MovieChat Forums > Paisà (1948) Discussion > Horrible

Horrible

posted 13 years ago by Remnant_Of_The_Abyss
11 replies | jump to latest

Without a doubt, overall this has the worst acting that I've ever seen in a professional film. The vignettes were not very impressive either, using real footage at the beginning and then slipping into something that looked like a high school production. And to waste 20 minutes on a monastery, showing the monks were concerned about having a Jew and a Lutheran amongst them for just an overnight is not only stupid but has nothing to do with the war.

And let's not forget the drunk negro American soldier, staggering all around making a fool of himself, who then has his boots stolen by the Sicilian boy after he passes out. But then this tripe becomes 'art' because the soldier later realizes that the boy lost his parents in the bombing. Wow, that's really great story telling!

And I'm familiar with art films, although they're not my cup of tea. But this? It reminded me of a cheap soap opera with a bad script (e.g. the woman guide in the 'pirates castle').

This is one of the worst films I've ever watched. It's wretched! And I don't care who the directors were. This film still sucks very badly.

ROTA Quintessential Foreign Language Films List: http://www.imdb.com/list/qQvbXmXhhCU/

[–] ministerwithoutportfolio 13 years ago

Acting was weak in spots, agreed. Especially the first vignette and the last vignette.

Soldiers were frequently given sanctuary in monasteries. Villagers hid their livestock there too. A scene like that easily could have happened, if not actually based on a true story.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] movieman-227 12 years ago

"Horrible"? Really????
While I'll admit that "Paisan" is a long haul--particularly if you watch the restored two-hour-plus version--there's no denying the film's historical import/significance.
Yes, the acting by the Americans is wretched, but their amateurishness as performers seems irrelevant within the context of the bigger picture.
Rossellini basically invented neorealism with this, "Open City" and "Germany Year Zero."
Attention must be paid, even if--as in the case with most silents--it's more interesting contextually and historically than as "entertainment."
I'm glad I saw it.

[–] Kammurabi 12 years ago

Many of the roles were not given to actors but to actual soldiers and monks. And this is not an actor's film anyway.
I find it odd you point out the Negro Soldier though because I thought he gave one of the best performances in the movie and it was an effective story that spoke much with not many words.

These segments were slices of life in wartime Italy and are not meant to be taken as profound abstract art or convoluted mysteries.

It isn't perfect but I gave it a solid 7.

.

[–] Errington_92 12 years ago

And to waste 20 minutes on a monastery, showing the monks were concerned about having a Jew and a Lutheran amongst them for just an overnight is not only stupid but has nothing to do with the war.

You have missed the significance of this segment. It was highlighting the intolerence of some which had played a factor in the war in which the Captain was indifferent to. His character was personifing the Allies and his speech at the end of the segment was important, "peace be with all men of good will". It has a double meaning not only as a hint to the Monks criticising their narrow mindedness but always a tribute to the Allied forces.

"I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not".

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] chuck-526 11 years ago

I too found this film not all that interesting by today's standards. It's tradecraft is a little lacking, and its stories are somewhat melodramatic. It's not the first thing I'd watch for enjoyment:-)

It seems to me its real importance is as an illustration from the historical development of film. By 1946 standards it was very different. By using non-professional actors in semi-real scenarios shot on location (instead of on a sound stage), it helped usher in the "neo-realist" film movement. I strongly suspect that what seems melodramatic (or even moralistic) now was a breath of fresh air back then.

(Films that were very important at the time, yet have little currency today, are rather common. For example consider "Giant", which was James Dean's last film, a huge financial success for the studio, one of the most expensive movies ever made at the time, won a boatload of awards, made innovations in aging makeup, was listed by Laura Bush [the ex-president's wife] as one of the favorite films of her circle, and was probably the source of the initials "J.R." for the TV show "Dallas". But have you ever even heard of it?????)

[–] timlin-4 11 years ago

1946: not surprising it is going to be slapped together and a little heavy-handed. I agree with chuck-526 too that movies were generally pretty crappy back in the day. The more things change...

[–] activista 10 years ago

@Timlin-4

There have been good movies and bad movies from every era since the dawn of film. Keep in mind,this film was made right after World War II, and the filmmakers were probably using whatever they could scrape up to make the film, since they obviously had a very low budget. They did the best they could with what they had. I saw and liked this film some years old, and I liked how naturalistic the scenes and acting were---so unlike Hollywood films of the time.

[–] texastreasure517 7 years ago

Indeed, look at the Coliseum at the end of the "Francesca" piece, for example. It's got holes in it and entire chunks of it are totally gone! This isn't set direction or CGI, folks. This is how it actually looked after the war. Think about that for a minute.