MovieChat Forums > Matrimonio all'italiana (1964) Discussion > Continuity error... or more of Mimi's se...

Continuity error... or more of Mimi's selfishness?


I watched this film again after many many years, and something is odd to me.

I guess there might be spoilers (but since the film is almost 50 years old, probably not)

In Mimi's flashbacks, we see him set Filumena up in an apartment, and he introduces her to Rosalia, the house keeper, So obviously Rosalia and Filumena had never met at that point.

In Filumena's flashback, she remembers being at the brothel and getting the phone call. The next scene is Alfredo and she driving in the country and she's looking for the farm house where her baby lives, and she's relieved to know his fever is gone. The next scene we meet her other two sons at the bakery, and there is Rosalia, who obviously knows Filumena and her secret children.

So, is this an error in continuity, or are we to believe that Filumena returned to the brothel after she had gotten set up in the apartment? That would have been so sad, she was so adament that she didn't want to go back there.

Perhaps they wanted a scene with Sophiia in that nightgown!

reply

I wondered how she returned into the brothel too!

reply

The next scene is Alfredo and she driving in the country and she's looking for the farm house where her baby lives, and she's relieved to know his fever is gone. The next scene we meet her other two sons at the bakery, and there is Rosalia, who obviously knows Filumena and her secret children.

The next scene takes place years after the constipated toddler one, at least that's how I understood it.

reply

This film is famous for several unnecessary cuts which ruined the continuity of the story line.
Cineteca di Bologna did a complete 4k restoration of the film in 2014 uncut and in it's original edit.
It was shown at Cannes Classico in 2014 with Sophia present and special showings in New York and Los Angeles.
I'm sure Criterion will pick it up in 2015 or 2016.
Be patient; it's coming !!!
Samuel

reply