Monday, July 19, 2010

So much for my happy ending...

Michael Kera

In class we discussed how neorealism followed the mundane routines of ordinary people. I think that is gobbly-gook. In all seriousness could this movie have actually happen, yes. Are the events in this movie real? Yes. I read a scriptwriting book and the author posed the question would you go see a movie about a guy who is happily married, has a good job, and great kids? No. Because the premise of the movie would be. Guy wakes up, Wife made breakfast, guy goes to work, guy comes home, guy eats dinner, guy goes to bed, and the cycle starts again. Would you honestly go see that movie? I wouldn't. There needs to be action. In Bicycle Thief's case; poor man gets a job, but dilemma he needs a bicycle to have the job. So the family pawns some sheets to get money for a bike. First day on the job, the man's bike is stolen. He has to find the bike to keep his job. He becomes desperate. He smacks his son. He accuses some young man of stealing his bike and causes an uproar. He eventually tries to steal someone else's bike. End movie, a failure. Real people can have movie moments without being an undercover assassin or a psycho killer. Shit happens.

Real people. Real problems. Using non professional actors can sometimes give a sense of realism. Finding a real person with real problems work. Everyone is an actor. If you find someone real who has gone though the situation of the character you are placing him or her into comes easier. We talked about actors in class once; there are method actors and character actors. Method actors try to experience what their character has experienced, like Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight, and then Character Actors like Sarah Michelle Geller who I cannot separate from Buffy. If you find a father with no job and two children to feed, and that is your character, desperation should come easier to him than Mr. Monopoly.

I would say most of that movie was shot on-location. Since the genre follows normal people, you would have to be on location for the shoots. But now, if you wanted to shoot something like this, you would need permits, money, and connections; unless you were using your house. I don't know how it was back in that time period, but now a days it is difficult to shoot in a church, even for a wedding. The service probably was not a real service, but I am curious to know if it was actually shot in a church or on a set.

2 comments:

  1. Another stellar entry Michael. I think because of your training in film at Webster, you can really put your theoretical ideas into the perspective of the filmmaker which makes your entries more textural....
    I'm positive they shot on location, because who can build a set like that with no government funding (Mussolini as Fascist dictator at that time)? Its interesting to think of how hard it must have been to shoot a film like this. Because the films of the neorealist movement, with their solidarity to anti-fascist beliefs and expression, had to be shot in secret, particularly in the case of Rossellini's Rome: Open City (sometimes just called Open City) which depicts the abuse, by the fascist govt, of priests performing social services. Its tragic and it was really happening, and obviously the perpetrators performing torture and inquisition did not like being exposed internationally in films. That was a very controversial film at the time.
    Anyway, obviously you are absolutely right about the realism of Ladri di biciclette, with its low budget used as a stylistic choice as much as it was necessity, as a critique of real life problems.
    Thanks for posting.

    ReplyDelete