Monday, January 17, 2011

The Thieves Who Stole His Bicycle

Having not been impressed by Italian films despite my many attempts at trying to be impressed, I finally decided to give The Bicycle Thief (1948) (or is it in plural, as thieves? I still don’t know!) a try – my final shot at Italian cinema, failing which I would erase Italy off my copy of the world map. At the outset, I was expecting nothing more than a pretentious parade of pseudoartistic babble along the lines of Fellini’s 8-1/2, also considered an Italian classic. But as the minutes went by and the story uncovered layer by layer, I stopped rolling my eyes and began to show a hint of interest and toned down my condescension towards the filmmaker little by little. At the end of the 90 minutes that followed, I was left with an expression that can only be best put in the words of Col. Walter Kurtz (from Apocalypse Now): “My God, the genius of it!”

The genius of it lies in its unnaturally simplistic yet powerful plot lacking any signs or symptoms of pretentiousness that is so dominant in the so-called “classics” of world cinema. I don’t mean any disrespect to the black-and-white era, but with the exception of Orson Welles and to some extent Alfred Hitchcock, I largely avoid most pre-Kubrick films. Granted, there were innumerable contributions from a slew of filmmakers – some, like D. W. Griffith, more than others – over a stretch of several decades, but it’s hard to find much of what is good about cinema in a single film in many films before the 1960s. Even those who made significant contributions to film direction, like Akira Kurasowa, brought out such pathetically painful acting from their actors that it makes it almost impossible to watch the scenes, and I would instead prefer to just read the subtitles and pretend to have seen the film as it were. But the Bicycle Thief, I’m glad to say, was a delicious surprise.

At its heart, the film explores our reaction to desperation – the presence of desperation can be subtly or strongly felt at every step of the movie – and how external material objects such as a bicycle can determine and control the life and livelihood of an entire family. The film follows a father and son’s vain attempt at finding their stolen bicycle which would help them “live again” through his new job – job being a very lucky find in post-Fascism Italy. There is no heavy-handed symbolism or over-readable metaphors at any point (although I suspect some pseudointellectual critics will read too much into it anyway – as they always do. Please watch South Park Season 14 Episode 2 for a clever criticism of reading too much into symbolism; to quote Beckett, "No symbols where none intended"), and for this reason, the film has been rightly hailed as the first great neo-realist film of the century. It is realistic to the extent that the two central characters – the father and the son – were specifically chosen as non-actors. Now, I am of the opinion that if symbolism be used in a story, it be used in such a way and form that it is instantly transmitted to the audience via an emotional channel, not via intellectual dissection of “what could this represent” ideas to reach the meaning. That is the difference between real art and pseudoart, and that is what art is about – an emotional transference of ideas and opinions, not an intellectual social theory or puzzle. The most glaring example of this aspect of the film is the way it is ended: (although it is used to the point that it is hackneyed in movies today, The Bicycle Thief was the first film to use this technique) the main character walks with the crowd and slowly blends into it and becomes unidentifiable in it, and eventually we see nothing but the crowd – meaning that the story you just saw could be a story of any person from that crowd, and therefore, of anyone including you.

The critics had initially observed that this is a story of a typical man in post-WWII Italy. But really, that is just a very narrow way of looking at it, since the characters, the setting, and the emotions that the plot evokes are so identifiable with and realistic that it is almost universally true, and for all ages of time. 8.5/10.

The frustration in their faces: a rational response to the desperate circumstances they are in

7 comments:

  1. Loved the movie,liked your simplistic yet thorough take on it,but hate to point out the glaring spelling error in the topic title.
    Peace!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hey there, buddy! Remember me?

    I posted a really long, stupid comment on this topic, and it seems as if it has disappeared. I don't know what happened to it. It said that the comment had been published, so did you get the chance read it?

    I don't know why the hell it got deleted. Perhaps it was too long?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hello, my man! How are you? Long time! Surprised you found my blog.

    No man, I didn't get your message. There must be some character limit on these comments, I don't know. If you could type a summary of that lost post and comment again, it'd be great. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. Also, save the comment before posting, just in case it doesn't get posted.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Oh, I got your long comment in a mail, man. You seem to be agitated with my strong views on Fellini. Nevertheless, you bring up some interesting points. But I'd like to explain my position on both Kubrick and Fellini, and their respective magnum opuses, a bit more. I'll do that in a new post soon, when I find a spare half an hour.

    This is the comment:

    "Hi there, buddy! Remember me? I actually still check on your rants from time to time.

    I find it interesting that you write that many considered classics supposed contain: "symptoms of pretentiousness".

    So, am I right to assume that you dislike much of what is considered 'classic' pre-Kubrick era, because you find many of those films to contain "symptoms of pretentiousness" which takes away story?

    Or, do you simply mean, that it's just hard to find representative elements in just one film from one particular era, because of mentioned symptoms, which in terms makes it harder to get into, and therefore just not worth the effort?

    I am mostly asking because of this line: "but it’s hard to find much of what is good about cinema in a single film in many films before the 1960s."

    So, let's get right to the 1960's and forward.

    Because, I'd say Kubrick's produced some pretentious works, by your logic, if I am to understand you correctly.

    '2001: A Space Odyssey', is to me, the very same thing I'd interpret you to describe as "pseudoartistic babble". Same goes for, 'Eyes Wide Shut', and 'The Shinning'. Movies that tells a story that really doesn't seem to make sense to me in a conventional way.

    Or perhaps you don't like all Kubrick films? Please correct me if I'm assuming too much.

    Don't get me wrong, I love those movies. But isn't '2001: A Space Odyssey', something you'd imagine Fellini could've done? Initially, I got that '2001...' is all about telling a story through pictures. But, there is no initial plot, and no depth to any of the characters. There is really nothing at stake. It's highly original for its time, because it breaks away from conventional storytelling. The point of '2001...' to me was the beginning and end of life, and the infinity of the universe. Humans played a smaller part, because the movie's main point to me is how insignificant we really are in the whole of the universe. '2001...' isn't supposed to have an epic assemble of characters with a quest, because the bigger whole is the journey.

    (contd. as only 4096 characters are allowed in a post...)

    ReplyDelete
  5. ...


    "But as far as technique goes, I'd apply that to any Fellini movie, as well.

    Fellini's 8-1/2 does this really well, if you ask me. The intro scene in 8-1/2, tells me that the main character is kind of... well... fucked up. Kind of stressed out, as well. His celebrity status is giving him no room to breathe. His stressful everyday life is taking its toll, and he is getting middle-age burn out. Beneath this charming older gentleman, lies a hidden sorrow, which I believe is portrayed pretty well using flashbacks of his childhood, and goofy dreams, etc. And, it is a show. Why not make it a show?

    8-1/2 does, perhaps, leave more to our own interpretation than '2001...', but I think it's unfair to label it "pseudoartistic babble". Point is: I think the way 8-1/2 was made is important to tell the story of this character, even if it does skip and trip.

    And, I'm only bringing 8-1/2 up because you used it as an example. I like Fellini, but I am way more into Pier Paolo Pasolini & Bernardo Bertolucci movies. I also like all the goofy Giallo flicks directed by Dario Argento, and Lucio Fulci.

    But hey... that's me.

    I know this is your blog, and you are free to form simple, to the point, personal opinions about anything. And, that the point of this post is the review of one particular film, and not your reflection on 'cinema' in general. Having said that, I do find it unfair to dismiss a film, or several films from an era, based solely on some of reasons you've stated.

    As for Kurosawa movies... I love Kurosawa movies, but my comment is already too long.

    I thought I'd bring up the discussion, or whatever..."

    ReplyDelete
  6. That's YOUR lost comment by the way :)

    ReplyDelete
  7. Haha, thank you for posting my comment. :P

    I'm doing fine, thank you. I've had your blog bookmarked since you linked it to me back when we corresponded a little.

    I really didn't mean to come off as agitated at all. I don't take the critique personally, or anything. :) I just couldn't express myself differently, I guess. I brought up Fellini because I didn't know which other Italian films you've seen, and you did bring 8-1/2 up, so I talked about that movie.

    But, yes, I still really dig 8-1/2. Looking forward to your next post.

    Take care!

    ReplyDelete