Country: Italy
Director: Vittorio de Sica
We are the people who, in pursuit of our passions, abandon our children to fend for themselves. And our children are alone. All alone.
In the 1940s Vittorio de Sica directed three of the best and most moving films about children ever made—The Children Are Watching Us (1942), Shoeshine (1946), and Bicycle Thieves (1948). In each of these films, children find themselves in a world where the behavior of adults makes little sense to them, where they are powerless to control their own lives, and where they are unable to protect themselves from disappointment and hurt. It's a sad, mystifying world for children, de Sica seems to be saying, and we adults are too self-involved to feel their pain and confusion and help them through it.
In Shoeshine two boys, Pasquale and Giuseppe, live in poverty just after the end of the Second World War in Italy, shining shoes for American servicemen to finance their dream, to own a horse. They've been making payments on the horse for a while but can't claim him until they make one large final payment. When Giuseppe's older brother offers them a way to make part of the money they need for that payment, they jump at the opportunity, even though it involves doing something shady, delivering stolen American blankets to an elderly fortune teller for resale on the black market. While at the apartment, Giuseppe's brother shows up with two men who identify themselves as policemen. The boys appear to have been set up as pawns in a sting operation but are lucky to escape and are able to keep all the money from the transaction as well, enough to make the final payment on their horse.
The boys are so ecstatic that they spend the night in the stable with their horse, only to find the next day that their good fortune has turned sour. Picked up by the police, they are accused of being accomplices in the robbery of the fortune teller, for the two men were not policemen at all. The most damning evidence against them is that large sum of money they used to make the final payment on the horse. The boys cannot explain where they got the money without implicating Giuseppe's brother, and their sense of honor won't let them do this. Unable to convince the police that they had no prior knowledge of the robbery, Pasquale and Giuseppe are sent to a juvenile prison to await trial.
Only twenty minutes into the movie the circumstantial trap the two boys find themselves in has already snapped shut, and from there things only go downhill. Separated at the detention center, the boys find their friendship and loyalty to each other constantly challenged—by their cellmates, by manipulative prison officials who try to play one boy against the other, and most of all by the soul-destroying machinery of the justice and penal system. The film blends elements of a Warners-style prison movie of the 1930s with a Kafkaesque atmosphere in which the boys are caught up in institutional machinery beyond anyone's comprehension or control.The prison is a hellish place plagued by overcrowding, bad food, bullying inmates, and corrupt guards. Any of the prison staff with good intentions have long ago given up hope of improving conditions. At every turn the boys are duped—by their adult criminal confederates, their cellmates, the prison officials, even their lawyers. Worst of all, the degradation Pasquale and Giuseppe suffer is not the result of intentional malice, but simply the outcome of neglect, indifference, the self-concerned attitude of the adults in charge of them, and the impossible situation they find themselves in. To call these boys helpless victims of circumstance would be putting it too mildly.
Throughout it all, the horse the boys love—the horse is the first thing we see in the film and the last—remains a symbol of their hope. Their hope for freedom, for a connection to the natural world which the grim conditions of their urban environment denies them, for the affection Giuseppe, the son of impoverished war refugees, and the orphaned and homeless Pasquale experience only from each other. When the boys are separated from their horse and from each other, they are set adrift and become prey to all the worst personal and social evils that come their way.
Shoeshine isn't as well remembered today as other films of the postwar Italian neorealist movement, in part perhaps because it has never received a deluxe home video release by a company like Criterion and is revived less often than better known neorealist films. Yet it has made a strong impression on some very knowledgeable people. Martin Scorsese admired de Sica's empathy with his child characters: "There are no barriers at all between de Sica and these children whose tragic lives he understood perfectly." Orson Welles once called it the best movie he had ever seen and praised its invisible technique, remarkable praise indeed from a director of such highly visible technique. Welles was certainly justified, though, to recognize that de Sica was too savvy to allow a showy style to distract from the highly charged emotions of the story or the truth in the performances of his actors.
In 1948 Shoeshine became the first film ever to receive a special award from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences as the best foreign language film of the year. (This didn't become an official category until the 1956 awards year.) The Academy's citation stated that it was chosen because "the high quality of this motion picture, brought to eloquent life in a country scarred by war, is proof to the world that the creative spirit can triumph over adversity." This seems an unintentionally ironic way to put it, in view of the way the bleak conditions in postwar Italy are mirrored by the film's unflinchingly bleak outlook. Not only do Pasquale and Giuseppe not triumph over adversity, but on the contrary are thoroughly crushed by it.
You might also be interested in:
- Umberto D. (1952)
- Two Early Films by Italian Masters: The Children Are Watching Us (1944)
- My Voyage to Italy (1999)
This was a fantastic choice for the event! When is a horse not just a horse? When it symbolizes freedom and beauty in a world where neither exist. Just loved it!
ReplyDeleteFlickChick, what a great way to put it--the way de Sica uses the horse in the film. Too often the use of such symbols is so heavy-handed that they feel too obviously manipulative of audience response and thus lose their power to move. De Sica wasn't immune to overdoing things, and sometimes he came within a whisker of mawkishness, but not here I'd say. The way the mood of these boys changes when they are with the horse tells you everything you need to know about what he means to them. It's genuinely sad that something they can see and touch is still out of their reach and through no fault of their own.
DeleteGreat post! From the three films you mentioned, I've only seen the classic "Bycicle Thieves", which is awesome (and sad). I'll try to watch "Sheoshine" soon :)
ReplyDeleteClara, everybody I know who has seen "Bicycle Thieves" loves it. It's one of the greatest movies of all time. Unfortunately, "Shoeshine" isn't easily available, but Criterion has released "The Children Are Watching Us," which I also recommend. The boy in it is much younger than those in the other two--about five years old. De Sica really had a way with children at this period of his career. He had an amazing way of making them complex characters and not just observers but real participants in events and getting inside their emotions. The way he treats the boys in these films makes me wonder what his own memories of childhood were.
DeleteR.D.,
ReplyDeleteAs soon as you started with the boys shining shoes in order to purchase a horse I knew something bad would happen. It couldn't be that simple with de Sica at the helm. But it is what we expect, admire about great directors. Ha Ha
I've only just discovered de Sica's work (I know that's terrible) and Shoeshine I haven't seen yet. Hopefully I'll be able to find it. It's great that it won an Oscar. Is there a de Sica film that you felt was more deserving of the Award that didn't win or get nominated?
Thanks for including so much interesting info on the film and especially Welle's views on the film. I bet his remarks gave it a boost!
Even though De Sica put his heart into showing us what post war Italy was like, made you feel like you were there, his films are relatable since the U.S. faced the same horrible conditions, hardships.
R.D., Thanks so much for taking the time to do another of your well thought out reviews for the Horseathon. A memorable contribution.
Page
Page, there's no getting around the fact that this is a tragic film, and I didn't want to pull any bones about it so people might get the wrong idea. Neither did I want to give too much away, so I had to discuss the film in admittedly vague terms.
DeleteYou talk about how easy it is to relate to de Sica's films like this one despite the vast difference in time and place for the modern viewer. I think all great films capture their time and place but also transcend it. Here I think that it's about children undergoing hardship is the key. For children hardship--combined with their confusion about why it is happening and the powerlessness they feel--makes an especially deep impression. I think everyone who has strong memories of childhood can identify with this in general terms even if the circumstances were quite different.
De Sica got the same special award for "Bicycle Thieves," "Two Women" got recognized with an Oscar for Sophia Loren, and 1971's "The Garden of the Finzi-Continis" got a real Oscar as best foreign language film.
1952's "Umberto D" wasn't released in the U.S. until several years later and got a nomination for best story, which doesn't seem adequate recognition for such a great work. (Those four films and "Shoeshine" are de Sica's best, and I highly recommend all of them.) But the honorary Oscar for best foreign language film of 1952 went to France's "Forbidden Games," another of the great movies about childhood and not to be missed.
I've always thought of UMBERTO D and SHOESHINE as bookends, one portraying the plight of the elderly in post-war Italy and the other the plight of children. I find it depressing that UMBERTO is the more hopeful of the two films...one would like to think that there's a way out for Pasquale and Giuseppe. However, de Sica's film is all the more powerful for ending the way it was. This was an excellent review, R.D., and I hope readers will also check out the fabulous one you did for UMBERTO D. Speaking of Scorsese, he recently listed SHOESHINE among his 11 favorite family films (a list that includes NIGHT OF THE HUNTER, THE 400 BLOWS, and--a personal fave--CURSE OF THE CAT PEOPLE.
ReplyDeleteRick, that's an interesting idea of the two movies being bookends. I think of them this way too and also that they bookend a phase of de Sica's career. After "Umberto D" his interests seemed to go in other directions. Maybe he thought he had thoroughly explored the subject of postwar problems (although "Two Women" was a return to the thematic interests of that time in his career).
DeleteI hadn't heard of Scorsese's list and will have to seek it out. I can see how the films from his list you name have certain things in common, although they also seem quite distinct from each other! I wonder if "Forbidden Games" and "Pather Panchali," two of my own favorites about children, are on it too. A later film about children I also recall as being especially good is 1979's "Tree of the Wooden Clogs." Also, from Britain, "The Fallen Idol," "Whistle Down the Wind," and "Kes" immediately come to mind.
Rick, just took a look at Scorsese's list. Thanks for mentioning it. It's always fascinating to read the ideas of such a connoisseur as Scorsese. A most interesting list. The only choice that puzzles me is "A Kid for Two Farthings," which I saw awhile back and found quite dull, a real disappointment from the great Carol Reed. I've been curious about another film on Scorsese's list, Fritz Lang's "Moonfleet," since seeing it named as one of Cahier du Cinema's 100 greatest films and have added it to my ClassicFlix queue.
DeleteR.D., you mentioned the exquisite WHISTLE DOWN THE WIND, a film I plan to review in the near future. I've always been curious about Andrew Lloyd Webber's musical version which never made it to Broadway. Guess my chances of seeing it are slim....
DeleteR.D., must admit I've seen very little Italian cinema and haven't seen this film, but your review makes me want to, and I will return when I've done so. I have just checked and see that this film was released a few years ago on DVD in region 2/UK in a restored print by Masters of Cinema. Their packages, as you may know, are very similar to Criterion, with a booklet, commentary, background documentaries, etc. This means I should be able to rent it, which isn't possible for me with Criterion releases, as they are only available here to buy on import. It is also available for streaming at Lovefilm (similar to Netflix) in the UK, though I don't know if the streamed print will be of such high quality - I wonder if it may also be available via streaming services in the US?
ReplyDeleteFor anyone who wants to know more about the Masters of Cinema release and its extra features, here is a link to the details at their site:
http://eurekavideo.co.uk/moc/catalogue/shoeshine/
Judy, the copy of "Shoeshine" I bought was a Region 1 release from Image Entertainment and contained no extras. The print was good but didn't seem to have been restored in any way. It's not available from either of the video rental services I use. Actually, I haven't heard of the Masters of Cinema series, but thanks for the link. I'll have to check it out. I don't understand why Criterion or a similar company doesn't do a restored high-quality release of "Shoeshine," considering all the more obscure films that are available. The emphasis these days seems to be on Blu-ray versions of previously released titles, which probably reduces its chances of getting a proper home video release any time soon.
DeleteThis is one of the most beautiful and heartbreaking films ever made. It's been a while since I've seen it, but the film's final image, of the white horse disappearing, like a dream, in the shadows, lingers in my memory. What a profound humanist De Sica was! Thanks for your great post.
ReplyDeleteGOM, absolutely agree with your comment about the beauty--here of the film's humanity more than of its images--and heartbreak in "Shoeshine." That last image is one of the most memorable I've seen. Without giving anything away, I will say that it raises the question of whether the horse is heading for freedom or merely back to the stable and servitude, as it has been conditioned. Having seen the film, you'll know what I mean and what a poignant enigma this is.
DeleteR.D. - DeSica was at his peak during these years (of course,that is no great revalation). I love UMBERTO D and BICYCLE THEIVES and have been fortunate enough to see them both on the big screen a few years ago. SHOESHINE, sadly I have not seen,but I see it is listed on Amazon.
ReplyDeleteOn a side note, I have been watching some Italian cinema lately, most recently, SEDUCED AND ABANDONED and THE ORGANIZER. While they are different in texture they are both excellent films.
John, de Sica was certainly working at his peak during the period he made "Shoeshine" and the other great pictures you mention. His quality was inconsistent after "Umberto," but he did make at least a couple more great films. It was when I wrote the post on Scorsese's "My Voyage To Italy" awhile back that my interest in neorealism was revived and I broke down and bought "Shoeshine" because I liked "Umberto" and "Bicycle Thieves" so much. I'm glad I did because it's definitely an essential companion to those other two great early de Sica films.
DeleteI saw "Seduced and Abandoned" quite awhile ago and recall liking its over-the-top satire. I've heard of "The Organizer" but have never seen it. I've been planning to check out your recent post on it and hope to get to it soon.
Wonderful post about what sounds like a beautifully-made yet harrowing, heart-breaking film. Your eloquent review reminds me that it's high time I seek out more of de Sica's films. I'm ashamed to say I've only ever seen BICYCLE THIEVES, and that was long ago in a college film class. I must confess, the Italian cinema I'm more accustomed to viewing is more of the low-brow variety, such as pepla, spaghetti westerns and giallo or poliziateschi movies.
ReplyDeleteJeff, if you liked "Bicycle Thieves" you should definitely try to catch some more de Sica. In my reply to Page I named the five de Sica films I think are his best, and I recommend those unequivocally.
DeleteI love this film, saw it when I was on my Italian Neorealism kick and it is one of my favorites. What's interesting is you can watch the older brother some years larer in Fellini's I Vitelloni (also a very good film which feels a bit more like Neorealism itself than some of Fellini's later films)
ReplyDeletePersonally I am surprised Criterion has not released it since it will go very well with Bicycle Thieves & Umberto D which they already have in their catalog. Well never say never, maybe there are some right issues we don't know about.
Kim, I recognized Franco Interlenghi's name in the credits and recalled him from Fellini's wonderful "I Vitelloni," but it took awhile for me to realize he was one of the two boys. He looks younger than 15 in this film and older than 22 in the Fellini! He's still alive, and I found his interview on the extras of "I Vitelloni" fascinating. I noticed he's also in "The Barefoot Contessa" and plan to watch it next time it's on TCM to see him in an English-language film.
DeleteIf there are rights issues, that might explain why Criterion haven't restored and released "Shoeshine." The copy I bought released by Image is good, but the film might find the wider audience it deserves with a bigger name behind it and the deluxe treatment with restoration and extras.
Actually, R.D., the film has been released on a magnificent DVD by one of the two "Rolls Royce" labels, the esteemed Masters-of-Cinema of the U.K. I acquired this DVD two years back and it's absolutely gorgeous with a superb booklet to boot. Judy actually made this point earlier on this thread. I also had originally owned the Image you note here, (which at one point was going for huge money as a rarity on e bay). In any case, you have once again attacked a cinema masterpiece with your customary passion and authority, and I must say I am completely aboard with this one, as I am with DeSica's other two irrefutable masterpieces, UMBERTO D and BICYCLE THIEVES. It's a powerful social document, that purportedly inspired reforms in Italian juvenile institutions, and DeSica was so moved by the sickly and undernourished street urchins that followed American soldiers into Naples and other cities, that he moved ahead on what was to be one of the first neo-realist films that eventually defined his own subsequent work and that of his colleague Rossellini. The naturalism of course is accentuated by the magnificent performances by amateurs and by the gritty photography by Anchise Brizzi in bringing DeSica's vision to aching fruition. The film above all is a scathing indictment of the existing system, and in the tradition of other neo-realist works, and films of urgency like Pontecorvo's BATTLE OF ALGIERS it is meant to move mountains.
ReplyDeleteAgain, a towering essay in the service of a masterpiece.
Sam, I bought the Image DVD of "Shoeshine" about a year ago but hesitated to write on it until Page came up with the idea of the Horseathon. It's hard to discuss without going into detail about the plot. Given the film's rarity in the U.S. on home video, I didn't want to compromise the viewing experience of those who haven't seen it so confined my post mostly to generalities. But I'm pleased you liked what I wrote.
DeleteI've said before that de Sica was the most sentimental of the neorealists, but I think that applies less to this film than most others by him I've seen. He really makes you feel for the plight of these boys without getting sticky about it, understand the social problems they must endure without getting preachy, and inject an element of symbolic beauty with the horse (even though ultimately it's unattainable) without getting ponderous as so many attempts at symbolism in film can be. He even manages to get some humor into the first part of the film, a good strategy for hooking the viewer before the heavier stuff begins. The writer-directors seem to get the greatest admiration, but I notice that the great neorealist films of this period frequently have several writers (often the same from one film to another). "Shoeshine" credits four writers. Maybe this is an example of collaborative writing producing a more balanced approach to a topical subject than a screenplay produced by a single writer might.
I get almost all of my DVDs from rental services or the library. I've only ever bought a handful of DVDs (like "Shoeshine") that I was desperate to watch and couldn't obtain otherwise, so buying an all-regions DVD player is not practical for me. But for those with players that play Region 2 DVDs, the British release sounds like a good option, the kind of treatment such a great film merits.
The scarcity of this movie on home video probably explains why I've not yet seen it -- but my foreign film education has always been a bit spotty, so that equally shares the blame. First-rate review, R,D, -- I will definitely have to track this one down!
ReplyDeleteIvan, it's good to hear from you. "Shoeshine" is of the same caliber as the better known "Bicycle Thieves" and "Umberto D." so well worth seeking out if you find those appealing. For anyone interested in the Italian neorealists, it's an essential film with all the virtues of that movement at its most vital--a very accessible, unpretentious film that's easy to appreciate.
Delete