Shoeshine (1946)
Vittorio De Sica's film was one of the first landmarks of what would become known as Italian neo-realism. The film takes the point of view of two street boys and best friends, Giuseppe and Pasquale. The two of them will do anything from shoeshining to black market deals to make enough money to buy a horse. When they finally do buy the horse and ride it together through town, one feels a brief moment of elation for the boys. But this is not a happy film. Soon they get implicated for one of their shadier deals and sent to a brutal, boys house of detention where they are separated in different cells. Every environment in which they find themselves from the streets to the prison are harsh and unforgiving. Ultimately, they find themselves betraying each other which leads to a tragic finale. As all neo-realist films are, it is first of all humane and socially conscious. The films focus is on the external factors of post war Italy that has led to the poverty, despair, and hopelessness of these two innocent boys. It's an excellent film, though I may still prefer Bunuel's similarly themed Los Olvidados. As can be expected, the filmmaking is spare and the actors non-professionals, leading to an authenticity almost never found in today's cinematic climate. And for his first major film, De Sica, who is usual the most sentimental of the neo-realists, finds an uncompromisingly tragic, though still lyrical tone for the film.
2 Comments:
I was so bummed to miss this last weekend. I was going to do the New Beverly on Friday and the Egyptian on Saturday, but it just didn't work out. I'm really looking forward to seeing this eventually.
Social consciousness is an interesting phenomenon in conjunction with neo-realism. On the one hand, it's true that most of those films presented some sort of social injustice or "indictment of the times". But there were also neo-realist films like Visconti's "Ossessione" that played as straight dramas. It makes Italian neo-realism hard to pin down as a strict aesthetic (although Bazin probably gave the best definition).
It's funny that the European critics of the 50s who objected to Fellini's and Antonioni's early films and Visconti's later work did so merely because they challenged that notion about the necessity of social relevance in "realist" films.
Well said. Though in the case of Visconti's early work, it's clear that his cinematic tastes were always too regal and elaborate for the confines and simplicity of neo-realism, which is why I would probably never classify him as such even when he utilized a similar aesthetic.
Post a Comment
<< Home