Rome, Open City

          Don Pietro is a Priest who also sides with the rebels. He accepts that his actions assisting those in the resistance could cost him his life. I am not sure what his motivation is, perhaps he does not like the cruel actions of the Germans, both to himself and those around him. I think that Don Pietro stands for teh two sided man. He is a traitor, and hten he is not. As a priest, he answers soley to God, and is governed by only God. Since that is his viewpoint, he does not see his actions as wrong.
      Pina is the wife of Marcello and fiancee of Francesco. She is depicted as a strong woman, who desires the comfort of a man and father. He connection to the Resistance is through Francesco, who is a part of the Resisitance. She does not favor the Germans, and hates the way in which they are running society. She considers them rude and disgracefull people.
     Marinia is a stage dancer and former girlfriend of Manfredi, leader of the resistance. I find it very difficult to understand her character. She acts as though she is in love with Manfredi, yet still betrays him. Now I understand that it was because of a drug addiction, but....gah...I just don't think that her character was portrayed very well. She came off as very blonde and "not quite all there"
    Rhetoric is the art of using language, prose, or verse, with a pursausive effect. I think that everyone in the film expresses themselves, some just more than others. Don Pietro, for example uses his stature and position in order to be dominant and/or respected. (The German soldiers do not treat him as harshly because he is a Priest). Marnia uses her body to get what she wants.....I apologize, but I can't answer this question. I'm not very good at analyzing things, I can easily spot rhetoric in literature, and perhaps if I had the script I could answer it well, but tyring to look back at the movie and locate rhetoric not only in speech but also in body and location is a skill that I am currently lacking.
      This film was a combination of comedy and serious issues, much like Ciao Professore. However, Rome, Open City has fewer comedic elements. The one that stands out to me was when the children were filing in for church, saying "Praise be to God". One boy came in late, and Don Pietro stopped him, reminding him to say the saying, which he does. Shuffling him into church, he the priest replies, "Very good, but your always the one to praise Him last." I thought that this was very funny, and allowed the viewer to see the more friendly side of Don Pietro. It was a small break from all the seriousness.  The same can be said about his scene inside the antique shop. There is a statue of Jesus and a naked woman facing one another, while Don Pietro is waiting to be allowed to speak to the hidden resistance members, he stands quietly in the store, and switches the two statues away from one another, a sign of his priestly origins. Another humorous scene was when teh boys were returning home after causing an explosion outside. One by one they get dragged back into their rooms to receive beatings by their parents. Now, this shouldn't be funny, but I think that the dialogue that went along with it made it so. The boys were expecting their beating, so they said some things that added humor. I really don't think that the humor contributes to the socio-political message of the film. I would classify the movie as a drama, with a few kicks and giggles here and there. Some of those kicks and giggles may not have been intended as humorous, but, because the movie is so old, they simply turned out that way.
       I'm not quite sure what Don Pietro meant when he said "It's not hard to die well, it's hard to live well." I understand the concept of "living well", i.e. being a good person, loved by other people, etc. But to "die well". What constitutes dying well?  Did Manfredi die well, by being tourtured and refusing to reveal resistance secrects? Did Pina die well, innocnetly chacing after her lover? What about Don Pietro? He died a traitor's death by refusing  to pursude Manfredi to talk because he knew he wouldn't be able to. Did these people even live well? Did they make the most out of their lives? What was it they left undone?

    The director Rossellini tries to justify the actions of the "bad guys", by making their actions not seem so bad. (To themselves anyway).  Marina was an addict who had an uncontrollable addiction. She was "unwell" and did what she did because, to her, there didn't seem to be any other option.General Bergmann was just following orders like a good soldier. Whether we like to believe it or not, American generals are they same. They are given an order that they must follow. They torture and kill. We only consider General Bergmann in the wrong now, because America won the war. But what if the Germans had won? History would be completely different. 

Ciao Professore (Part 1)

              I grew very frustrated while watching this film, and I sincerely hope that the issues it presents are not actually happening in southern Italy. In America, it is unthinkable that the school should sell toilet-paper to children and chalk to teachers, and any janitor who does his job like Benny would be fired on the spot. But, to the characters in the movie, these seem to be everyday things, and they obey them and pay without questioning. Even the principal, whose job it is to make sure the school is running properly, simply brushes things aside, such as Sperelli slapping a disrespectful student, or Benny not ringing the bell on time. The mayor himself, does not seem to be bothered by these things, as he is allowing an eight-year-old child, whom he knows should be in school, shave him. When Sperelli comes in threatening to report the incident, the mayor insists that he was unaware who was shaving him, as he "had his eyes closed".
             With regards to their jobs, I can understand how the kids feel about going to school instead of working. School takes up a lot of time, time that could be used to make money.  Most of the kids come from impoverished families, and wish to work so that they can make ends meet. ( One scene I had a question on was when Sperelli went to visit the house of the boy who ran away. His sister is there cooking and taking care of a young baby. This girl can't be that much older than her brother, so why is Sperelli not concerned that she isn't in school)

              I love the way in which these serious issues are presented in the film. I grew hysterical when Sperilli went around town gathering up his students who were working.This scene was made to be very comic, and it admittedly never occurred to me that this was very serious issue. I do think that, because of it's comedic elements, some of the more difficult and serious issues (sorry for using serious so much, I can't think of a substitute), are a bit downplayed or ignored altogether as bits of comic relief. For example, we're made to laugh at the girl who needs to go number 2, but doesn't have the money to buy toilet paper, without giving regards to how that must feel. (You know those times when you really, really have to go, but there's no toilet around. Also, I personally think that the greatest feeling in the world, is going the bathroom after you've been holding it in for a really long time).
              During another moment in the film, we are made to laugh, and then feel guilt about it. One of the boys in Sperelli's class is constantly sleeping, regardless of any noise that may be going on. At first, we simply think of him as the average class delinquent, much like characters we see in many American films. It is only later that we realize he was sleeping because he was up all night helping his father collect trash in order to make money.

             When I think of Sperelli and his students, a line from the musical The King and I  instantly comes to mind."It's a very ancient saying, but a true and honest thought, that if you become a teacher, by your pupils you'll be taught". The King and I is the story of Anna, a teacher from England who travels to the country of Siam to teach the King's children. Anna is at first very indifferent towards the king, and part of that emotion is seen in her relationship with his children, yet this feeling eventually changes to one of admiration and love. The same can be said of Sperelli. In the beginning, he does not want his position at the school, and is only there by mistake. However, after spending some time with the children, he comes to realize that they need a proper person in their life, and he is the one to set them on the right path.

Gomorrah

        I haven't really seen another "true' mafia or organized crime movie that I can relate to Gomorrah. (Apparently, according to my friend, I've been living under rock all these years having not seen The Godfather, Scarface, Casino, Goodfellas, The Untouchables, or Once Upon A Time in America) The one movie I can recall that had any kind of gang-relation is West Side Story. Given that it is indeed a Romeo and Juliet - type musical, I'm not sure how good a comparison I can come up with, but it's the best I got. So, in West Side Story there are these two competing groups,  the Sharks, who are Puerto Rican, and the Jets, who are working-class whites. Tony of the Jets falls in love with Maria, sister to the leader of the Sharks. Long story short, the two gangs are not happy about this relationship, guns go off, and *SPOILER* Tony dies. The one thing I can say about West Side Story is that it involves you with your characters, where as in Gomorrah, you sort of just jump around a bit, and don't really know what's going on. Also, the shootings in West Side Story were "babied", I could say, as opposed to the bloody violence in Gormorrah. (Consider also, that one is a Broadway musical, the other a high-budget film)
  
I think that Gomorrah would have better been conceived as a documentary rather than a dramatic account. In a documentary, there is a narrator giving you all sorts of back story and explaining what is happening on screen; in the film, you sort of just have to watch and figure it out for yourself. For someone like me, who knows absolutely nothing about organized crime, gangs, or the mafia (other than Al Capone, who was there leader right?), the documentary definitely would have been the best choice, and , if directed correctly, could have been equally entertaining. People like to watch visuals, rather than still pictures, so the same shots in the film could be used in the documentary, just with narration going on.

      I didn't really learn much about Camorra while watching the film, they seemed to have the same qualities as all other gangs that I heard of - mean and violent. I definitely would not want to live in any city controlled by the mafia. I would be afraid to walk out of my own door each morning. The way Italy is portrayed in this film is not romanticized like in many of the other films we saw. Gomorrah shows the slums, the lower levels of life, and the truth is that most people actually live that way. It's depressing.

The Lepard Part 2

         So, this movie just seemed to drag on and on. I know that though past discussions about other movies, were supposed to find some deeper meaning, or directors interpretation or something-which I sort of did- but why can't they create their vision while also being entertaining? That's not to say that I didnt find any enjoyment out of this film, particularly with the parts concerning Angelica and Tancredi, because one of my favorite genres happens to be Victorianesque romances.
        As I said the move seems to have many shots without much purpose, there of random people doing and saying random things. And there not just short, little tidbits, there actually a few minutes long. Now, after reading the article I realized that one thing the director was trying to portray was scenery, which made all of the extra shots make sence to me. He was showing us the enviroment in which the films characters thrived. In that sence they seem perfectly reasonable, but entertaiment wise the film could do without.
       Also, I feel like I didn't truly get the most out of this film because my knowledge of Italian history is greatly lacking. Someone who knew more about Sicily and the Prince would better be able to appreciate the film's context. For me, the dialogue just went on forever. I got the gist of what they were talking about, but many things simply didn't quite sink in. (I found myself staring off at various scenery instead of paying attention to what the characters were saying.) Again, this all ties in to my great dislike of politics.
      I sort of lost track of the ending. Was the Prince really dying? Why did he want to walk home alone? Why did he cry? These answers just aren't visible to me.