Umberto D

→ in
Tools    





It was beauty killed the beast.
Kong watched De Sica's 1955 classic Umberto D this morning and immediately fell in love with it.

The movie opens on a march of pensioners demanding a larger allowance because they cannot afford even the most modest of living standards on what the Italian government is giving them, but the police quickly disperses the marchers because they lack a permit. It is after this march is over, and inside of a soup kitchen where our protaganist, Umberto Domenico Ferrari, is revealed to us.

Umberto is a retired government empoyee whose pension has not covered his expenses and he has fallen into debt with his landlady who is eager to kick him out of the room he has rented for twenty years. Life, and the whole world has changed for Umberto; his security has vanished, many friends have died, his family is never seen...for the most part it is just Umberto and his dog. The shabby room he has rented for so many years has come to symbolize his life, and most of the film centers around the actions he takes to pay off his debt and keep his room.

For a film with such a small scope it is surprisingly deep, and richly layered. It can be viewed as a purely personal story, as a tale of class struggle, or even as a commentary on inter-generational relations and treatment. No matter how you view the film though, it is intensely emotional, and engaging. It's one of the most simplistic stories ever filmed, but also one of the most emotionally complex as well. A terrific achievement. The film's issues are still pertinent and resonant.

Kong could go on and on about this wonderful film, but will just end by mentioning that this film has become Kong's new favorite so see it if you haven't already.

Note: Umberto D is not on DVD yet, but Criterion will be releasing it in July.
__________________
Kong's Reviews:
Stuck On You
Bad Santa



I've been trying to see this for a long time. I guess I'll just wait the month and buy the Criterion blindly.


Side note, have you ever seen Bicycle Thief? You may have mentioned if you have on here before, I coulda missed it. It's a pretty wonderful Italian neorealism film. Definitely check it out if you haven't.
__________________
You're not hopeless...



It was beauty killed the beast.
Originally posted by Henry The Kid
I've been trying to see this for a long time. I guess I'll just wait the month and buy the Criterion blindly.


Side note, have you ever seen Bicycle Thief? You may have mentioned if you have on here before, I coulda missed it. It's a pretty wonderful Italian neorealism film. Definitely check it out if you haven't.
Kong has seen The Bicycle Theif and it certainly is a wonderful film, but Kong feels that Umberto D is truly a league ahead of it.

Let Kong know what you think when you finally get the chance to see it.



I am having a nervous breakdance
Hmmm... I had a post here but it seems to have disappeared...

Nevermind... Here comes another one!

Kong, what's your views on the socialist, sometimes even communist, ideology within the italian neorealist movement regarding your thoughts about marxism being the only negative thing about Battleship Potemkin?
__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but
now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.



It was beauty killed the beast.
Originally posted by Piddzilla
Hmmm... I had a post here but it seems to have disappeared...

Nevermind... Here comes another one!

Kong, what's your views on the socialist, sometimes even communist, ideology within the italian neorealist movement regarding your thoughts about marxism being the only negative thing about Battleship Potemkin?
Kong hasn't seen Battleship Potemkin; Kong was just saying that the Marxist viewpoint is the only negative thing that has been mentioned to him. Kong may not have any problems with this viewpoint, and Kong actually likes many of the ideas behind communism. The big problem (at least in Kong's opinion) with communism is it doesn't really seem possible. The so called comunist countries all run on greedy corrupted power systems that don't actually serve the people the way the idea was intended.

The basic political message that Kong extracts from De Sica's The Bicycle Thief, and Umberto D is that everyone is deserving of a basic sustainable standard of living. Shelter, food, and health shouldn't have to be struggled for by some while others are living in opulence. This could be achieved in various economic systems and doesn't automatically entail a socialist one (although it may have been the preferred choice of neorealist directors). All in all Kong agrees with the basic ideal that humanity has progressed to a point where everyone can and should be able to lead comfortable lives.

The U.S. has blended capitalism, and socialism and most of its citizens seem fairly happy with this mix. Kong feels that a combination of the two is probably a good idea, but that the U.S. has probably not found the right mixture yet. The rich are still getting richer, the poor still getting poorer, millions are uninsured, social security is on the brink of disaster, urban schools are decaying, and at the same time CEO's salaries have skyrocketed to ridiculous proportions. The system is in terrible need of a rebalancing, but since the ones we endow with the power to balance the system tend to be the one's who prospermost from it's inequities Kong doubts they will bother to improve it any time soon.



I am having a nervous breakdance
I am not challeging or criticizing your political views. I just thought it was strange and a bit funny when you said that the only negative thing you had heard about Batlleship Potemkin was that it was marxist, when that is the main idea of the film - to be marxist propaganda. That's why I was interested to know about your views on an equally politically charged cinema as the italian neorealist cinema.



It was beauty killed the beast.
Originally posted by Piddzilla
I am not challeging or criticizing your political views.
Your welcome to challenge and criticize if you like. It's healthy, and productive.

Anyways, what are your feelings on the politics of the neorealist films you've seen?



I am having a nervous breakdance
Originally posted by Kong


Your welcome to challenge and criticize if you like. It's healthy, and productive.
Oh, trust me, I will both challenge and criticize when I feel the urge... I'm just saying that I didn't post because I sensed criticism towards marxism. That wasn't the point I was trying to make.

Anyways, what are your feelings on the politics of the neorealist films you've seen?
Well, I think I have only seen two: The Bicycle Thief (1948) by De Sica and Rome, Open City (1945) by Rossellini, and I liked them both very much. The Rossellini film didn't make the same impression on me as De Sica's masterpiece though.

The neorealist movement had some things in common with the soviet montage movement, like the use of amateur actors for example. There is a big difference when it comes to politics though (according to me, that is). Once again, I haven't seen many films from any of the movements but I have read some about it too. But it seems to me that the montage movement was working more for The Cause. They were idealists and glorified the revolution in a way. The italian neorealists seem to have been less interested in political idealism than in the misery of the working man, the human being in a social context. They wanted to depict the worker so the audience felt the frustration and the exhaustion of the character in the film. The directors wanted the audience to draw their own conclusions, hence the often used open endings; what happened next? I like this concept, it appeals to me. I like the soviet revolutionary montage films very much, but they are giving us all the answers. The neorealists have more the feeling of a documentary and tell us "This is how it is. What do you think about that?? What do YOU think we should do about it??". To me, the neorealists are not explicitly socialists in the same obvious way as the soviet montagers were. But they always take the side of "the little man" and the working class, so it's pretty obvious. We also have to remember that the movement was developed in a country ruled by the fascists (who ironically enough founded the film academy that most neorealist directors came out of). The movement was most certainly a reaction against fascism.



It was beauty killed the beast.
Just a reminder to you folks that the Criterion release of Umberto D is now available!



Special Features:
- New high-definition transfer from restored elements with new and improved subtitle translation.
- "This is Life: Vittorio De Sica," a 55-minute Italian television documentary.
- Interview with actress Maria Pia Casilio.
- New essay by critic Stuart Klawans and reprinted recollections on the film by De Sica.
Writings of Umberto D. by Umberto Eco, Luisa Alessandri, and Carlo Battisti.

Cheapest price that Kong could find was here:http://www.deepdiscountdvd.com/dvd.cfm?itemID=HVD001625



The Mad Prophet of the Movie Forums
YaY
__________________
"I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!" - Howard Beale



The Mad Prophet of the Movie Forums
I just rented this. I'll let you know what I thought soon.



It was beauty killed the beast.
Hope you like Beale, Kong is eager to hear your thoughts. Especially sense our tastes tends differ quite a bit.



The Mad Prophet of the Movie Forums
Well Kong, I finally got around to seeing the film (on criterion might I add ).

I absolutely loved it!

It was so touching, and heartbreaking....

It is also has one of the greatest friendships ever filmed. (Umberto and Flike)

Outside of that, I believe you're thoughts summarize what I would've said (except in a much more efficient way).

Thanks so much for recommending this wonderful movie!



It was beauty killed the beast.
Glad to hear that you loved it. Kong is dying to check it out on DVD (Kong plans on picking it up soon). The VHS version that Kong saw had the dog named "Flag" instead of "Flike". Did you see any of the special features? How were they?

P.S. If you can get your hands on a copy of Angels With Dirty Faces check it out! Kong garuntees that you'll like it. Right now it's only on VHS so it may be kinda hard to find.



The Mad Prophet of the Movie Forums
Thanks Kong. I've always been a fan of Cagney's Gangster films. White Heat is one of my all time favs. I'll be sure to check it out!

I didn't have a chance to view the extras, but that transfer was gorgeous. I'll be sure to check out the extras and tell you about them tomorrow.

I noticed the Flag/Flike difference. Strange....

(Leaves house in search of Angels with Dirty Faces.... )



Great movie. Only other De Sica I've seen is Bicycle Thieves, so I kinda sorta knew what I was getting into.
__________________
**** the Lakers!



It was beauty killed the beast.
Originally Posted by Steve
Great movie. Only other De Sica I've seen is Bicycle Thieves, so I kinda sorta knew what I was getting into.
Check out The Garden of the Finzi-Continis if you want to see a De Sica film done in a different style. It's downbeat like Umberto D, and The Bicycle Thief, but it's approach and execution are different as well as the characters it deals with.



Mother! Oh, God! Mother! Blood!
A few months back, I had read on another thread that Umberto D. was Kong's new favorite film. It wasn't available yet on DVD, but I put it in my queue on my DVD mail rental club. It just recently became available and was shipped to me.

It's amazing how much sympathy a dog can create. I think the point in which I started rooting for Flike more than Umberto came when Umberto tried to abandon Flike in the park. At this point, amazingly, I was just hoping Flike would be okay at the end of the film. When Umberto picked up Flike and held him as the train approached, I found myself thinking, "As long as the dog gets away...Please let the dog get away." (Old Yeller and Where the Red Fern Grows must have had a pretty big role in shaping my feelings regarding the well-being of dogs at the end of films).

If I were writing a paper on this film for a college class, I'd focus the entire paper on Flike. Flike is truly the only thing keeping Umberto alive and is the only living thing Umberto carrys out concern for. Umberto seems to disregard his other friendly human connections: the man from the cafeteria to whom he sells his watch, the man next to him in the hospitla, the man with whom he encounters as he begins to look for handouts, and the young, pregnant maid from his building (I forget her name...Marie?).

The maid, it would seem, is the person with whom Umberto should be making a connection, and it would seem that she would be the one, playing the role of the daughter-figure in his life, to save him from his despair and give him something to live for. However, at the point where a full-blown connection should be made (as the soldier walks away from her and leaves her crying), Umberto disregards her situation because Flike has become lost. The girl becomes meaningless to Umberto, and her situation in the film, as a result, becomes meaningless to the audience. Flike has taken over as the only important thing in the film.

Flike is Umberto's only friend. This is not to say that other characters were not willing to embrace Umberto as a friend. I think they were. Flike is Umberto's only friend because Umberto chooses for that relationship to be the most important. Now, because this is the strongest relationship Umberto has, it is only fitting that the only thing that can save Umberto is Flike. No other personal contacts can save him. It HAS to be Flike that saves him. Flike not only stalls Umberto's apparent suicide, but he prevents it, as well, by struggling from his arms. In the end, Umberto CAN NOT commit suicide while the only thing he loves has lost trust in him. By regaining Flike's trust, Umberto has been given a reason to live. And as we see "Finis," we're happy for the dog.

(by the way, if this WERE a college paper, it would be more developed, but these are the ideas )
__________________
NEW (as of 1/24/05): Quick Reviews #10



It was beauty killed the beast.
It's interesting that you bring up the points about how Umberto seems to reject chances to have strong relationships with other characters. In the notes that come with the DVD their is a short essay by the director and he briefly addresses this. He says:

"Umberto is an old man and as such has all the defects of the old. It would have been easy to make a sentimental, conventional, pathetic old man in order to make him more acceptable and pleasing. But no. Umberto is an old "bourgeois," whose former life we do not know. (He may be a widower or an old bachelor.) His past does not matter to us. What matters is Umberto today, in his seventies, alone near the close of his life, with all the burden pff past struggles that have made him an irritable old man, almost unpleasant. In his behavior he is neither pathetic nor sentimental. He is good only to the good, and extremely disagreeable to those who are not good to him.

What is the meaning of the film? It seeks to put on screen the drama of man's inability to communicate with his fellow man. ..."
- Vittorio De Sica



Did Kong (and the rest) also see De Sica's Miracle in Milan ? It was a long time since I saw it, but I remember it as a touching piece of cinema.
__________________
(signature space for rent)