somewhere else entirely. Usually when critics are super elated
about a movie it is because nobody really figured out what the story was about
and the movie is therefore awesome.
What I did
like was the filming of Bergman and Sanders. There are a lot of facial
expressions going on. Bergman in the catacombs or Sanders getting deflated on
Capri are awesome to watch. Watching Rossellini film Bergman is like Sternberg
filming Dietrich. You just know they had something going.
Also I
liked all the scenery. Italy is a pretty and interesting place. I just failed
to see the connection with the story.
Before I
started the review my intention was actually to discuss dubbing. I figured I
would have nothing much to say about the movie itself, but now I see that I
actually did, so I will keep it short. I hate dubbing. Dubbing in the sense of
changing the spoken dialogue to another language that is. It is just so stupid.
Maybe it because we usually do not dub movies in Denmark, but it really annoys
me. In this case the DVD I had bought turned out to be dubbed in Italian.
Apparently that is one of the two original editions. Two minutes of Sanders and
Bergman speaking Italian was enough for me. I had find an English version.
Imagine that, George Sanders, the epitome of British sarcasm, speaking Italian!
There should be fines for that sort of thing.
Please help
me. What is going on in this movie? Am I just an idiot?
I saw it about a year ago and I didn't really get it either but I liked it anyway.
ReplyDelete(Part of that may be because I've been to that part of Italy and I very much enjoyed seeing some things I saw as a tourist in the 1980s. Also - Ingrid Bergman. Also - George Sanders. Also - Rossellini. Also - I'm a sucker for pretty much any old Italian movie.)
The tourist element is definitely interesting. I could even forget that I did not understand the movie when I saw all those spectular sights. Unfortunately in hindsight it is my lack of understanding that frustrates me.
DeleteI just cannot accept that this is just a story about a couply who is about to split up, but then all of sudden get back together. There must be more to it.
"Usually when critics are super elated about a movie it is because nobody really figured out what the story was about and the movie is therefore awesome."
ReplyDeleteBingo.
I saw this as Rosselini's way to pay for a sightseeing trip around Italy for him and his new wife.
This is a suspicion I often have when I read extatic reviews of obscure movies. Sometimes I later found out that I was just too dense to understand but in other cases it seems like a smokescreen to hide their own confusion.
DeleteMaybe Rossellini was under contract with the Itaian ministry of tourism. Save your marriage, come to Italy.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI've not seen the film but my vote goes to number 5. Maybe number 7? Doesn't sound like it's for me.
ReplyDeleteAlmost all Italian films of the period were dubbed. Cinecitta, where they were shot, had been built in the silent era and had no sound stages. The dialogue - even for Italian actors - was dubbed in in post-production. I agree that it is disconcerting but we have to expect it. But that's the reason there are frequently stars from all over the place in them - they could speak in their native languages and no one would be the wiser.
I like number 7 as well.
DeleteI am actually okay with dubbing when it is the actor herself repeating the words said during filming. That is a commin enough tecnique as still widely used today to improve sound quality. But if another actor speaks, or even worse somebody speaks in a different language part of the movie is lost. Bad examples are English dubbed Hong Kong movies, but even when sone with skill it annoys me. The producer assumes the audience are idiots who cannot or will not read subtitles to understand the movie and so in the proccess throw away a significant part of the movie. Legend tells of John Cleese playing a part in a German movie. He rehearsed his lines in German to perfection, but was told upon filming that it really did not matter. In Germany John Cleese sounds like the actor who dubs him, so even if he had learned to speak German they would still dub him. I other words they did not care at all for his audible acting. Shame on them.
I liked this one, but you're making me start to wonder why I did! May need a reviewing on this one. I will throw in that I think Rossellini's Paisan is a great movie.
ReplyDeleteI liked both Paisan and Rome, Open City, which is why I was disappointed with this one. Or confused. I understood those earlier movies, but I do not understand this one.
Delete