1900
What great aspirations did Bernardo Bertolucci’s “1900” arouse and how few of them are fulfilled. It was to be the sensational, ambitious declaration by the young Italian director widely regarded as the finest since Fellini; the filmmaker who made “The Conformist” before 30, and whose “Last Tango in Paris” Pauline Kael considered a greater artistic event than Stravinsky’s “Rite of Spring.” His choice of actors was free from restrictions on budgetary limits and he could even make it personal as much as he wanted. But then again, he lost it.
I can remember how everyone was excited before the world premiere of “1900” at Cannes Film Festival in May 1976. Passes and tickets were being sold on an ad-hoc black market, while during the first morning performance people squeezed so hard that one man went through a plate-glass door. This differed sharply by late afternoon after press showings for both halves of this then (320 minutes) film had ended. People were silent puzzled disappointed just like that: How did Bertolucci go so far off track?
Since that disastrous premiere 18 months ago, there has been something of an uproar over “1900”. Alberto Grimaldi, the film’s producer has worked with such directors as Fellini, Pontecorvo and Visconti among others who knew a thing or two about films which run over-budget or time wise too long. He had taken a gamble with Bertolucci thus now having this vastly expensive film practically impossible to sell. One shortened version was prepared by him while Bertolucci stood by his original cut until Bertolucci finally rereleased his own shorter edited version running to only 247 minutes making it almost seem like no one would have ever seen “1900.”
But I’m afraid to say maybe that would have been better: The movie might have entered the annals of film history as a great lost classic and Grimaldi made out to be the bad guy, whereas Bertolucci moved on in his life to make another picture (and he did). Because “1900” is an uncontrolled film. It is a movie that is so large in its conception that it simply does not work. A film where for hours Bertolucci tries to tell us about the class struggle in Italy, but finally ends up on a note of slapstick nonsense.
The movie starts on the day Verdi dies (for no particular reason, I’m sorry). It logs two births into families; one to rich land-owning parents and another to peasants living off their lands. The kids grow up together as friends playing games, and there is an element of charm like Huck Finn’s scenes that include trapping frogs and daring each other to lie down on the tracks while trains pass overhead. However, this film has decades ahead of it and cannot stop for our deep involvement.
The boys grow up (the rich one being played by Robert De Niro and Depardieu taking the role of the poor boy). Their fathers (Burt Lancaster and Sterling Hayden respectively) die so young men inherit ancient customs and feuds of the area they live in. Mussolini was coming into power with Trumpism rising as well as leading black shirts who were working under De Niro including Donald Sutherland persecuting local communists e.g. Depardieu.
And then well, a summary could look like the book of Genesis, packed with marriages and births, deaths and killings, competitions and treacheries as well as thefts and emotions.
That’s when De Niro marries a stunning young woman (Dominique Sanda), Sutherland kills a baby on the wedding day and accuses Depardieu. And movements of Bertolucci’s camera which is always moving or making swoops into the air from one fine set to another hardly appears to pause for these activities: The film seems to have a beauty separate from its content such that across visually dazzling us all as an apology for his mess in telling the story.
You’ll recognize certain key scenes (and yes, “1900” is a movie worth seeing). There’s the moment at the wedding when they bring in a white horse which is given as gift to the couple. Then, during this wedding too, Sanda removes her white veil and puts it on top of another who was green with envy. It ends up being resolved by both throwing sausages after De Niro walks out. The snow scenes here are magic; so are those showing harvests beautifully painted. And suddenly Sutherland kills a cat while Depardieu takes down a pig whereas all other townspeople kill Sutherland.
However, this movie doesn’t seem to be going anywhere. Its length justifies why it is called an epic. Coppola’s two part “Godfather” series (which together take about 1900) will show how much command he had over his Italian-American family saga in comparison with Bertolucci who managed to include masses of material while dealing with generations of people thereby obtaining operatic scale. Now, consider “1900,” which shows that Bertolucci is most comfortable in settings involving two people talking quietly (Brando and Maria Schneider in “Last Tango,” Alida Valli and Giulio Brogi in “The Spider’s Strategem”).
Of course, Bertolucci can direct great set pieces and has some grandest scenes (for example, his favorite are the outdoor dances) at his disposal. Nevertheless, he requires visible characters that can tie down his narratives and seems more self-assured whenever he delves into their minds rather than trying to be on every side of ideological spectrum.
“1900” makes ambitious claims about Italian politics over a span of half a century but leaves us with two old protagonists scraping at each other in a road. They look like two old fools; the scene even further belittles what has gone before it is possible a throwaway ending would have been right for this film.
Watch 1900 For Free On Gomovies.