The Bicycle Thief

For all the great stories and scripts that twist and turn, throwing you for a loop around every corner, sometimes the simplest plot devices are the best.  There's nothing to distract from a single, pointed effort as a character searches for one thing, something that needs to be achieved at all costs to continue living in any sort of reasonable fashion. That's one of many reasons I really enjoyed 1948's The Bicycle Thief.

As a fan of movies in general, I try to watch movies from different countries and not just U.S. made productions.  The more I see, the more I like Italian films, especially the neo-realistic films that hit theaters in the years following WWII. The beauty of these movies is their basis in reality. In an age of editing and style where films make you very aware that you are in fact watching a movie, these Italian films do just the opposite. These are slice of movies, partially out of necessity, partially out of an intentional style. This is life. Watch it, and go along for the ride. I like all sorts of movies, but it is refreshing watching movies like this every so often.

Struggling to support his small family including his wife, Maria (Lianella Carell) and his two small children, Antonio Ricci (Lamberto Maggiorani) manages to get a job placing posters all over Rome for fair wages. The only requirement for the job is that he needs to have a bicycle at his disposal. He gets one, renting one for all the money he can put together between him and his wife. He heads off to work on his first day, excited and ready to start, only to have the bike stolen a few hours in. Wanting to keep his new-found job, Antonio starts a desperate search with his son, Bruno (Enzo Staiola), through the city for any sign of the bike. The search is like looking for a needle in a haystack, and Antonio begins to question if anything can go right for him.

Is that one of the most simple, straightforward stories you've ever heard? Man needs bike for job, bike gets stolen, man needs to find bike. It's criminally simplistic, but I think that's part of the genius of the movie. Anything more "dramatic," anything more over-the-top or emotional would have failed miserably.  Director Vittoria De Sica never tries to do anything else, knowing he's got the perfect tone as is. There is nothing to distract from the issue at hand. Don't go in thinking there is a twist coming halfway through. Half of the movie -- literally, not figuratively -- is Antonio and Bruno searching the stores, fairs and markets of Rome on a Sunday morning and afternoon. That's it. It is almost idiotic how straightforward it is, and I mean that in the most positive sense.

One of De Sica's trademarks as a director -- as was the case with many Italian directors at the time -- was to cast amateur actors in key lead roles.  Maggiorani was in 16 movies in his career, most of them bit parts and none of them as important or as moving as his part here as Antonio, a father stretched to his limit. Carell is equally as good as Maria, his equally distressed wife who knows they must grasp at any gasp of hope in front of them. She basically disappears once the search starts, letting the spotlight shine on Maggiorani and Staiola playing their eldest son, Bruno. When you see so many awful child actors around, it's always nice to see some talent. Like all of the actors here, young Staiola is as natural as they come. It never feels forced, his performance feeling genuine, a young boy who worships his Dad and would do anything to help him.

That is the heart of the movie, the father and son relationship, the father-son bonding that happens over the course of their day-long search. Some of the movie's most beautiful parts are montages set to composer Alessandro Cicognini's score of Antonio and Bruno walking through the crowded Rome streets. Maybe because they weren't classically trained actors, but this relationship (like so much of the movie) is as authentic as possible. They joke and argue, always looking out for each other. The city of Rome ends up being its own character thanks to De Sica's direction and Carlo Montuori's cinematography. Like many European cities, it is hard to make Rome not look good, but in black and white filming, it is a visually gorgeous, even stunning city. You fall in love with the city and all its beauty.

The Italian movies I've seen are notorious for downer endings, if "downer" is the right choice. The endings are typically realistic, and how about that? Real-life solutions aren't always happy. The Bicycle Thief is no exception. Realizing their efforts are fruitless, Antonio attempts to steal a bike only to get caught in the effort. Seeing the strain on this man, the bike's owner decides not to press charges. Antonio and Bruno walk away as the sun sets, dejected at their lack of success and not knowing what awaits them. The End. It came as a surprise certainly for me, but it is a thing of beauty. Seeing Antonio's anguish as he contemplates stealing the bike and ultimately decides to do it is an uncomfortable, moving scene to watch unfold. I liked the ending because it is real. There's rarely a nice, tidy ending, and anything else would have seem forced here.

The Bicycle Thief <---trailer (1948): *** 1/2 /**** 

The Millionairess

Each and every movie genre has its fair share of predictability, but depending on the viewer it might not be as big a deal.  For me, westerns can be easy to predict where they're going, but part of the fun is how it gets to the end result.  Yeah, the good guy usually wins, but how does he get to that point? What challenges does he face?  The journey getting there can overcome any predictability in the overall story.  How about romantic comedies though? The guy always gets the girl, but it's hard to get wrapped up in a story like that -- for me at least.

Something else has to work for a romantic comedy to be anything but average.  That's why typically I avoid rom-coms unless something secondary jumps out at me.  Interesting leads in the cast always help, and that's why I watched 1960's The Millionairess with Sophia Loren and Peter Sellers in the leads. Loren for all her beauty was an underrated comedic actress, and Sellers is one of the most accomplished comedic actors in movie history.  But the pairing just felt odd to me taking all considerations of talent aside.  Well, my worries were legitimate because even as talented as both actors are, they lack any real chemistry.  It's not entirely their fault because the script is rather lacking, but no chemistry is a deal-killer here in this romantic comedy.

After her extraordinarily rich father dies, Epifania Parerga (Loren) inherits so much money that she becomes the richest woman in the world.  But for all the money, the clothes, the glitz and glamor, Epifania just isn't happy with her life, especially when her choice for a husband ends up cheating on her.  She sets out to find a new husband -- because as comedies tell us, an unmarried woman is a failure at life -- who lives up to her recently passed father's expectations.  She can't find anyone until she meets an Indian doctor, Ahmed el Kabir (Sellers), who she quickly falls for.  The only problem?  Dr. Kabir has no interest in her whatsoever, and no matter what advances she makes, he wants nothing to do with her.

Depending on the quality of the movie and the timeliness, a movie can age well or not at all, and this one feels like a very 1960s comedy.  It's still funny that so many of these comedies were right at home with the premise that a woman might as well roll over and die if she wasn't married by a certain age.  That's Loren's character who has all the money in the world, runs a variety of successful businesses, and basically has the world at her disposal, but because she can't, and I quote "Make a man happy" she thinks her life is being wasted.  Any story that needs that kind of gimmick already has a strike against it before anything else happens.

It never helps then that an actress as beautiful as Loren plays a character so shrill, so downright annoying that you don't care how she ends up.  Her ploy to seducing Sellers is to continuously attempt to kill herself only to have the good doctor rescue her at the last second.  If that's not love, I don't know what is.  Her tactics border on stalkerish, and it's understandable why Seller's Dr. Kabir has no interest in this intensely shallow woman.  What's worse is that because the movie requires it, he eventually gets worn down and falls in love with her too.  Now it is Loren at her most drop-dead gorgeous so instead of a well-written character, we get to see her in various stages of undress that include lingerie, a *gasp* naked back, and all sorts of tight-fitting, very stylish outfits.  So the character's annoying, but she's nice to look at.

A concern I had reading the description was that Sellers -- a very British actor -- was going to play an Indian doctor.  It takes a very talented actor to play a different race, and that's just for starters.  There's nothing like a bad makeup job to make a pasty Sellers look like a middle-aged Indian man.  Well, my concerns were unfounded although at times it did sound like Sellers was doing Apu from The Simpsons.  He underplays his role so well that his Dr. Kabir is one of the more redeeming things about the movie.  His character is likable, and that's key when you hate his counterpart.  I've always liked Sellers as an actor, but he's much better when he isn't hamming it up like the Pink Panther movies. His humor is more subtle here, and the movie is better for it.

Still, as good as Sellers is, that doesn't overcome a lack of chemistry with Loren.  I assumed with two actors as immensely talented as them that an on-screen chemistry would just happen naturally, but it never develops.  I don't think it's their fault so chalk it up to the awful script or the directing or both. The script just doesn't give a lot of chances for anyone to be funny or a chance for the characters to interact in a humorous way. Alastair Sim has a funny part as Loren's lawyer Julius, and Vittorio De Sica is good as a sweatshop owner who meets Loren, but that's about it for the cast. A romantic comedy doesn't have to be hilarious to be good, but it can't be downright dull.  All other things aside, this movie was dull no matter the talent involved.

The Millionairess <---TCM clips (1960): **/****

Too Bad She's Bad

So I like movies with shootouts, car chases, and some sort of raunchy humor.  Okay, it's not that simple, but those three things always help.  Guys like certain movies and hate others the same way women like some types of movies and despise others.  One genre of films that stereotypically lean more toward a female audience is the romantic comedy.  It's fair to say that many of the movies I like can be pretty cookie-cutter, but I use that as a criticism here of romantic comedies which seem to churn out the same old story in new packaging every couple of weeks.  That's not to say they're all bad, but I'll admit to not seeking them out too often.

One that I came across thanks to TCM's weekly foreign imports feature (TCM Imports) was 1954's Too Bad She's Bad, an Italian romantic comedy with a bit of slapstick and screwball laughs thrown in too.  Maybe because it's a foreign comedy -- and to call it a straight comedy isn't fair -- I look at it differently, but thanks to some strong casting and a type of humor that doesn't overdo it, I enjoyed it.  If nothing else, it's different.  It isn't a cookie-cutter story of some ridiculously hot 30-year old woman who can't find a man, or an eccentric middle-aged man who finds his true love who can see past his oddness.  Although SPOILER ALERT the girl gets the guy, or is it the guy gets the girl? Eh, not important. It's a good movie.

Spending years saving up enough so he can invest in his own taxi cab, cabbie Paolo (Marcello Mastroianni) takes a far for two young men and a pretty girl, Lina (Sophia Loren), who want to drive from Rome to Anzio to spend a day at the beach. Paolo isn't aware the trio plans to steal his cab and leave him stranded but quickly finds out, foiling their plan. The two men get away and Lina slips away in the traffic when he tries to take her to the police station. Paolo can't afford the damages and starts to look for any of the three with Lina popping up repeatedly on his path. Just looking for some cash though, he gets deeper and deeper into a web of thieves with Lina's family all taking a shine to him. Worse than that? Through all the craziness, Paolo realizes he likes Lina too.

Now for starters, any movie that was filmed in Rome in the early 1950s is going to get at least a passing grade from me.  It's post-war Rome following WWII and is as beautiful and romantic a European city as I can think (okay, maybe Paris).  Director Alessandro Blasetti films much of his movie on the streets of Rome and with the exception of the Coliseum doesn't use any easily recognizable locations.  He shoots on the streets with the people, giving us a view of early 1950s Rome that only exists in pictures.  Alessandro Cicognini's musical score not surprisingly relies on Italian music to set the stage but never goes overboard.  My only complaint is that the English subtitles are in white letters, making it difficult to read at times against Blasetti's black and white camerawork. I never missed anything major but did find myself focusing more than usual on the subtitles just trying to keep up.

So you're casting a female part that requires the character to be so downright beautiful and charming that no matter how many unpleasant situations she gets you in the guy still wants to be around her.  If there was ever a part built for Sophia Loren this is it.  Just 20 years old at the time, Loren had already been in over 15 movies with parts ranging from small supporting parts to bigger roles like this.  Looks aside, she shows off some great comedic chops and impeccable timing as we get to know her Lina character.  Her thieving ways continue to get her into trouble, but there's not a situation created yet Lina can't talk her way out of.  My only complaint comes from a certain trend/style of the time...hairy armpits on a woman.  Loren is drop dead gorgeous, but there's not a woman alive that look works for.

Two male parts balance out Loren, one holding a slight edge over the other.  Mastroianni's incredibly gullible, even naive Paolo is too clueless for words at times.  Duped on repeated occasions by the lovely Lina, he continues to believe everything she tells him.  He has a knack for physical humor with some cliched mannerisms and reactions of a fiery Italian man, but he produces laughs, not groans with his actions.  The part I liked more was Lina's father, Vittorio, played by Italian director and star Vittorio De Sica. He raised a family of thieves that supports itself by selling anything valuable they steal with Lina his protege with the most talent.  Vittorio is smooth as silk, convincing you that what he's stealing means nothing, almost like he's helping you out.  It's clear from watching him where Lina got her talent for some truly underhanded things, but they're so charming and likable you don't even notice.

Where does that leave us? Ah, the ending, quite a mix of so many things with not all of them working.  A scene in a police station is played for some genuine laughs that goes on too long, leading to a bit of domestic violence leading to marriage.  It makes sense, don't you think?  An odd ending for sure to an otherwise enjoyable (whudda thunk it?) 1950s Italian romantic comedy.

Too Bad She's Bad <---low quality Youtube clip (1954): ***/****

The Angel Wore Red

I've always enjoyed reading about history, but certain times, incidents, conflicts, and even eras have passed me by.  I just never read or learned much about some things more than others.  High up on that list is the Spanish Civil War of which I know little more than Spain had a Civil War, and an awareness of controversial general Francisco Franco. Part of the problem with major events in history I'm curious about is where to even start?  There's so much going on, and countless books to choose from.  Well, it may not count as an official introduction to the Civil War, but 1960's The Angel Wore Red takes place with the conflict as its backdrop.

I was surprised reading reviews at the IMDB that this is a generally panned movie.  I'd never even heard of it before it aired on TCM as part of an Ava Gardner tribute despite a pretty impressive cast. Complaints ranged from bad camera technique to awful dubbing to something as simple as the movie being too dark to be able to see anything.  If that's important to you, seeing.  Now, I'm not expert when it comes to movies, and I typically just try and enjoy the story.  A movie has to be pretty awful for me to be critical of many things as long as I'm entertained.  So is this a classic? By no means, but I liked it, and it's certainly a change of pace detailing a little told story.

Disillusioned with the direction the Catholic Church is taking and struggling with his own faith, young Spanish priest Arturo Carrera (Dirk Bogarde) leaves his position in the church.  His timing is horrible though as a rebellion breaks out the day he leaves with priests an easy target of the revolutionaries.  He seeks help from a prostitute, Soledad (Gardner), who isn't aware he's a priest, but Arturo eventually ends up arrested and thrown in jail to await execution.  An American newsman, Hawthorne (Joseph Cotten), intervenes though, convincing the rebels that a priest's presence could smooth over objections some of the troops are having. With concerns over Soledad's safety, Arturo goes along with the plan as the violence escalates, much of it revolving around a missing religious relic that both sides want to get their hands on.

Now with little knowledge of the Spanish Civil War and its background, I will say this is a poor introduction.  The revolution is obviously the backdrop to the story, but there's little explanation of what is actually going on with the exception of a few names thrown around here and there; notably the Socialist party and I think Franco once or twice.  Basically, I was confused with what was actually going on throughout the story, and it never really clears up.  It isn't a huge roadblock because once you get involved with the story you know the characters are in danger, and that's enough motivation.  Still, when I watch a historical movie I like to have some idea what's going on, but maybe that's just me.

What did work with the otherwise confusing story was a sub-plot that dealt with faith on both an individual level and on a larger scale that faith can have an impact on large, powerful groups of people.  Before a Spanish cathedral is destroyed, the cardinal saves a religious relic that's long been a part of Catholic history; a drop of blood believed to be from St. John.  It's believed that whoever has possession of the blood cannot be defeated so naturally both sides want control of it.  A diminutive priest (Aldo Fabrizi) who knows its location delivers a powerful, very moving monologue about the power of faith and how it can drive people to do things differently than they normally would have, putting themselves in the face of danger because they believe they will be all right. Amidst all the criticism of the movie as a movie, this sub-plot is untouched and the high point of the movie.

So two main characters are a Spanish priest and a young Spanish prostitute.  Naturally, I'd assume an English actor who doesn't look Spanish, and an American actress who could maybe pass as Spanish would play those two roles. Jokes aside though, Bogarde and Gardner are the least of the movie's worries.  Thankfully Bogarde doesn't attempt any hokey accent even if it does sound odd to listen to a Spanish priest speak with a very English accent.  Gardner plays a role she so often did, a woman with a reputation.  She plays these parts so well you can take it for granted at times what a good actress she was.  The disillusioned priest and the prostitute fall for each other in a relationship that never feels forced or unnecessary. They have a definite chemistry together that does a good job of anchoring the movie.

Looking at the criticisms are they fair looking back on the movie?  Yeah, I guess so.  The dubbing does seem odd at times -- especially Vittorio De Sica as General Clave -- and the movie is dark visually where it can be hard at times to make things out through the shadows.  But watching the movie, none of those things truly bothered me.  I was aware of them, yes, but that's it. Cotten ends up being the cliched American newsman (even wearing an eye patch) who delivers a cliched narration about war and how awful it is.  So as I write all this, I'm thinking this is all coming across as too negative, but I did like the movie mostly because of Bogarde and Gardner.

The Angel Wore Red <---TCM trailer (1960): ***/****

Two Women

Does the Academy Awards tend to give an actress more credit for a role when she plays down her looks, like Charlize Theron in Monster or Hilary Swank in Boys Don't Cry?  I'm guilty of it as well, seeing a gorgeous actress and forgetting at times what a strong actress they can be.  But I do think there's something to it that when their looks are left by the wayside for a part people take them more seriously.  Unfortunate yes, but what are you gonna do about it?  I'm trying to decide if 1960's Two Women applies to that premise.

Italian star Sophia Loren won the Best Actress Academy Award for her performance of a widowed mother trying to get her 12-year old daughter through war-torn Italy late in WWII. It was the first Oscar ever given for a performance in a foreign language film, and one Loren fully deserved.  She's not playing against type because regardless the movie, serious or comedy, Loren was able to get into that character.  But it is a powerhouse performance that tries to dumb down her look, putting her in plain clothes with no makeup.  All I could think though was 'Good luck trying to make Sophia Loren look like an Italian peasant.'  But does her performance apply?  As of now, I'm thinking not at all, it's just a great performance.

Late in WWII, widowed mother Cesira (Loren) lives in Rome running a little grocery with her 12-year old daughter Rosetta (Eleonora Brown).  The war is not going in the Axis' favor, and Rome is being bombed more regularly, forcing Cesira to make the decision to leave the city until things quiet down.  With her daughter, they head to Cesira's village where she grew up as a child.  There much of her family waits, including many refugees and one intellectual (Jean-Paul Belmondo) who can't wait for the Germans and Italians to lose the war. Their biggest problems with so many people are finding enough to eat and drink every day, but as the war approaches the isolated country village, Cesira finds out that no matter how much you prepare, you can't prepare for everything.

Many of the WWII movies I've reviewed are of the front line soldier variety where we see the war from the perspective of a soldier or his unit in a certain battle.  While the war drives the story in 'Two,' this is a story that focuses almost completely away from the battles and the front lines other than a few strafing runs or appearances of lost patrols looking for help.  Director Vittorio De Sica creates this vision of war-torn Italy and lets the characters go to work.  It's a world where everyone is basically on their own for their own survival, and dangers lurk around every corner.  There aren't so much Allies and Axis soldiers as good and bad on both sides, a situation that comes into play late in the movie.  Everyone is affected by the war, and for these characters, they don't care who wins as long as the war ends.

Off and on throughout the movie, I didn't always get the sense of the danger that hung over Italy and more specifically Cesira's life in her village.  The biggest problem facing the single mother and her extended refugee family is food, finding enough so everyone can eat.  The war is the cause of this shortage, but it feels like a far-off war at many times.  More time is spent in the relationship between Cesira and Belmondo's Michele character, an intellectual who shakes his head at the whole premise of the war while also falling madly in love with Cesira (do you blame him?).  German characters drift into the story and leave -- along with two British commandos and a Russian deserter -- but the focus is more on the day-to-day survival caused by the war.

Where Loren won the Oscar for me was in the last half hour as Cesira and Rosetta return home to Rome via the country roads, the Americans and Allied soldiers advancing past them on tanks, trucks and jeeps.  This is where the real horrors of war come into play which I'm not going to spoil here.  It comes as a surprise because to a certain point we've been lulled to sleep by the relative safety of the country village.  But here Loren's mother has to protect her daughter in a way she's only considered, never thinking it would come true.  Loren's performance as a whole was excellent, feeling like a real mother with only two real concerns, her daughter and herself, but the final 30 minutes or so sets the character apart from other similar characters.

As for Loren's looks, I'm not sure if it is actually possible to dull them down.  Her hair is unkempt, she wears no makeup, and she wears loose, baggy clothing (if cut a little low at the neckline), all in an attempt to make her look like a run of the mill Italian peasant single mother.  Yeah, good luck with that.  I'll say this, natural is a good look for her.  If interested, watch the movie at Youtube starting with Part 1 of 13 with Italian subtitles. Early in the movie I struggled to keep up with the speed and lightning pace of the subtitles, but you get into a rhythm soon enough.  Also look for Raf Vallone in a one-scene cameo. Watch this one for a moving portrayal of WWII's effect on the civilians, especially Loren in one of her best performances.

Two Women (1960): ***/****