On occasion, a great director will have enough credit to receive a blank check for his or her next project. Kubrick made a career of this, which is also why we would have to wait quite a few years between his films. When this happens, the result becomes something that is either egocentric or epic. In 1976, Bernardo Bertolucci used an open wallet and artistic freedom to create his own version of his beloved Italy between the start of the 20th century and the end of World War II. Aptly titled “1900,” the movie showcases a class conflict between the rich and poor, nobility and peasantry, right and left. Shown through the lens of two men born on the same day in 1901, within the same estate, this is an Italy that will go through two world wars and a localized civil conflict that will almost tear the country apart.
Alfredo, the grandson of a wealthy landowner (Burt Lancaster), and Olmo, the illegitimate peasant grandson of the respected foreman of the peasants who work on the landowner’s farm (Sterling Hayden), were both born on the same day, minutes apart, in 1901. Even though Alfredo is raised as a privileged landowner, his grandfather (Burt Lancaster) takes the most interest in him and raises him to be a fair and decent man. His father (Romolo Valli) is a cruel and privileged aristocrat, and growing up, Alfredo is torn between the two completely different upbringings of the two men. Olmo, on the other hand, is raised totally by his own charismatic and idealistic grandfather, who is a proud socialist. They both are immediately drawn to each other, growing up and becoming best friends. Throughout the movie, there will be instances where both will play-fight each other, which is a symbolic mixture of pure love and class struggle. This is shown numerous times during the film and is used as the concluding message.
The movie is divided into two parts; the first follows the birth of the two protagonists up until the deaths of their respective grandfathers. The second part revolves around their adult lives, starting with the breakout of the first world war, in which both are enlisted. Olmo (now played by the great French actor Gerard Depardieu) is a fighter in the trenches, and Alfredo (now played by the great American actor Robert De Niro) is a stay-at-home officer. This, again, as Bertolucci will throughout the movie, emphasizes the vast difference in life’s treatment of the aristocrat and the peasant, which is the main theme of this epic film.
Bertolucci had very left-wing leanings, and it is obvious that in his depictions of the different social systems effecting people, it was communism that held the most appeal to him. To his benefit in the film, he will also show the failings of communism as well as its attraction, and I felt that the film’s ending held a sort of maturation and satisfaction for him about how modern Italy developed into its present democracy. The Fascists are shown rightfully as monstrous exploitative brutes and as a natural product of the previous feudal system that pitted the rich against the poor. The movie’s depiction of a tumultuous history reminded me of Angelopoulos’s “The Traveling Players” from the previous year. That film like this one spanned a European country’s rocky 20th century, beginning through the eyes of its people. Like here, the protagonists are not heroic, and the strength of Bertolucci’s film revolves around the weakness and humanity of the two main characters.
De Niro is once again superb in the role of Alfredo. While, in the English language version that I saw he spoke with a New York accent, his character is unlike any other De Niro role I have ever seen. Alfredo has the heart of his grandfather but also a lack of courage that characterizes his father. I saw this clearly in the performance, as Alfredo would, on one hand, stop the fascist police from arresting his best friend and, on the other hand, freeze while the same friend is being almost beaten to death. His inability to stand up to the sadist fascist foreman Atilla (Donald Sutherland in a stunning and frightening performance) hired by his father is the major catalyst that results in his downfall. De Niro is striking in his ability to portray Alfredo for who he is, as a man lacking conviction or charisma. If there was ever proof that De Niro could play every type of role, this is it.
Depardieu is one of France’s iconic movie stars, and he was at the start of his career when he made this film. With striking good looks and an impressive physique, Depardieu easily shows Olmo as an earthly, simple person thrust into a position of leadership that he could not handle. Since all his lines are dubbed, it was his physicality and body language that impressed in the performance. Olmo would, ever since he was a child, give the pretense of being tough while at the same time being in a constant state of fear, and Depardieu made that trait believable in his performance.
Mention must also be made of the beautiful Dominque Sanda, who portrays the liberal, free-spirited French beauty who marries Alfredo. She is a quirky character who believes in love, and she reminded me a little bit of a flower child from the 1960s. Alfredo’s lack of courage eventually destroys her will to keep pretending to be the kind mistress of the house. Sanda is once again exquisitely beautiful in the role. Her ability to cause tension between the two boyhood friends at the center of the story is totally believable.
Of all the good performances in the movie, it is the pure evil portrayed by Sutherland as the Nazi Attila that stands out. Sutherland is all-encompassing in his portrayal of a man who takes great joy in hurting others. He is a dangerous psychopathic killer who does not have any empathy in him. While some people may feel that the portrayal is a stereotype and overexaggerated, I for one believe that there are people like him roaming around us, and to those people, the feeling of powerful superiority encompassed by fascism brings out the worst in them. That is exactly what Attila is doing with his horrendous actions. Sutherland makes this monster his own, making him one of cinema’s greatest and scariest villains. Be warned; there is one scene of horror committed by him in particular that is very difficult to watch.
At almost five and a half hours, “1900” is not perfect, and there were times that it became preachy. Especially during the second section. I preferred the first section of the movie more than the second, even though the two main actors were not in it. The earlier childhood scenes are majestic, containing a melancholic feel to them within the glorious landscapes of an historical spectacle. The movie is shot in a sweeping, beautiful style that relays the country and history like a moving painting. There is a constant mist within beautiful trees swaying with the wind that color the countryside with pure elegance. If ever there was a film that could be called sweeping, this is it. This sweeping tone to the movie is retained throughout the movie, with its greatest impression made during the movie’s first coming-of-age section that concerns boyhood. Of all the characters in the movie, the ones I liked the most were the two played by Lancaster and Haydon during this earlier section, as they portrayed a lost sense of dignity that was Italy before the tumultuous events of the beginning of the 20th century.
Ultimately, Bertolucci’s long and impressive epic of an exciting and troubled period in Italy is not a complete success. It is a bit too long, I think, and has extended elements that are obviously political. However, it also contains stunning scenes of beauty and terrific performances that make you want to think about it after it is over. When Bertolucci makes mistakes, he makes them with style, and “1900” has enough impressive moments to make it well worth watching.
1001 Movies before you die 