Finally learning more and more about this unique film, which is no easy task, I can assure you.
I've been learning more and more about its creator, Pier Giuseppe Murgia, and his original intent. It seems very nearly everyone is waayyy off. For some reason that I'm unsure of, he looks different than I thought he would. To me, in 1977, he bore a vaguely passing resemblance to Christopher Nolan of today, LOL! He was a blonde haired, blue eyed, clean cut guy, with hipster bangs and a black leather jacket. He also has a prominent, pouty-looking bottom lip.
He was born in Italy in 1940, and was originally more of a novelist than a filmmaker. In 1960, at just the age of 20, he published his first novel, called "Il Ragazzo di Fuoco" ("The Boys of Fire"), and apparently it was quite scandalous. A year later, he published a collection of short stories, in 1961 when he was 21, it was called...are you ready?... "La Mala Adolescenza" ("The Bad Adolescents"), and was not connected to the later film of a similar title except that it was about troubled teens and had sex and violence in it. But these were BOOKS, not films, and the writer was quite young himself, so there wasn't really too much trouble. Apparently, though, most of his writings during this period dealt with young people and sex and other scandalous things.
His other books followed, and he also regularly contributed poetry and short stories to various literary magazines and such in Italy at the time. He published another book, called "Il Buoncostume", as well as a book of stories called, "Chronicles of Fascism After the Resistance: 1945-1950".
His first foray into screenwriting came in 1974, when he co-wrote a script called, "Bali". He worked on several other scripts and even dabbled in still art photography in the mid-70s. Finally, he wrote and directed his first feature film, "Maladolescenza", in 1976. It was released in 1977.
Now, as for the film itself, no one of today that I have come across has quite interpreted it properly, with regard to Murgia's original intentions. His ambitions, it seems, were far greater than anyone really has caught onto today. Regardless of the now endless debates about the film's morality, of the morality of using actors THAT young in simulated sexual scenes, or of the film's legality in today's world, the original intent of Murgia (which I have constantly seen people wonder about in these boards), had little to do with that. In addition, this film is not merely a tender "coming-of-age" story, or a story about painful rites of passage, or a study of juvenile bullying, like many of its supporters claim. It was also not intended, at least not conciously or overtly it seems, as titilation or child pornography, either. Murgia explained in 1977 that the film is a dreamlike, fairy-tale-like metaphor for fascism and its corruption of the innocent. (Now, honestly, who really in these boards understood THAT?!?). It's all about context, it seems. Remember, this was an era when Pier Paolo Pasolini had just made "Salo", and Bertolucci had made films like "The Conformist" and "Novecento/1900". And the communists/socialists/intellectuals/artists of post-WWII Italy were in full swing. The film is a character study of a typical 70s anti-hero (Murgia likened Fabrizio to Travis Bickle!!!), who is not supposed to be entirely sympathetic. Fabrizio represents the "angry young man" of the proletariat, working classes. Lara Wendel's Laura represents the working class innocent, and Sylvia represents the spoiled, cruel, lazy, bratty child of the bourgousie fascists. Fabrizio draws nearer and nearer to the cruelty and opportunism that led so many angry young men to embrace anarchic fascism and Nazism with an unholy furor, and they represented a "rape" of the innocence and purity of the proletariat, or working classes. The fascists, represented by Sylvia, used pretty packaging and manipulation and cruelty to "lure" the angry young men into the fold, and used their advantages to have power over the young men, who then imitated this, and used a false sense of their own power to further abuse the "weak" in their midst. Laura represents the genuine, the pure, the loving, even more mature, the voice of reason, of conscience, the maternal, the motherly, who is continuously raped, abused, mocked by the fasicst and her slave, who thinks HE'S in charge. If there is intended to be a sympathetic protaganist, it is Laura, but even then she is indicted to a degree for being the too-willing victim. Ultimately, we see the fall of fascism in Sylvia's death, and the shame and regret and lonliness and fall from grace of the followers through Fabrizio, and the ultimate re-emergence and survival of Laura, who is still loving and forgiving. All the while the sex is merely representative of the abuse of commodities to abuse power, like in Pasolini's "Salo". In other words, no way is this sex supposed to be erotic, in any way shape or form. The first sex scene (in the cave)is an all out violation of Laura, and the later sex scene is a punishment, a shaming of Laura. The frolicking about and cavorting of Fabrizio and Sylvia after that, which appears to have erotic intent, is still intended as illusory. Fabrizio is living in a fake world of fake comforts, outwardly rejecting conformity (ie, living in the forest), while hypocritically embracing it, frolicking with the girl who represents it. He first breaks the window of the people in the fancy tower, and later can't bring himself to. Laura is the only one of consistently good character. Other little nuances include the boy using his dog to terrorize Laura. (ie the Nazis using German shepherds to hunt their prey). There is also a reason this film was a GERMAN-ITALIAN production. See the connection? In the end, one can debate the morality/legality of using young kids in the film, but there is certainly one thing that is clear: Murgia most certainly had a serious, political, and artistic intent when he made the film. That much is certain.
All of this massive description pretty much comes from Murgia himself, in the Italian press, circa 1977.
Sadly, removed from the context of that time and political understanding, this film ,like "Salo", is likely to be misunderstood completely, with people focusing entirely on the "lurid" content and the "shock value".
Surprisingly, a clear understanding of the film doesn't necessarily save it, either. That seems to be the case with a judge in the Netherlands, who was among the judges who declared the film "child pornography" there in 2010. This judge argued that he understood the film completely, but that that only made it worse to him. He says that, in trying to make a film about the human exploitation committed by fascists, when using children to metaphorically act out this exploitation, the filmmakers have inadvertantly made a film that, by its own admission, is literally ABOUT the exploitation of children.
Not sure if I agree with his conclusion there, but it is ceratinly food for thought.
I have a much deeper understanding of what the film is actually supposed to be about now, after tons of curious, exhaustive research.
Incidentally, Pier Giuseppe Murgia actually has an official website now! Likely due to the renewed interest in this film in recent years.
It is simply wwww.piergiuseppemurgia.com
I know this was a helluva long post, but I hope it was the most helpful post these boards have seen yet!!!
reply
share