MovieChat Forums > Roma città aperta (1945) Discussion > Realism - Can you have true realism?

Realism - Can you have true realism?


This is a good Italian neo-realist film but how close to realism can a film get when it is scripted (this film was nominated for best screenplay at the oscars)?

reply

[deleted]

This film's portrayal of nazis may be conventional, but please remember that it was shot very recently after WWII.
Italy (and Europe)'s wounds had not yet healed, and a lot of Italians basically hated nazis and fascists (always lowercase for me) with all of their guts.
Therefore, the script of a war movie that did not portray nazis and fascists as dumb evildoers and the partisans as heroes would have never been approved.
Besides, Rossellini had to clear his conscience of having been a public supporter of the fascist regime, so he'd probably have risked his own skin if he didn't portray nazis and fascists as absolute evil.

Having said that, my father, who walked some of those very streets you see in the movie in those days, says that although not at all dumb, many German soldiers seemed out of place and confused in those days (and probably were) and also the typical stereotype of the German in Italy is that of a hard-nosed, strict and a little dumb individual who cannot do anything but obey orders and do things by following only the rules with no imagination.
So maybe the one-dimensional Germans are "real" in a sort of way ;)

(BTW: My father always says that American Soldiers were waaay nicer and more friendly than English soldiers - score one for the Yanks)

reply

the realism in this film doesn't necessarily mean that the film itself is "real"--that the action is happening live and there no actors or script. rossellini wanted to reflect a reality. the events in the film actually happened during the war. a lot of the shots were filmed in the exact places where the events took place. the neorealist movement wasn't to pretend that what was happening on screen was real but rather to be rid of all the propaganda and fantasy films that were made prior to World War II.

reply

neorealism is almost a documentary.
so it's the most real cinema you'll ever see.

reply

As a vegetarian and supporter of animal rights, I was horrified by the restaurant scene where animals are slaughtered. Their killing was disturbingly realistic.

I understand the dramatic implications of the scene, but presumably humans weren't killed to make this movie. I hope animals weren't either.

reply

what, the sheep?
it was offscreen...

reply

You are confusing the name a movement with a word definition from the dictionary. Modernism, for example, isn't the latest artistic achievement but a name for a movement that began over 100 years ago and ended decades ago. Neorealism is "a film style using documentary techniques for fictional purposes. Most neorealist films rely on high-contrast black-and-white film, nonprofessional actors, and natural settings."

Contrary to some of the comments here, I found this movie to be quite compelling and the stories and characters to be multi-dimensional and convincing. This was probably because the story was based on actual people and events. With a brutal and even sadistic rise of the far right in the US and an insensitive tendency to occupy foreign countries—it is no surprise that Americans might want to see the fascists portrayed with greater sympathy. That, in and of itself, doesn’t make the figures from the Nazi resistance any less noble. I found this movie to be anything but predictable even though it has been studied and emulated for decades.

reply

[deleted]

With a brutal and even sadistic rise of the far right in the US and an insensitive tendency to occupy foreign countries
7 years since your post and recent elections in Europe show a worrying shift to the right and anti-immigrant/racist rhetoric against migrants. Beneath such rhetoric is an unspoken sense of superiority. We might not be in master race territory yet but it's not far off.
I give my respect to those who have earned it; to everyone else, I'm civil.

reply

There is a difference between realism in art and reality. Italian neo-realism is a very good example of thta: it displays an unmistakable, quite artificial style while telling very realistic stories. That's what makes it work.

Reality in art however never works.

reply

There is no such possibility of depicting something in a truly realist manner. The fact that I've used the word 'depicting'....
Some forms of the documentary film, which may also appear to screen reality, can never achieve it truly. For instance, someone decides what is shown, what is not, when it is cut, what angle it is shown from, it may employ a 'voice of God', etc, etc...

Pace

reply

I think you're confounding realism and objectivity.

reply

No. I may gone a little off the point, but I was just emphasising how even something that may claim to document the 'real' cannot. In response to a number of threads.

reply

Well you have to ask, what exactly is the movie trying to portray as real? The destroyed city is real, the living conditions and the feelings of the Romans are all very real. The open end is perfectly real, as if the news or the history books are there for us, almost like some sort of sequel. It has characters who represent the people of the time, none of whom are protagonist. Of course it had to be scripted because otherwise it's just going and shooting random things in a desolate city, and in reality, the viewer isn't going to get any sense of reality at all. What it takes is an Italian who has been ravaged by the war and knows the minds of the people of Rome who can then write and direct a film that accurately depicts the feelings of the people towards the nazis. So to some up, it's realism not real

reply

no. really.



You stay classy, San Diego.

reply