Vittorio De Sica, the director of Umberto D. directed this farce. Can you believe it? Is this neo-realism barking up a wrong tree? Or is it neo-realism begging for a popular success?
First of all the script is very dated. In short: Domenico met Filumena during the war in a brothel. She became his favorite client. In a way he gave her a somewhat secure life by employing her as servant. But he had different hanky-pankies with younger women. She was also forced to work in her line of business. She gave birth to three children. Now after 20 years as mistress she wants to secure her status by tricking Domenico into marriage. She uses the "weapons of a woman" - she pretends to be terminally ill. The idiot Domenico believes her trick. But when he realizes that he has been fooled, he chases her with his lawyer. She, almost illiterate, gives up. At last they find out that they actually love each other and arrange a marriage of love.
This is supposed to be funny. OMG! A woman has been a macho's handmaid for 20 years. Nobody in this film sees anything wrong in that. Nobody! Even the priest who is going to marry them first time seems to regard this cohabitation as respectable arrangement. (Mind you, cohabitation is OK for me, but maybe not when the man has all the rights and the woman none.) The hooker as handmaid has only her charm as weapon. How fair is that?
It should be obvious that Domenico (played by Mastroianni) is a sick bastard. Of course, he is a product of his society, but never we are in doubt that he has the money and therefore also sets the moral norms for his habitat. Script and direction never put as much as a bit of doubt into that.
This said, there is delightful acting by Mastroianni and Loren. This gives this film also today a bit of charm, but s a whole it is not even nostalgic, because nobody really wants those times back.
3/10
First of all the script is very dated. In short: Domenico met Filumena during the war in a brothel. She became his favorite client. In a way he gave her a somewhat secure life by employing her as servant. But he had different hanky-pankies with younger women. She was also forced to work in her line of business. She gave birth to three children. Now after 20 years as mistress she wants to secure her status by tricking Domenico into marriage. She uses the "weapons of a woman" - she pretends to be terminally ill. The idiot Domenico believes her trick. But when he realizes that he has been fooled, he chases her with his lawyer. She, almost illiterate, gives up. At last they find out that they actually love each other and arrange a marriage of love.
This is supposed to be funny. OMG! A woman has been a macho's handmaid for 20 years. Nobody in this film sees anything wrong in that. Nobody! Even the priest who is going to marry them first time seems to regard this cohabitation as respectable arrangement. (Mind you, cohabitation is OK for me, but maybe not when the man has all the rights and the woman none.) The hooker as handmaid has only her charm as weapon. How fair is that?
It should be obvious that Domenico (played by Mastroianni) is a sick bastard. Of course, he is a product of his society, but never we are in doubt that he has the money and therefore also sets the moral norms for his habitat. Script and direction never put as much as a bit of doubt into that.
This said, there is delightful acting by Mastroianni and Loren. This gives this film also today a bit of charm, but s a whole it is not even nostalgic, because nobody really wants those times back.
3/10
No comments:
Post a Comment