Born into a prominent family of Milanese aristocrats, Luchino Visconti had a rare perspective on social class and familial tradition that informs his work. His films, small at first, grew to operatic proportions as his career went on, with a thematic grandeur to equal their visual opulence.
Bellissima is an intriguing portrait into the film industry with great performances and direction.
Bellissima is a 1951 Italian neorealist drama film directed by Luchino Visconti.
The film, starring Anna Magnani, is a satire of the postwar Italian film industry, and particularly the dream of stardom encouraged by the neorealist movement which plucked out ordinary members of the public to appear in film productions.
The movie centers on a working-class mother in Rome, Maddalena, who drags her young daughter to Cinecittà to attend an audition for a new film by Alessandro Blasetti. Maddalena, who loves movies, makes all possible efforts to promote her daughter career in film.
As in similar Hollywood-plays-itself melodramas such as Sunset Boulevard and The Bad and the Beautiful, Bellissima both romanticizes the power of celluloid dreams and delivers a cuttingly cynical takedown of the industry. Magnani’s affecting performance as a mother whose desperation for success is outweighed only by her love for her child helps the film achieve true poignancy.
A wonderful mass of contradictions, Luchino Visconti managed the feat of bringing an operatic air to neorealismo. He did this in Ossessione (1942), La terra trema (1948) and Bellissima (1951), and perhaps did so again in Rocco and His Brothers (1960), although in this last case the extravagant result is farther removed from Italian neorealism. Bellissima, one of his most focused and brilliant works, can be therefore described as Visconti’s farewell to the movement that he founded by drawing inspiration from Jean Renoir, to whom he had been apprenticed in the 1930s.
Like Bicycle Thieves (1948) and Umberto D. (1951), Bellissima addresses economic hardship in postwar Italy, but it does so in a less straightforward way than the two films by Vittorio De Sica, and from an angle all its slightly perverse own. Indeed, a sea of employed persons at work—members of a symphonic orchestra—fills the opening shot. It turns out, however, that the sounds are not filling a theater. Rather, this is a radio broadcast, and the music is interrupted by an unmusical speaker advertising a contest that will confer the possibility of movie stardom on the winner. Contestants must be girls between the ages of six and eight. Satirically, the commercial undercuts the impression of productivity given by the sight of musicians at work, nudging their seemingly solid, stable effort to the border of unpredictability—the possibility that a job today doesn’t mean a job tomorrow. Want to know how sharp and concise filmmaking can be? Consider Visconti here, at the top of Bellissima.
Maddalena—who, in short, is quite Mad—dreams a better life for her daughter than she has had. Unlike De Sica, Visconti isn’t focusing on the unemployed, the about-to-be-evicted. The Cecconis are making ends meet. Her husband, Spartaco, is a laborer, a wage-slave (note the name). Maddalena herself gives insulin injections (the film is pointedly murky about her medical qualifications to do so), and her mother-in-law owns a restaurant. These people aren’t about to starve. But they live in a dreary, dilapidated apartment dwelling where neighbors are fed up with the couple’s vehement quarrels. While Maddalena dreams of their daughter’s becoming a star, Spartaco is trying to marshal financial resources so that they can move into a house of their own. Bellissima is about dreams and about how the fervent attempt to have them remediate a formidable, unpleasant reality much more often fails than succeeds. Bellissima is an hilarious film that segues into family—by extension, social—heartbreak before, happily, regaining its comedic foothold.
Maddalena finally gets Maria to her audition. The initial interview underscores the fact that Maria’s aspiration is really her mother’s, by proxy. Visconti is comically inventive, at one point having both mother and daughter standing with their hands on their hips in the same frame to show up the confusion of whose interview and whose dream are involved here. The joke is sealed when Maria gives the wrong family name and her mother steps in to set the matter right: “Cecconi.” Indeed, Maria hardly speaks at all as Maddalena more or less takes over. We see the stage mother constantly primping herself as though it were relevant how she should appear to Blasetti and his band of interviewers.
At home, a “retired” actress, now a teacher, Tilde Spernanzoni, simply pops up out of nowhere and insists on giving Maria lessons for pay, and this stranger’s seemingly greater self-assurance than even Maddalena’s—Tilde helps herself to three eggs while Maddalena is momentarily outside and insists on coffee with lots of sugar when Maddalena returns—accomplishes two things. One, it provides an early hint that celebrity may not last, so that even if Maria “wins” the contest, this victory may amount to little or nothing in the long run. (Later, Maddalena recognizes a film actress whose two roles led nowhere and who now works as a cutter in the studio editing room.) When one looks around the joke of her imperious appearance (another performance, as it were), one realizes that Tilde’s demands for employment and sustenance suggest her desperate poverty. Secondly, and not unrelatedly, Tilde’s show of overwhelming self-confidence reveals fault lines in Maddalena’s own self-confidence. We have gleaned the latter’s loneliness from her habit of talking aloud to herself when she is alone or alone with Maria; but, once Tilde has departed, a revelatory moment occurs. Maddalena is standing in front of two mirrors in her bedroom, one large, the other small, to the right (screen-left) of it, both mirrors on top of a dresser. Their arrangement, coupled with the camera angle, makes Maddalena loom large in the large mirror and seem, like her daughter, small in the small mirror. “What is acting, really?” she asks herself. “If I think I’m someone else, I become someone else.” Maddalena seems self-confident, but the substance of her speech reveals her profound dissatisfaction with being herself. How self-confident is she, really? Later, she says, “Is that crazy woman right? Do we need lessons?” This half-talking to herself and to Maria, for all the attempt by the use of the we to cover the fissure and confusion, suggests how self-uncertain Maddalena basically is. Although family funds are being drained by all this effort to win the prize of a contract for her daughter, Maddalena hires Tilde after all.
Let us admit upfront that Maria, although an adorable little child, is quite bereft of talent. In pursuit of the perfect screen test that will lead to the coveted contract, Maddalena tortures Maria with the acting lessons and with dance lessons as well. Maddalena’s blinders keep from her view the extent to which she is abusing her daughter, but she is quick to defend Maria whenever anyone else attacks. The dance instructor’s assessment of Maria’s talent—voiced right in front of the six-year-old—is cruel: “One dances with the head, not with the feet!” Maddalena takes umbrage at this suggestion that she has a brainless daughter, and the instructor’s and her mother’s heated exchange, in front of a whole class of children, has Maria dissolving into tears.
A later incident perfectly encapsulates the theme of child abuse by loving though unthinking parents. Maria needs to have her locks trimmed, to look her best. Off to pick up the perfect dress for her daughter, Maddalena leaves Maria in the care of the salon and the supervision of Tilde, whom she has called upon to fill her absence. The place is inordinately busy, and Maria walked in, with her mother, without an appointment. Therefore, the proprietor turns Maria over to his little son, the implication being that he has done this before, whenever he felt he could get away with it. Doing his best, the boy butchers Maria’s hair, each child here complying with misguided parental dictate: one, by cutting a client’s hair; the other, by getting her hair cut. Each child images the other in a satirical mirror of parental abuse.
At heart, the theme of Bellissima goes beyond the pursuit of dreams pressured by socioeconomic circumstance. Visconti measures the human desperation involved by the extent to which Maddalena allows herself to be blind to what she is subjecting her daughter. Although she loves her daughter dearly, Maddalena violates her responsibility to take care of the child. The heartbreak and the potential tragedy seamlessly spin out of the satirical comedy.
Already Maddalena’s obsession with the movie contest has strained her marriage. Spartaco is a doting father, and he sees Maddalena’s whirlwind of activities on their daughter’s behalf regarding the contest as harmful, not beneficial. Maria is unhappy and exhausted, and Spartaco keeps asking Maddalena if she is feeding her. Maddalena insists that she is using only her own money to pay for all the considerable expenses involved; but this, meant to reassure Spartaco, only makes him feel worse. In addition, Maddalena routinely berates her spouse. One of Visconti’s subsidiary themes is the extent to which ordinary Italian men feel that their traditional authority as head of household has been undermined by the outcome of the war. Regardless of whether this is bad or good, or simply some kind of social progress, the point here is that Maddalena is oblivious to her husband’s feelings—and, slapping her now and then, he is equally oblivious to hers, failing to appreciate the depth of his wife’s dissatisfaction and the fact that her feelings have far more to do with herself than with any failure on his part. Each images the other in a mirror of spousal insensitivity and abuse.
Pointedly, Visconti delays introducing the Cecconis as a couple. We are shown mother and daughter first, and then father with others, before we are shown Maddalena and Spartaco together. Spartaco’s scenes with Maria are the most tender ones in the film. His daughter is Spartaco’s main consolation in a hardworking, unsatisfying life, while Maddalena, by dint of the contest, seizes upon the same child as her potential passport out of disconsolation. Whereas Maddalena relentlessly pushes her, Spartaco secretly spoils Maria. The child’s existence should be helping to unite the couple, but Maria has become instead a bone of contention between Maddalena and Spartaco. Visconti uses this familial configuration to suggest a pulling-apart of Italy’s postwar social fabric.
This suggestion is reinforced by Maddalena’s relationship with Alberto Annovazzi. A handsome young man (played by Walter Chiari, who would be Orson Welles’s Silence in Chimes at Midnight fifteen years hence), Alberto is a coordinator of the talent contest who privately swindles a good deal of Maddalena’s money with empty promises of using it to make Maria the winner. (Flowers to the wife of the producer, for example!) Alberto uses the money instead to buy himself a motor scooter and, additionally, tries to seduce Maddalena. She rebuffs this attempt, after repeatedly taking his hand off of her, and this statement of marital fidelity helps pave the way for Maddalena’s eventual reconciliation with Spartaco. In the meantime, the slightly sordid scene in which she and Alberto go off alone through woods to a river, shot in a cramped way so that the natural beauty of the surroundings, which other filmmakers might exploit as a matter of course, never enters the scene, imparts a sense of peril to the Cecconis’ marriage. In context, Alberto’s misbehavior suggests something more: his own sense of unimportance in the (capitalistic) studio hierarchy. Alberto tries to seduce Maddalena for the same reason that he cheats her out of money: to feel powerful as compensation for his general feeling of powerlessness. His youth helps Visconti to touch on a postwar generalization: the degree to which young people in Italy feel that the future is not theirs.
Maria’s screen test proves disastrous—an honest exposure of the child’s extreme discomfort in front of the camera. She cannot blow out candles on a birthday cake, and she bursts into tears during a poetic recitation. The child is hopelessly without talent, and those watching the test, including Blasatti, mock Maria, wondering aloud if she is a dwarf. Unbeknownst to them, Alberto has helped get Maddalena into the projection booth, where she can hear all these reactions. Her maternal instincts kick in, and she is incensed that her daughter should be laughed at in this way. She makes her presence known and lambasts everybody. In a captivating comic touch, now the men scurry to sign Maria to a contract in order to avert the PR crisis that would result if Mama Maddalena went public with their mockery of the sanctity of Italian children and family; but Maddalena will have none of it. Her daughter is not for sale. As her mother, it is Maddalena’s sacred obligation to protect Maria. At last Maddalena sees what madness she has been pushing Maria into. She has come to her senses.
Visconti interweaves realism and Maddalena’s fantastic ambition for her daughter, mixing giddiness and sobriety as well as professional and nonprofessional cast members. He achieves a glorious moment in a sequence of shots. Maddalena loves movies, and we see her watching a showing of Howard Hawks’s Red River (1948). It is during the cattle drive. Dimitri Tiomkin’s rousing music continues on the soundtrack as the film cuts to daylight and parents and children press into the movie studio for the contest. It may also be relevant that this film with Alessandro Blasatti playing Alessandro Blasatti comes a year after Billy Wilder’s Sunset Boulevard (1950), in which Cecil B. deMille plays Cecil B. deMille, and Erich von Stroheim, no less, plays a former Hollywood director who now works as servant to the woman who had once been his wife and his greatest star.
Cesare Zavattini wrote the story for Bellissima, which Visconti, Suso Cecchi d’Amico, ensuring the contribution of a woman’s perspective, and Francesco Rosi turned into the best script from which Visconti ever worked or ever would work. Anna Magnani plays Maddalena. It is a great actress’s greatest role. When Bette Davis saw Bellissima, she proclaimed Magnani the greatest actress she had ever seen. (Unbeknown to Davis at the time, Magnani considered her the greatest actress she had ever seen.) In the course of her sublime Maddalena, Magnani is by turns very funny and profoundly moving—indeed, more moving in a maternal role than anyone else in film, with a single exception: Vera Baranovskaya, as Pelageya Vlasova, in Pudovkin’s Mother (1926).
Watch the trailer BELLISIMA
The September 2007 release of Bellissima (1951) by Luchino Visconti in the ‘Masters of Cinema series from Eureka video is nothing short of a red letter day for followers and students of Visconti and his oeuvre. It is a film which is sadly underwritten in English. Before any critical comment is made it is important to note that this film makes for excellent viewing. Visconti’s direction is superb and Anna Magnani excels in the leading role.
The well known post-war history Italian Cinema by Peter Bondanella surprisingly fails to mention the film at all. This film is very important for a number of reasons. It marks a transition from Neorealism to post-neorealism within Italian cinema; it is a meta-cinematic film which deals in a biting comedy a critique of the institution of cinema itself – it thus predates Fellini’s well known La Dolce Vita (1959) by several years; it can be taken as a strong indirect critique of the political direction Italy was taking at the time as well as a critique of the Christian Democratic government’s relationship to America it gives many insights into the way Visconti worked as a director with his performers (Anna Magnani & Alessandro Blasetti); lastly and by no means least as a film it is good viewing – it appears as a favourite of Richard Dyer’s in one of Sight & Sound’s surveys about favourite films of critics.
This article cum review of the DVD will firstly place the film in its historical context and then provide a brief synopsis of the film. I will then follow this with an analysis in relation to the key writing in English on Bellissima by the leading critics Geoffrey Nowell-Smith, Henry Bacon and Millicent Marcus all of whom are very positive about the film in general whilst all providing a range of different insights into Bellissima. I will then provide a few comments on the Eureka DVD itself which contains a useful booklet with comments from Nowell-Smith amongst others as well as a documentary as an extra. I have also provided a webliography based upon a ‘Google’ up to page 20 of a search in English only. The results are generally disappointing and reinforce the notion that this film is much underwritten in the English speaking world. Hopefully this posting and the DVD will encourage more engagement with Visconti’s work and also provide some impetus for translation from the work of Italian critics making this available to a global audience. Nowell-Smith commented many years ago that this film was underwritten perhaps because it is the most ‘Italian’ of Visconti’s films. He has commented that this is to miss out on an important film:
But it is the most subtle and elusive thing of all, the element of self-criticism and irony and the expense of its own ‘Italian’ quality, which has most effectively prevented it from being assimilated and appreciated by foreign audiences.” (Nowell-Smith, 2003, p 45).
Generically Bellissima is a sub-genre of comedy which is called neorealism rosa or pink neorealism. As such it makes for good viewing and importantly helps to undermine the commonly held stereotypes within the discourse which has developed around Visconti. This is a point which Nowell-Smith brought out in the first edition of his book many years ago:
The commonly held stereotypes about Visconti are that he is totally humourless and incapable of self-irony, that his imagination is sensual rather than intellectual, and that he is a crude social-realist with a taste for ‘positive’ heroes, and an anti-feminist who neither likes nor understands his women characters. (Ibid)
These aren’t stereotypes that I recognize within Visconti’s oeuvre however if these are widely held today then this welcome release of Bellissima will hopefully lead to a greater understanding of a director whose contribution to the development of cinema has yet to be fully recognised in the English speaking world. Certainly Eureka has done the world a favor by releasing this film in its most prestigious series giving Visconti the recognition he fully deserves.
Italian Cultural Policy & Political Context
Out of the three main critics referred to here Henry Bacon has usefully provided the contextual background to Bellissima. Released over three years after La terra trema (1948) Italy had undergone significant political change which strongly effected the cultural policy background of the production of Bellissima, indeed Bellissima can be read as an indirect political response to this changed political environment.
The Christian Democrats had won the 1948 elections. At the same time the Vatican excommunicated all those who had voted communist or had collaborated with communism – one wonders if they cared! – Films with a left-wing social agenda were now deemed to be very risky investments without government support; furthermore, there was a strong risk of the film being confiscated by the authorities. The Christian Democrats controlled the production grants and also the mechanisms for exporting film. Overall this control acted as a de facto form of censorship. The neorealist movement was itself branded as left-wing despite the fact that directors such as Roberto Rossellini were politically quite close to the Christian Democrats. The then Undersecretary of State Giulio Andreotti specifically attacked De Sica’s Umberto D as unpatriotic:
…De Sica has done a disservice to his country, if people around the World begin to think that Italy in the twentieth century is the same as Umberto D. (Cited Bacon, 1998 p53).
Neorealism as a form was also under attack from elements of the Left. The great Soviet filmmaker Pudovkin took the Stalinist social realist approach to filmmaking at a meeting in Perugia exhorting filmmakers to focus on content rather than from and to generate ‘positive heroes’.
As if this wasn’t enough to deal with, a key problem for the Italian industry as a whole as well as the neorealist elements was the rapidly increasing domination of the cinema by Hollywood productions. In 1946 Italy had managed to produce 65 films even in the aftermath of the war. By 1948 this had dropped to 49. Between1945-1950 they controlled 60%-75% of the market share.
One response of Italian filmmakers to this changing environment was to use aspects of Hollywood within their own cinema. Increasingly the features of Hollywood gangster movies appeared in post-neorealist films. Another important development was the development of a comedy sub-genre called neorealism rosa (pink neorealism). It was a genre with its roots in pre-war light comedy of the fascist period and according to Bacon had a similar social message which was keep to the status quo and forget ideas of social mobility and egalitarian society. This sub-genre developed the use of highly eroticised stars such as Gin Lollobrigida and Sophia Loren. Bacon comments that the films were rather more successful than true neorealist films in creating a wide audience for Italian cinema.
During the period between La terra trema and Bellissima Visconti had returned to the theatre. Bacon (p 51) suggests that this was because …he wanted to create something grandiose , to take some distance from realism. Visconti was accused by the purist wing of the neorealists of betraying neorealism however Visconti himself saw neorealism as a method and in response called for the use of fantasy as a complete display of liberty (Bacon, 1998 p 52). It was during this period that Visconti met Thomas Mann, a writer Visconti held in enormous respect. Visconti gained Mann’s permission to create an opera-ballet using Mann’s novella Mario & the Magician. Sadly, this was postponed several times by La Scala and was only finally put into production after Mann’s death.
For a person who can’t keep up with very fast often histrionic Italian which has many local references to such things as the local Rome football teams having this film available on DVD is a huge benefit. The possibility to return quickly to repeat particularly dynamic moments of interaction is essential. In this sense Nowell-Smith’s explanation that this film is the most ‘Italian’ of Visconti’s films and most difficult for a non-Italian to watch is relevant.
The film itself is a joy to watch. The power and charisma of Magnani in full-flight drags the film along in her wake, however, this power is more than just a diva taking control and totally dominating, it is a performance which brings out the best in those around her. For those who have seen Rome Open City (1945, Rossellini) or the later Mamma Roma (Pasolini, 1962) this will come as no surprise. Visconti himself notes this in his interview with Michele Gandin:
…Magnani’s improvisatory flare has natural instinct behind it, not theatrical artifice. Moreover she knows how to place herself on the same level as her fellow performers, and she also knows how to carry them along with her – how to raise them up to her level as it were. I wnated this particualr – and extraordinary aspect of her personality, and I got it. (Bellissima booklet p 24)
Bellissima is the first of the postwar Italian films to be metacinematic in others words to be providing a critique of the institution of cinema itself. Fellini and Lattuada’s film Variety Lights (1950), had already begun a reflexive exploration of the illusion / reality of performance and entertainment exploring the creation of an opportunistic singer to become a stage diva. Much of Fellini’s later work was to continue in this reflexive vein commenting critically on film and media, perhaps most notably in La Dolce Vita (1959). Of course Godard’s Le Mepris(1963) is also a metacinematic representation, dealing with divisma and an inceasingly tawdry Cinecitta as well.
Bellissima was very much the initiative Salvo d’Angelo who had lost money on La terra trema, nevertheless he still retained confidence in Visconti’s abilities as a filmmaker. Initially Visconti was disinterested in the project and wasn’t impressed by Zavattini’s original script, however when he was offered the opportunity to work with Anna Magnani the much loved Pina in Rossellini’s Rome Open City (1945). The inclusion of Magnani as the leading lady:
…would allow him to build a self-conscious reflection on the workings of divismo (stardom) and the power of spectacle into the very structure of his film. (Marcus, 2002, p 40).
The inclusion of Magnani would also help to target a much wider audience for she was widely identified as a ‘woman of the people’ after her role as Pina. Using her as a lead would help considerably in subverting the neorealism rosa and using comedy: in a way that is consistent with the director’s ethical commitment. (Bacon,1998, p 54).
The Importance of Performance & the Role of Anna Magnani
Of the three critics referred to here it is Marcus who draws out the importance of the use of Magnani most effectively and she specifically cites an interview with Visconti which shows the underlying importance of Magnani to the project:
“I was interested in working with an authentic “character”, with whom many more interior and meaningful things could be expressed. And I was also interested in knowing what relationship would be born between myself as director and the “diva”Magnani. The result was very felicitous.” (Visconti cited Marcus, 2002, p 40).
Henry Bacon also refers to the importance of Magnani to the success of Visconti’s wider project of providing a critique of the illusory aspects of mainstream cinema: “On the whole, Magnani amply demonstrates how theatricality and stylization can be used to reveal aspects of reality that might otherwise remain hidden. (P 57).
The tension between mainstream Hollywood cinema – which Maddelena is besotted with – and the losing struggle of Italian cinema especially the neorealist ideal is highlighted when Maddelena is watching Howard Hawks’ Red River from the yard outside their basement flat where they can overlook screenings of an outside cinema. This outside cinema firmly places the importance of cinema in the lives of working class people and shows the illusory and exotic world which can be projected. It is a theme which reappears in Umberto D (1951) which was also scripted by Zavattini. It is clear that some of those involved with the neorealist movement were adapting to the political shifts and cultural in Italian society and fighting something of a rearguard action against the incursions of Hollywood.
Visconti is astutely working within this tension and the use of Italy’s most universally loved star allows Visconti to make a very powerful film which would be full of very specific meanings for the contemporary local audiences. Magnani herself is clearly aware of the ironies for her own position as a diva was clearly threatened by the increasing incursions of Hollywood into mainstream culture and corresponding shrinkage of the Italian industry. Her own background was from the working class and her own history of success within the entertainment industry undoubtedly gives her an edge in this performance. At the time her personal life with Rossellini who had gone off with Hollywood Star Ingrid Bergman provides another very personal take on the powers of Hollywood.
Another point which was probably attractive to Visconti was that Magnani was the epitome of the organic intellectual in Gramscian terms. With a working class background and total dedication to professionalism she was the embodiment of a popular figure rather than a populist one. Visconti was highly sceptical of idealist versions of neorealism which solely promoted the use of the non-professional actor. More minor characters such as Spartaco (Maddalena’s husband were ordinary people. Walter Chiari (The Hustler) was a rising star and according to the DVD documentary interviews with Zefirelli and others from the production team Chiari was needed as Magnani at that time didn’t have the pulling power any longer.
The Politics of Mise en Scene
The importance of mise en scene within Visconti’s political critique is very marked. The working class environment of Maddelena’s home in a basement where she can be spied upon by boys in the neighbourhood and which is full of blaring loud music raises the general attitude of the environment to a cacophony at times (it is an early version of the banlieu in Kassowitz’s La Haine).In Bellissima escape is provided by the outdoor cinema, whilst in La Haine the lads attempt a more physical escape. The protagonists are in both films faced with class barriers.
Maddelena is differentiated immediately from the middle class mothers and their children who flock to Cinecitta to propress the future of their daughters. The size and age of Maria in contrast to the middle class girls one of whom was eleven in the first audition emphasises class difference. The representations of Cinecitta itself as a tawdry site of dream production can be contrasted to representations of Hollywood where entrance to the studios is always guarded and stars appear in chauffeur driven cars driving through gilded gates. The dreams manufactured in Cinecitta can only be second rate ones anyway, Visconti seems to be implying.
The basement flat which Maddelena’s family occupies is bare of food and comforts. They are planning to escape as a family anyway as they want to move into a new house symbolised by plans. The patients whom Maddelena administers injections to are a mixture of genuine cases and pampered hypochondriacs. It appears as though Maddalena as a nurse isn’t paid on a regular salary but on the work completed. Administering another course of anti-biotics will allow her to buy a coat. Her income is unstable and insecure and this seems to link intertextually to Bicycle Thieves (De Sica: 1948). There is an important point to be made here because several of the critical writings have identified Maddalena as somebody who just goes around giving injections to diabetics and associate her with a kind of charlatanism which is just as illusory as cinema itself. Certainly the dressmakers are cynical about what she does a reference to a scene where she administers an unnecessary injection to a lazy and overfed woman who lies around in bed a lot who Maddalena teases mercillesly in a scene played for laughs. Then she has to go to see the Commendatore a diabetic who also needs a course of streptyomycin prescribed by the doctor. This will allow her to afford a coat.
The use of cinematic spaces – particularly the ballet class scenes alluded to above – emphasise the huge class differences and the real lack of social mobility within the system. This can be read as a clear critique of the Christian Democrats who have deliberately and systematically closed down the routes to social equality which were ideals at the heart of the solidarity combining national identity and meritocracy at the heart of the neorealist idyll. Again the use of particular stars and their performance is all part of mise en scene understood in its wider meaning. The star persona of Magnani precisely embodied the possibilities of social mobility and success which she had achieved in her own life adding a rich layer of interpretive possibilities for audiences who would have been highly aware of these changes in the Italian environment as well as the filmic references.
Visconti’s Ending & Zavattini’s Ending
The ending of the film really emphasises Visconti’s political agenda and shows how the whole film uses cinema itself as a synechdoche for the changed class and power relations in Italy. His ending is in marked contrast to Zavattini’s original script. Zavattini’s approach often seemed to be pessimistic and fatalistic with the structures of society set to overwhelm individual agency forever leaving the suffering individual on the margins of society. Nowhere does this seem so marked as in Umberto D. The original script of Bellissima written by Zavattini was generally pessimistic. Maria was to be turned down by Blasetti end of story.
Visconti’s ending was far better. Not only did it give Maddelena moral power at a personal level but this power needs to be understood as an embodiment of national identity for it is precisely her iconic status as the visual trademark of neorealism (Marcus, 2002 p 41) which she earned as the character of Pina being ruthlessly gunned down by the Nazis in Rome Open City which allows her to become a form of critique in itself. In this sense Bellissima is where her star status carries over character martyrdom to elide into a personal martyrdom in her relationship with Rossellini ousted by a Hollywood star. Magnani as off screen persona / on-screen persona is a double signifier of invasion and a compromising of Italian identity firstly with the Nazis and then with the power of the USA and its influences on Italian society in the immediate postwar period as it helped to undermine the communist and left political agendas.
Here Maddalena and Maria are pictured in the projection room secretly watching the initial screenings of the children for the role. The is the second part of Maddalena’s initiation into the workings of the cinema as an institution. The editor Iris who has smuggled them in had herself played minor roles but explained to Maddalena that this was luck and that she had been consigned to the editing room. clearly this is a possible outcome for Maria.
The whole of Maria’s screen-test is fascinating as it leads Maddalena towards her epihany. Maria is too small to blow out the candles on a cake. The gradual snuffing out of the candles a projection of Maddalena’s emotions as her dreams are slowly snuffed out as well. She isn’t going to taste the cake of success just beyond her reach. Then the mood changes from disappointment to one of shock as Maria bursts into tears because she has forgotten the lines of her poem. This creates a ripple of ruthless laughter around the theatre amongst the men in power. The mood again shifts as an enraged Maddalena bursts in on Blasetti and his production team. Maddalena’s barging past is again an intertextual reference to Rome Open City where the Nazis line up the occupants of the apartment block to conduct a search and ther is much pushing and shoving.
Visconti’s ending resulted in Blasetti offering the role to Maria. Maddelena turns down the contract. At one level this gives her a moral credibility on a par with Pina as Marcus has noted. However it goes much further than this, because the ending isn’t just a simple closure. It leaves the audience with the question as the the last shot focuses upon the sleeping innocent child: what will the future then be for Maria? – again her role is synechdocal for the future of Italy itself. This shot can also be read intertextually for the role of children and the closing shot of children in Rome Open City as the way to the future is clearly referenced.
Rather than struggling to join a world of petit-bourgeois parents endlessly scrapping to crawl up the ladder using their children there has to be a way which doesn’t complacently accept the status quo in the way that Maddalena’s husband is doing, nor does it mean sacrificing the genuine needs of ones children to the illusory world of show business and entertainment parasitically built on the dreams and incomes of the working classes. The promise Maddalena makes to her husband is that she will work hard on her own merits to earn them their new house. There is of course a jokey reference made to giving the population of Rome diabetes but this can be overread as a form of illusion on a par with cinema.
The end scenes have an even greater irony in them than intended because as Maddalena jokes about Burt Lancaster as being such a nice star to tease her husband about her recently lost fantasies about Hollywood today’s audience is aware of how Burt Lancaster was initially foisted onto Visconti to play the lead role in The Leopard (1963).Lancaster again appeared in Conversation Piece (1974) this time as a friend of Visconti’s.
It seems that Visconti is thowing problems at the audience, they are being seduced in the short-term, but there is no clear future for Italy if they follow this path. The path for the country is dependent upon solidarity and hard work but it will provide more stability and more satisfaction in the future. The open ending requires the audiences to participate in making thier own future or else the illusionists would pull the strings. This reading of the ending differs considerably from Nowell-Smith’s who reads the film as a straightforward criticism of the cinema as an industrial and social process (Nowel-Smith, 2003 p 55). Nowell-Smith then argues that Visconti doesn’t have the open endings of the type which Antonioni uses rather he relies on a rigid and self-contained structure. (ibid). Here Nowell-Smith reads the husband as a concrete pole of attraction which allows Visconti to clearly treat the central theme. Bacon too argues that the ending is one of family unity, unique amongst Visconti’s films. Here I would suggest that it is a return to class and that a sense of solidarity is represented through the family which would seem to be an excellent way of passing on a coded political message in a censorious cultural environment promoting ‘family values’. Here it would be interesting to undrstand how audiences of the time read this.
One issue which none of the three main critics of this film writing in English have dealt with in depth is that of gender relations. Maddalena clearly suffers some degree of physical abuse although this is unseen. There is a furious argument in the flat when the dress is delivered and in front of the other women in the flats who come to rescue her she complains of being bruised. Again in the final scene she admits defeat to the husband and says that he can give her the usual four slaps.
Unsurprisingly it is Marcus who raises the issue of gender and notes that Visconti exposes the self-serving notions of motherhood by reversing the gender roles in the Cecconi household… (2002, p52-53). Certainly superficially he takes some care of Maria, undressing her and promising ice-cream but for him there is no discussion about Maria’s future he doesn’t say that that Maria’s future should be in the school, rather it is Maria who wants to go back there. Rather it is better to read Spartaco’s role as one of acceptance of the status quo with a few dreams about a better place to live if he works steadily. This isn’t an Italy that Visconti wanted any more than an Italy in thrall to America (it must be remembered here that the “Economic Miracle” was underpinned by Marshall aid).
Spagnolo’s survey on the consequences of this American conception of economic assistance on home affairs is straightforward. The CDs’ role accounts for the economic policy they attained in the short run. U.S. grants were used to fund productive investments rather than to foster industrial investments with a clear employment-creating effect as the American authorities in Europe suggested. (Selva 2004 p 4).
Marcus talks of Maddalena’s parental failure, but rather than failure it is a missplaced energy put into illusions of cinema which we can see as an allusion to Christian Democracy and its American backers. It is the false dreams of American capitalism as Visconti saw it which was the core issue. Arguably it was less Maddalena living vicariously through her daughter as a genuine but missplaced attempt to ensure a better future for her daughter. Her reaction when Iris the editor tells her of her failure to become an actress and her being cast aside that genuine doubt emerges and a recognition that all is not what it seems becomes apparent. Bacon notes that the role of Iris was played by Liliana Mancini and that this was very much what had happened to Mancini in real life. (Bacon 1998 p 57).
Gendering is clearly apparent in the control of power in the film and here the industry / country is clearly run by men. Arguably here Visconti is again challenging the return to family values being promoted by the Christian Democrats in which women are returned to the family by utilising the iconic status of Magnani again. Solidarity in Rome Open City was through both genders as epitomised by Magnani. Again the dynamism of Magnani and her committment to the future of Maria / Italy meant that she would be developing a different route, not selling out to Cinecitta / American capitalist ethics.
Maddelina Cecconi (Anna Magnani) is trapped with an abusive husband from a working class background. A nurse who provides injections for diabetics, she and her husband are saving their money in hopes of someday getting a home of their own. She wants better for her young plain looking daughter, Maria (Tina Apicella). She loves the movies (we see her watching Howard Hawks “Red River” on the local outdoor screen). When she hears about a movie director’s, Alessandro Blassetti portraying himself, open call for 6-8 year girls for his next film, Maddelina, like hundreds of other hopeful mothers, heads to Italy’s famed Cinicitta film studio with Maria for the auditions. During the process she spends the family’s small savings on ballet lessons, clothes for the young girl and paying off a hanger on who ensures her Tina will get the role. Maddelina becomes blinded by the possibilities of fame and fortune, a way out toward a better life for her daughter. By the end of the film, after hearing the film crews cruel assessment of Maria’s screen test, Maddelina realizes the superficiality of the film industry and that the cruelty of rejection is all too often the end results. Maddaline comes to finally realize family is more important that fame and fortune
Genre: Comedy, Drama
Directed By: Luchino Visconti
Written By: Cesare Zavattini (Zavattini‘s opinion), Suso Cecchi D’Amico (screenplay)
Runtime: 1h 48min