Italian Neorealism: An overview

Quick note: Over the next few months I will be posting Italian Neorealist films as a study them. This post will constantly be linked as a source of reference. 

Italian Neorealist cinema was a film movement in Italy from 1945-1952. Some place the movement’s end at ’55 while most would agree the high point was certainly from ’45-’49 (before laws were put into place that I will touch on later). Major directors of the movement include Roberto Rossellini, Luigi Zampa, Luchino Visconti, Pietro Germi, Vittorio De Sica, Giuseppe De Santis, and Michelangelo Antonioni, with about 12 more rounding out the list. The two key directors were certainly Rossellini and De Sica, with these two occupying what most would agree are the seven best films of the movement in Rossellini’s Rome Open City, Paisa, Germany Year Zero; De Sica’s Shoeshine, Bicycle Theives, and Umberto D, and La terra treme by Visconti. Always up for debate is rather or not one of the greatest Italian directors, Fedrico Fellini, should be included. During the movement he was writer for twelve neorealist films before directing one late film that could or could not be considered apart of the movement in 1953’s I vitelloni. I personally wouldn’t dice him into the movement, because his art films of the 60s really stand on their own.

Italian cinema in general had its initial high in the early 1910s (pre-war), showing that cinema could be a culturally significant art form rather than a cheap source of entertainment. For silent films Italy offered some of the most innovative films and was an international producer. However, by the 1920s the industry had gone bankrupt and would remain irrelevant due to Fascism that would last until 1945. Under the fascist regime, the country approached film much in the manner of Soviet cinema, in that it was to serve not only as a mechanism for propaganda, but a means to express idealistically the concerns and aspirations of a nation. However, production values were significantly less that of the Soviet Union and as a result stagnated. Historically Italian fascism sought to build a corporate based fascist nation that would completely suppress any opposition. The result is a nation’s total avoidance of reality as by nature there will always be an opposition, thus culturally it is neorealism that came about once fascism was eliminated.

Aesthetically there are cinematic characteristics that characterize the movement, but first it is important to understand the conditions in which these films were  made under. Due to the war, most film facilities and equipment were lost or rendered on useable. With no industry there were no producers or sources of funding available to potential filmmakers, nor an abundance of professional actors nor money to afford them. Yet, at the same time for filmmakers there was no longer fascist censorship, industry tax, or rules to play by that would eventually come once the industry reestablished itself in 1949, creating laws and taxes that would force producers on filmmakers. These producers became entitled by law to generous profit cuts and tax entitlements. With these initial limitations, the necessity from which neorealist aesthetics came out of are evident. 

The culmination of all of this were films that sought to depict life as it is, dealing in contemporary social and political matters. The main characters are always from marginalized members of society which in post war Italy was the majority. The production values are low, and take on a rough look. There was little importance placed on editing and natural lighting was used for the most part as well as real locations. Yet the real location were never what you expected to see, for as much as Rome was used as a setting, you never once see the coliseums or any of Rome`s historical pride and beauty, but instead its the everyday non-touristic side. This I think was also an antithesis to the Fascist films that in an effort to promote the national agenda focused heavily on these locations that evoked national pride. In addition non-professional actors were mostly preferred and casted often from the marginalized groups that they wanted to depict. The stories were always treated authentic or realistically, so when reflecting the rhythms of life, plotted stores simply aren’t possible and weren’t made. Stories instead were presented as episodes or events of life, with no real beginning or ending. They become existential as the narratives are entirely uneventful, concerning themselves instead with individuals in crisis and the choices they make. Bicycle Thieves for instance, if you had to write a plot synopsis wouldn’t amount to much. Man in poverty gets job, needs bike, gets bike, bike is stolen, he needs it back, looks for it. It’s all entirely banal in its approach, yet the beauty lies in all the minor things that make life beautiful that we often overlook or take for granted. 

Although never quite popular in Italy, neorealist films were internationally popular. The first major Neorealist film, Rome Open City, was the only one to reach number one in sales. Some others were popular of course critically and even commercially, however many simply lost money. Yet for political parties and intellectuals each film became major cultural topics in Italy at a time when the country was trying to find its identity in the turbulent post war years.

Neorealism died by the mid 50s with the last neorealist film coming out in 57’ and really it died for many reasons. For example, many of the directors artistically developed and moved on to different subject matters and genres, which is natural. Laws were passed, requiring films to be subjected to government screening and approval, killing any chance for true realist portrayals by directors who needed funding. Political parties often attacked neorealists, demanding them to take on films that would be better for the country and its direction further stifling the honesty it sought to depict. The industry itself was flooded with Hollywood films that always controlled at least 60% of the market and it was the international scene that allowed it to survive, but going into the 60s Fellini and Antonio moved into art cinema and dominating the international art house scene for Italy. These films moved away from realism concerning itself instead with metaphysically issues with masterpieces like La Dolce Vita and 8 ½. And really by this point neorealism was no longer necessary and couldn’t adapt, once the economy begin to pick up and fashion became a preoccupation with the country and its national appearance. I found it all entirely natural that the film direction came to represent this.

It remains one the most studied and influenceial film movements in all of cinema. American film noir got it’s asethetics from neorealism. For lesser known countries of cinema like India, it gave a blueprint for realistic films of struggle made under poor conditions. Documentary benefited greatly too, which ironically now is used to describe neorealism. However the thing that remains most important about neorealism…is its realism, and its mergence of camera and reality and the overriding ethical imperative it took on.