Two Women

• Film Title: Two Women
• Original Year of Production: 1960
• Studio: Compagnia Cinematografica Champion
• Director: Vittorio De Sica
• Original Novel: La Ciociara
• Cast: Sophia Loren, Jean-Paul Belmondo, and Eleonora Brown
• Producers: Carlo Ponti and Joseph E. Levine 

The black and white film Two Women tells a point of view that is different from that of typical films on war. This mainstream drama tells of the horrors of war away from the soldiers and focuses on the citizens of Italy. Even further, the story is told through the narrative of two females, a mother and a daughter. The mother Cesira flees Rome for her native countryside while trying to protect her innocent daughter Rosetta from the horrors of war. In essence, the thesis of the film is represented by Cesira and Rosetta’s lasting relationship. Throughout the film, Cesira protects her daughter from hunger, tries to shield from her murder, and comforts her after they both were raped by a rogue group of Moroccan soldiers. Although the young Rosetta was brutally raped towards the end of the film and it becomes obvious that a piece of her innocence as a naive and sheltered child has become lost, their mother-daughter relationship was never broken. Yes the horrors of war can easily be attributed as the argument of any war film, but the strong relationship of Cesira and Rosetta is the main focus of the film.

The Italin film takes place in Italy during WWII. Towards the end of the war, the German’s and Italian Fascists are retreating from the Allies. The hardships faced by the citizens of this worn-torn country are represented thoroughly throughout the film. One example was the Allied bombings of Rome at the beginning of the film that ushered Cesira to flee to the country with Rosetta. In addition, the lack of food and proper nutrition was seen throughout the film. In one scene, Cesira and Michele go to look for food in the next town and find a hysterical woman who had just lost her baby. The women offers her breast milk to the couple when they ask where they could find buy some food. According to Smith, “the Nazi government depended on the flow of goods from pillage and thus organized shipments of grain, metals and other resources from occupied countries to Germany itself.”(332)  Indeed the movie presented a country that was lacking even the basic goods of cultivation. The reasons for such troubles are the German allocation of goods in addition to a lack of young able-bodied males because of their legal mandatory obligation to serving in the army.

The film alluded to the struggles felt by seemingly every member of Italian society during this time. Members of the Italian fascist regime seem to abuse their power in petty tactics such as threats of violence and a sense superiority above their fellow citizens. The divisions amongst different political ideologies were clear among the Fascists, the Communists and the Americans. Even in a country that was torn apart by war, there was a still bitter conflict between citizens over politics. An example would be the members of the Fascist army that are fleeing the Allies when they encounter the young Communist sympathizer Michelle. One Fascist pulls out a gun and points it at Michelle over a petty disagreement. According to Smith, “the war killed far more civilians than soldiers”, “the defeated citizens of Europe often paid the financial costs of their country’s occupation, died performing slave labor, and suffered in numerous other ways.”(332)  The involvement of almost every major industrial country from America to the U.S.S.R. led to bitter fighting on multiple fronts, from the streets of Rome, to the countryside of Ciociaria.

The turning point of the film was when young Rosetta and her mother were raped by a known rogue group of Moroccan soldiers. Throughout the whole film, Cecira acted as shield for Rosetta against the horrors of war. She tried to protect her daughter’s child-like innocence by being a strong and courageous woman in a more than dangerous and hostile environment. For example, Cecira comforted her daughter when Michelle was taken captive by German soldiers on the run and seeking safe passage through the hills. However, Cecira could not protect her daughter from all the travesties of war. Towards the end of the film both Cecira and Rosetta were raped and Rosetta lost her innocence. However, after Cecira is visibly shaken up from the whole ordeal and acts distant from her mother. The picture at the top of the page is a film poster depicting a scene where the war seems to have gotten the better of these women. However, at the end of the film, the hug each other and the camera pans out making them appear smaller and revealing a big object in the left side of the screen that closely resembles some piece of WWII weaponry. According to class lecture, this could be seen as a way of illustrating the strong relationship of Cecira and Rosetta in the uncompromising and unrelenting chaos of war. In an article by Jan Kozma-Southal, a discussion of the imagery used by the author Alberto Moravia helps shed some insight on the multiple metaphors of the book that the film was based. In his book, he uses the metaphor of a goat as means of self-sacrifice against the atrocities of the war in terms of Rosetta’s character. “Rosetta's upbringing has rendered her just as incapable of defending herself as the goat of which she speaks.”(211) In such cruel and hard times, even the most innocent and naive people cannot go unharmed.  

The film was released in 1960 about fifteen years after the end of WWII. The summer Olympics were held in Rome during this year. It’s ironic that fifteen years later all the super-powers of the world had an invested interest in winning in Italy. During this time, the ideologies and sense of nationalism that were responsible for WWII were still accountable in torn countries such as Vietnam. Communist and anti-communist governments were engrained in the beginnings of a bitter cold-war that sought to reach as many countries as possible. The U.S.S.R. and their communist ideas and the United States had once been allies but then become enemies after the war. The tension between these two super-powers had led to possibility of a WWIII.

The Rules of the Game

• Film Title: Rules of the Game
• Original Year of Production: 1939             
• Studio: Nouvelles Éditions de Films
• Director: Jean Renoit
• Cast: Marcel Dalio, Nora Gregor, and Paulette Dubost
• Producers: Jean Renoir
 

La Règle du jeu or the Rules of the Game is a black and white film directed by Jean Renoir in 1939.  In an interview, Jean Renoir states that his film was highly unpopular and controversial in French society during the late 1930’s. In addition, Renoir goes on to state that the he had not intended on provoking such controversy and that criticism hurt him very deeply. The thesis of this film criticizes the very people who Renoir alluded to in the interview, the Bourgeoisie. The upper-class of French society and their decedent and child-like personalities are exposed in this unconventional film. Renoir was quoted as saying that the Bourgeoisie was “rotten to the core.” These wealthy and privileged citizens are the basis of a rotten and incestual part of society that possesses no strong morals, especially in their love lives. 

This film can be described as an experimental or expository film, as described in Rosenstone. (p.50) Rosenstone describes these films as foreign and usually not elected to the traditional plots and codes as those in Hollywood films. In addition, Rosenstone states that these films are usually made by leftists and choose not to follow Hollywood guidelines because they promote traditional capitalistic idea and do not contribute to social change. This is evident throughout the film, especially in terms of the elites and their incestual love relationships. For example, towards the end of the film Christine finally submits to Andre and confesses that she loves him. However, she later confronts Octave and admits that he is her love. The film portrays other love affairs such as Robert and Genevieve, and Marceau and Lisette. This endless game of cheating and lack of morals is the complete opposite of traditional Hollywood films at the times. The absence of good versus evil in the form of characters and their relationships in are not represented what so ever in this film.

Usually in typical Hollywood based films; there are important moments that transcend the film and its arguments. However, in this film, the zenith at the movie comes at the end when Andre is mistakenly shot by Schumacher. I believe this scene is supposed to be a metaphor for the Bourgeoisie and their lack of strength and character in France during 1939. In Robin Bates article on masculinity in the late 1930’s French films, she describes these men as “flawed men who lack the courage of their convictions and who collapse under pressure.”(p.40)  In the article she goes on to state that France was on the verge of fighting another world war with Germany and the hyper-masculine fascists. She goes on to state Renoit felt that what was wrong with French society needed to be exposed through film. Although the film was not originally perceived well by French audiences, the late 1930’s message of change in French society in dealing with the Bourgeoisie and their failures to France are recognized today by various groups such as the British Film Institute and historians such as Robin Bates.

The film is told through the perspective of the Bourgeoisie, from the childish games of romance between characters to the lavish parties where almost anything is acceptable.  According to historian Bonnie Smith, “governments faced a rebellious citizenry at the end of the war, and to dampen the revolutionary spirit, politicians focused on providing a better standard of living and a return to family life.”(p.202)  Smiths insight only adds weight to the argument that Renoit was critiquing a sleeping French population on the heels of another great war. The film was told through the perspective of the weak Bourgeoisie in order to illustrate what Renoit felt was corrupt about French society.

All Quiet on the Western Front

• Film Title: All Quiet on the Western Front
• Original Year of Production: 1930
• Studio: Universal Pictures
• Director: Lewis Milestone
• Cast: Lew Ayres, Louis Wolheim and John Wray
• Producer: Carl Laemmle Jr.

All Quiet on the Western Front is set in Germany during World War One. The academy award winning film for best picture opens to a group of school boys being lectured by their Professor to join the war effort and support their “fatherland”. The rest of the film follows the war effort through the experiences of these German boys, especially the star Lew Ayres as Paul Baumer. This film is modeled after a troubling time in European/world history. Increasing technological and industrial capabilities coupled with the developments of nations led to Europeans fighting over land in the names of their respective countries. Mechanized warfare lead to greater weapons such as guns, planes, canons, biological warfare, and grenades left war on both fronts to fight each other in what became known as trench-warfare. The film seems to accurately describe the hardships these soldiers suffered. Men began going crazy, many more starved waiting for food, and plenty of soldiers were shot and killed and left to rot in the trenches. In trench warfare, it’s safe to say there are no winners, for even survival came at a heavy mental price. Some soldiers went mad waiting in their entrenched bunkers for food, sleep, an end to the sound of guns blasting and bombs dropping. Although the film was written by a WW1 veteran with seemingly primary insight into the war one must recognize that the work was fictional. Many events seem rational and potential real such as Paul returning to his school with his anti-war message or laying with some French women only to never see them again. However, mainstream dramas must present an interesting story in order to capture the hearts and minds of its audience. Rosenstone covers the elements of a mainstream drama as follows. “ Condensation or compression” was used the film in order to cover months and years of war  into a concise two hours of film. “Dialogue” was also used from the words of despair from Paul and his friends to the dropping sounds and explosions of bombs and the screams of fear from grown soldiers that helped to create a dramatic and brutal past war. “Characters” such as Paul are the action and are the main focus of the story. Although Rosenstone suggests that “characters” in a mainstream historical drama are based on actual historical figures, we will include the fictional characters of the film in order to illustrate the elements of the film. (Rosenstone, p.39) These elements are combined to create a mainstream drama such All Quiet on the Western Front.

The thesis of the film has to deal with reasons for going to war. At the film, Paul and his schoolmates are basically coaxed into joining the army by their professor and his false words of nobility and heroism by those who join. Soon after joining many of Paul’s friends die in combat, lose their limbs, or just break down mentally. The war had taken his friends, he realized that his fight was not noble and without honor. He was spoon fed nationalistic ideas such as Germany being the “fatherland” and basically that would make him and his friends the children that were designated to defend its honor. However, Paul came to realize with his own eyes that war traditional tales of war such as these were false and that conservative elites were the ones that started and benefited from war. He then realized that he made a mistake by joining the German army. Paul soon realizes this while he returns home after a short furlough after being wounded. In the turning point of the film, Paul returns to his old school and spots his old professor running off at the mouth with the same words of heroism and noble deeds for those that defend the fatherland in battle that suckered Paul and his other classmates. The instructor invites Paul in to speak to his class of young men, actually younger than Paul’s class because of the German army’s enormous need to replace dead and dying soldiers at the front. Paul then goes on to encourage the kids not to join the army because killing innocent men for unjust causes has left him with a lot of remorse and a sense of despair. The kids then chastise Paul by calling him a traitor and his sincere anti-war words fall on deaf ears. Paul then finally returns to the front and tells his last remaining friend Kat that there’s no more room in society for him. Soon after Kat is wounded and killed by bomb explosion. Paul then carries his body to a field hospital and medics tell Paul that his last friend has died. Stricken with grief, Paul’s world becomes darker than ever before. In the final scene Paul is in the trenches and sees a butterfly several feet in front of him, out of the bunker. While Paul is reaching for the only beautiful thing in the trenches he is shot and killed by a French sharpshooter. Paul is killed and the film and its anti-war message come to an end.  

The film was released on December 1930, in Germany. The film was shown for only six nights until it was banned from the public by Germany’s Censorship Board because it was a threat to the public order. (Imhoof p.175.) This came as the result of German citizens boycotted the film because many felt the American made film was critical of Germany’s war effort during WW1. In Imhoof’s article Cultural Wars and the Local Screen, he suggests that this film reflected on Germany’s defeat and was disruptive to declining Weimar Republic. This issue was also political in nature. The conservative members of German society during 1930 saw that Germany and it’s problems were the result of the Versailles Peace Treaty and saw such liberal films as All Quiet as unpatriotic and wrong. Liberals felt the film and its sobering fictional story was not far-fetched and the film served to produce fundamental change for Germany. (Imhoof p.179)  The film alluded to the struggles of a nation to come to terms with the meaning and reasons why it lost in WW1. While many liberals felt that Germany after WW1 was in dire need of change, while conservatives in power and in the streets till felt their ideas still supreme in restoring the “fatherland”.