1900

"Novecento" was one of the most eagerly awaited movies of the seventies. It was meant to be, as Bertolucci himself intended, the italian "Gone with the wind", an epic story about what happened in the bel paese during the first half of the twentieth century, the political turmoil between WW1 and WW2, the rise and fall of the fascism, the birth and widespread of the communist and socialist movements as a response to the social unjustice. There was a big project, the financial means to realise it (american studios financing communist propaganda - can you believe that?), some of the world best actors at the time. And what maybe matters the most there was Bernardo Bertolucci whose political ideas have never been in glaring contradiction with the "Communist Manifesto". So who else could make this movie better than him? Having put this fabulous international team together the standarts were set very, very high.

As much as I adore Italy and italians, and as much as I love Bertolucci, De Niro, Depardieu, Lancaster and Sutherland, I have to say this movie let me down a little bit. I mean it's a good movie, but it could have been much better. The snag is that one has to know what happened in Italy during that period of time to fully understand what the movie is really about. Bertolucci knew it beforehand, which probably explains his need to have the best french actor, the best american actor, some other excellent american actors besides his italian actors troop (some of them are excellent by the way) to be in this movie. I think I can say that I know pretty well the italian twentieth century history, and yet I think this movie is a little bit of a mess.

The italian paysage, the countryside, the photography and the colors are really breathtaking. The director really knows how to suit the locations and paysage to almost every moment and particular scene of the movie. But to me, what misses the most in this movie is the dialog. You sit and watch scene after scene and you have the feeling that the movie is finally about to take off, but it doesn't, it quite never does. Yes, there are many excellent scenes, some of them being very explicit in a way or another, but this is the classic example of the total being too inferiour to the sum of it's separated parts.

As far as the acting is concerned, Lancaster is undoubtfully the one who gives the best performance here, and he seems really lucky to have played a relatively small part. Some of the scenes he's in are among the best of this movie. Depardieu is excellent too. Donald Sutherland is good, but every time he's onscreen one can't help wondering if he's frustrated because of the bizarre acts he has been told to perform or simply because he knows he has to act someone who, whatever the reasons, seems to be permanently in anger.

But to me the most disappointing is my all time favourite actor, De Niro. He comes in and goes out, smiles, chuckles, moans, groans and never seems to really be in this movie. Anonymous, that's the word that occured to me while watching this film, as far as De Niro's acting is concerned. Luckily enough, this movie didn't harm that much his reputation at the time, and he went on later to give absolutely mesmerizing performances in gems like "The last tycoon", "The deer hunter" and "Raging bull".

I have only watched the original 6 hours long version, both in english and italian, and I have to say I don't have any problems with the accents. I still keep watching this movie 25 years after it's release, just to make sure I haven't missed anything before and to see if I can appreciate it more now. And I still keep thinking that this is a somewhat messy movie who failed to deliver the message and the promises it was supposed to deliver to the italian public, and to a greater extent to the international public. To me this movie is a big project overwhelmed by it's own intents.

If you're new to the italian cinema you'd better try "Il conformista", "The last emperor" and "The last tango in Paris" by the same director, and try also the best of Fellini, Scola, Visconti, De Sica, Antonioni and, yes, how could I forget, the master of the masters, Sergio Leone.

I like movies. Good movies. Takeshi Kitano, Martin Scorsese, Wong Kar Wai, Sam Fuller, Sam Peckinpah, Kubrick, Welles, Soderbergh, Buster Keaton, and yes, Bertolucci. "The Conformist" in particular I find to be stunning. "1900" is the kind of film that makes me lose faith in a great director. It has none of the beauty of "The Conformist". It is terribly acted across the board. Everyone is so far over-the-top that this plays like a comedy more than a historical drama. Even Robert DeNiro, who was just coming off "Taxi Driver", is awful. Donald Sutherland seems to be having fun, but probably because he realized how ridiculous the film was. And has there ever been a more laughable villain than Sutherland in this film? He crushes a cat against a wall, kills a small child by bashing his head against a wall, and impales an old woman on a fence. His character is a bad guy out of thousands of less ambitious films.

Maybe the only one who emerges unscathed from this mess is Sterling Hayden, who doesn't have any scenes in which he embarrasses himself (unlike everyone else in this film) and manages to create a somewhat realistic character.

I don't care if Bertolucci made this film. It's completely inept, devoid of subtlety or intelligence, and terrible in every way. If Bernardo's name wasn't attached to it, people would laugh this film into obscurity. But no, people make excuses for it and for some reason even give it five stars. If possible, I'd give it zero.

Novecento (aka: 1900) centers around two young men who were born on the same Italian estate on the same day. One is the son of a poor peasant farmer, while the other is the son of the wealthy fascist landowner. The two men’s stormy relationship over the years serves as an allegory of 20th century Italy and spans from 1900 to 1945.

The ambitious film is infamous for it’s epic length (5+ hours!), controversial subject matter and subsequent censorship, going over budget, and constant re-editing. Over the years it has been presented in several severely cut versions with varying degrees of picture and audio quality.

This three-disc set from the folks at Olive Films is the five and half hour original director’s cut of the film. The first two discs contain the movie on Blu-rays while the third disc is a DVD of ‘Bernardo Bertolucci: Reflections on Cinema’ documentary and a related text-based essay. The video & audio quality of the release isn’t perfect, but is certainly a big step up from any version I’ve viewed before. Given the film’s epic length I think it’s probably safe to bet this is the best we can expect for some time.

Though the strong sexual content and graphic violence in the film may turn off many viewers, I think 1900 is a movie that should be experienced at least once. It’s a true epic in every sense and offers solid performances from Robert De Niro, Gerard Depardieu, Burt Lancaster and Donald Sutherland (as one of the most disgustingly vile villains ever to appear on celluloid). It’s a far from perfect film, and although it requires a bit of patience on the viewers part with a running time of over five hours, still comes highly recommended.