Journey to Italy (1954) User Reviews

"This is the first time that we've been really alone ever since we married"

[ackstasis · 7/10 · 20 September 2008]

Even with the English language and two stars from Hollywood, Roberto Rossellini's 'Voyage in Italy (1954)' immediately distinguishes itself from every romantic drama to have ever come out of the United States. Rossellini was an Italian, and those Italians had a style that was all their own. The film opens with moving footage along a rough road, the camera mounted on the main characters' automobile. Shots like this lack the sheer smoothness and polish of Hollywood productions – which probably would have filmed everything before a rear-projection screen, anyway – and add an essential crudeness that breathes real-life into the settings and story; these are the lingering traces of Italian neorealism, which, by 1954, had already suffered an abrupt decline in popularity. Ingrid Bergman, then the director's wife, and George Sanders plays Katherine and Alex Joyce, a British couple who travel to Italy for a business/leisure trip. However, this disruption of their typical marital routine brings to the surface the couple's pressing conflicts and incompatibilities. Will the wonders of Naples sever or rejuvenate their love for each other?

'Voyage in Italy' is one of those pictures where nothing much happens, at least on the surface. However, this film is a narrow stream that runs deep. Behind every seemingly-inconsequential scene, every awkward glance, every moment of banal interaction, there lies the key to Katherine and Alex's marriage, and the reasons why it's falling apart. Katherine does a lot of lonely driving in Naples, observing the everyday comings-and-goings of the local folk from the vantage point of a passive, almost-nonexistent outsider. She counts the number of pregnant women in the street, and wonders dolefully whether or not her own refusal to bear children has torn apart her marriage. Alex, meanwhile, skirts the borders of infidelity, elevating his boredom by charming beautiful young ladies (none as beautiful as Bergman, it must be said) but thankfully pulling back at the crucial moment. If one were so inclined, the film also works just as well as a travelogue of sorts, exploring, with exquisite detail, the museums of Naples and Pompeii, and the Italian fascination with the dead.

By 1954, Ingrid Bergman had spent several years working in Italy, after her marital scandal with Rossellini temporarily lost her favour with American audiences. Here, as lovely as ever, she gives a subtle and touching performance, an unappreciated wife disillusioned by the lack of love in her marriage. George Sanders, the roguishly charismatic male suitor in countless 1940s dramas, here achieves a mature, refined level of charm, such that we're not surprised at his ability to woo even the younger ladies. Through their separate travels in Italy, both characters attain a catharsis of sorts, the focus to finally make a clear decision about the future of their relationship together. This leads to a simple but wonderful exchange of dialogue outside the Pompeii excavation site ("Life is so short"; "that's why one should make the most of it"), which seems as good a reason as any for the pair to abandon their seemingly-doomed marriage and start afresh. However, Hollywood sensibility here prevails over Rossellini's neorealism roots, and the realisation that life is fleeting instead encourages Katherine and Alex to reaffirm their love for each other.

Fascinating Journey To Haunting Emotions and Desirable Reconciliations

[marcin_kukuczka · 8/10 · 7 August 2011]

At the Cahiers Du Cinéma, Francois Truffaut, a great representative of the New Wave in France, proclaimed Roberto Rossellini's production "the first modern film." What he meant by "modern" at that time is, perhaps, of little relevance nowadays: the film is black and white; the film's producers and cast represent the classic symbols of the past period. Moreover, it seems that we can afford more spectacular journeys to Italy than the one introduced here. The miraculous Sorrento Coast has been photographed and filmed in many far more impressive technologies. Nevertheless, Truffaut's viewpoint occurs to be relevant to many modern fans of this old yet 'modern' film.

To understand that, we have to underline something significant in that respect: although VIAGGIO IN ITALIA does not belong to the Neorealist films of the time, it appears to inspire and manifest the seemingly best period for Italian cinema that Neorealist movement was. The film art meant to address simple people with what they really experience in life. Therefore, the theme that is being developed in VIAGGIO IN ITALIA is so down to earth. We can still feel similar empathy with the characters that the 1954 viewers felt. Empathy with whom?

Two people appear to be in the lead, a married couple played by great cinema stars of the time: Ingrid Bergman (Rossellini's wife) and George Sanders. Although Ingrid Bergman was cast by Roberto Rossellini in more of his "Italian series" (e.g. STROMBOLI LA TERRA DI DIO), she is exceptional here. We get to see the couple in media res on their road (mind you the deliberate image of the road at the beginning) and gradually get to know them authentically through what they say and through what they do. Catherine (Ms Bergman) and Alex (Mr Sanders) experience the crisis of their marriage...although they are a couple, two people who should naturally love each other, they are as if strangers and feel like ones; although they are meant to be similar, they differ considerably. And there is one little step towards making this film an anti-marriage conclusion. Yet, Rossellini chooses something more demanding by listening to Italy's stones of history which seem to speak to us now. A woman and a man...having the same destination, will their ways face bitter separation?

Ingrid Bergman convincingly portrays a woman of sophisticated tastes, of intellect and feelings. Her character is the one to be liked and empathized with, particularly at the scene when she talks of her former love, a poet Charles. He is dead...yet, he seems to be alive in her, she follows his traces, she experiences the haunting whispers of the past. It is memorably executed in the overwhelming scene when she visits the museum of Naples. What a shot! We see Ingrid, a great beauty, walking among the grandiose sculptures, among the men of 2,000 years ago, people of the past who appear to be so much like the people of today. I think that this conclusion of hers which she shares with Alex is, as if, the quintessential message of the film. Although times change, people's desires and certain values are universal and timeless. We can say that Catherine is constantly haunted by her own past and by the past strictly linked to the places she visits...the echo of voices, the coldness of the catacombs, the might and power of the volcanoes, the chaos of the streets of Naples and the excavations at Pompeii. She dreams of a good life, an independent life, easy going life (the maxim 'how sweet it is to do nothing' makes some sense, at least an amusing sense for her); yet, the moments she sees mothers with babies in the streets fill her with unique nostalgia.

Alex is different....he does not find Italy very charming because of his practical, cold, unemotional view on life. He is a hypocrite-like master who has never seen 'noise and boredom go so well together.' He is bored and boring himself. He leaves because he has nothing to do...he has nothing to say and the stories about a dreamer, a poet make him both jealous and sarcastic. Yet, the experience with a chick he dates in idyllic Capri opens his eyes a bit and he changes within. He is strict and hilarious, particularly at the moment he searches for a glass of mineral water.... Work and duty that mean so much for him not necessarily mean much to Catherine...yet, does it mean that they have to be apart? His dominant role of a man is excellently directed towards the background and his egocentric desires are well crafted and manipulated both in the performance and the direction. Rossellini highlights Catherine more as the woman who goes through inner trouble but enlightens a lot within her inner self and in others. I wish the ending were more developed and not so condensed in the climactic idea of the movie...But the camera-work in the finale really escapes from the Hollywood cliché and it does deliberately and successfully so.

What does VIAGGIO IN ITALIA offer us? Good sense of humor with a bit of sentimentality, lovely views of Italian miracles, great performances of two celebrities among simple people, and the combination of the past and the present. It would be a lovely discovery to say that this film may be liked both by Americans and Europeans....because it is no chronology, no storyline, just a terrific combination of the past that haunts us and educates us, the present that follows us and influences us and the future that is the mother of the two and the mother of none alike. An old film with an ever 'modern' content.

The first shot of the film is the very first impression that highlights their way(s) which appear(s) to lead us to a certain moment...the final shot of the film is the last conclusion that focuses on people walking the paths of history with their own desires, with their own decisions.

Journey to Italy

[Shostakovich343 · 7/10 · 30 April 2021]

Few films have inspired as much critical folderol as "Journey to Italy". Godard considered it a masterpiece, which is always a cause for worry; he had a sharp eye for directing technique, but not so much for storytelling. "Journey to Italy" reflects this defect, and cannot be called a masterpiece without caveat.

The title is certainly accurate. We follow Alex (George Sanders) and Katherine Joyce (Ingrid Bergman) on a journey through Italy, on their way to sell a mansion Alex' uncle left him, and enjoy some time together.

Their marriage is unhappy. We gather as much from the opening scene, when Alex requests that he drives instead of Katherine. Why so? To keep him awake, he says. Clearly, that's not the whole truth. He may think lowly of her driving skills. Or maybe he can't abide her being in control. Or is he really just bored? It's hard to tell with a sarcast like Sanders.

Katherine feels uncomfortable too, but doesn't call her husband out directly. 'It didn't occur to me that it'd be so boring for you to be alone with me,' she says instead. 'What's that got to do with it? I'm just bored because I've got nothing to do,' Alex replies. Neither is saying what they wanted to say.

That is "Journey to Italy" in a nutshell. Alex and Katherine's marriage could be saved if ever the two were honest with each other, but their emotional defences block every attempt. The tragedy is not that the two don't see what is happening. The tragedy is that they do, and fail to change their ways. Once living with a person for a certain period to time, one cannot suddenly play straight. Alex and Katherine are stuck in vicious circle they have created for themselves.

Rosselini is partially successful in portraying this tragedy. The parts that play out like the above scene have been rightly praised for their bold, elusive storytelling. The best scenes are those in which nothing of apparent notice happens: Katherine takes three tourist tours (set to foreboding music); Alex goes to a party and fails to enjoy himself. What goes on in their heads is left to guess. Antonioni was undoubtedly inspired by "Journey to Italy" when he employed the same technique in his Trilogy ("L'avventura", "La notte", "L'eclisse") -- to greater effect.

Comparison between the directors shows where Rosselini falls short. Note how Antonioni always stays on the surface. He complements the superficial quibbles of his characters with crystal-clear images, and leaves digging to his viewers. Rossellini, meanwhile, wavers. One scene, his characters speak in those natural and shrouded sentences. The next, they indulge in syrupy Hollywood platitudes, or worse: voice-over narration, to directly tell the audience how they feel. The script feels schizophrenic, possibly reflecting its two screenwriters. It is bold and elusive as often as safe and uninvolving.

As such, "Journey to Italy" can only be recommended with reservations. That certain critics fail to provide these is a serious fault. Imagine the Michelin Guide awarding a restaurant three stars despite part of their dishes being undercooked. To appreciate "Journey to Italy", one must seek out the well-done bits.

No longer bodies, but pure ascetic images

[chaos-rampant · 6 August 2011]

This is the film that Truffaut writing for Cahiers proclaimed 'the first modern film', going on to praise Rossellini as the father of New Wave. If we don't want to be stridently literal about these things, I agree with him. A bunch of filmmakers who changed the face of cinema in the 60's are all connected to Rossellini and flow out from this film.

At the heart of it we have the familiar trope of a marriage falling apart, melodrama stuff. But modern, meaning understated and without the soaring emotion. We fill the gaps, providing our own understanding of how a relationship works. We participate as players.

So it's about this affair whose nothingness is revealed by the surrounding world, it withers away; the lavish villa with endless views of far horizon, the large, empty veranda where the two of them languish in comfortable lounge chairs. A little outside, it's the countryside of Naples that engulfs them with languid time and hot, lazy weather, a tabula rasa dotted with old ruins.

We're taken on a pilgrimage of these ruins, as the woman looking for a portent that will divine her predicament. The museum filled with statues, the old Roman fort, Vesuvius and Pompeii; Rossellini presents them as mute, ascetic images, images all pertaining to some austere representation into which the woman projects her own world coming to pass. None of them, of course, hold any answers, except as what they are - reminders of the perishable, impermanent world in which we try so hard to grow roots.

Meanwhile, back in Capri, the cynical husband is squandered in his own aimless voyage for something that will fill the time. He courts a woman, much like he did his wife perhaps all those years ago. He feigns and thrusts for desire. Finally he returns home with the same void gnawing inside. Passable stuff, as in La Notte some years later, but the important stuff is with the woman's journey; the Stromboli part of the film as it were.

It is all about the painful process by which ruins are made, time into memory. We are privy to one such enactment in ancient Pompeii (then still being excavated): into the hole once occupied by a dead body, that holds nothing now and is hollow except with shape, the archaeologists pour plaster in order to surmise the shape of that past. Yet what they retrieve is merely the replica of empty space.

Oh, there's the stupidly saccharine finale, no doubt imposed once again on Rossellini by his Italian distributors at Titanus. It's something to be on the lookout for, for how marvelously Rosssellini confounds his censors.

As the couple magically decide they finally love each other, the mob of peasants that surrounds them - participating in some local religious ceremony - cries out in jubilee about 'il miracolo!'. The two lovers are swept aside by people rushing to see, reunited in this nonsensical miracle. The final shot is of police offers looking stern as they inspect the scene, like the censors would the film. Whether or not we choose to accept the one miracle, boils down to whether or not we would the other.

I want to summarize Rossellini here; he's largely forgotten now - probably because when the cinema he envisioned finally took hold, he had already abandoned it. But he's one of the most important filmmakers we have known. You find out that so much of what eventually blossomed with film, grew first roots with him. His transcendent vision was exceptional.

The only misgiving - slight, very slight - is that everything is relatively precise with meaning. Empty space abounds here, the pure ascetic images, yet is mostly filled for us. We're left with simply unearthing the cast, reading the signs. Perhaps I'm saying this because he envisioned so far ahead that I'm comparing him in my mind with later filmmakers who abstracted deeper. No matter, Rossellini ushered cinema far enough.

Now it would be Antonioni's turn to shoulder it; he would supply the breathing, incomplete space into which the imagination can pour into. There is no cast that explains away with him, only the means of immersion into a space empty, waiting-to-be-filled with us (not by us). The ensuing voyage that finally brings us to The Passenger is one of the most fascinating that I know of, but that is covered elsewhere.

Rossellini, Bergman, Sanders! How could it miss?

[Red-125 · 6/10 · 7 May 2021]

Viaggio in Italia (1954) was shown in the United States with the translated title Voyage to Italy. The movie was co-written and directed by Roberto Rossellini.

The film stars Ingrid Bergman as Katherine Joyce and George Sanders as Alex Joyce, her husband. They are both very British. (Sanders was British. Bergman couldn't handle the English accent.) They no longer love each other. They decide to go to Naples to try to salvage what's left of their marriage.

A marriage that's falling apart is a classic narrative. A trip to try to repair the damage is also classic. What's not classic is why anyone could believe that this marriage could be saved. Sanders tells Bergman that when he's alone with her he's bored. (Right.) He leaves Naples for a few days, and when he returns he picks up a prostitute rather than return to Bergman. He drives the prostitute to a park, and then takes home without touching her. (Right.) OK--it's 1954, but even so that's a weird scene.

The ending of the film is so bizarre that it defies description, so I won't describe it. Voyage to Italy is considered a Very Important Movie, and has a solid IMDB rating of 7.4. Maybe fellow raters saw something in the movie that I didn't see, or maybe they saw a different movie. I rated it 6, and that was a gift to honor Bergman's acting skills.

Searching for love in a marriage.

[Boba_Fett1138 · 8/10 · 5 November 2010]

This movie is being an example of some simplistic but beautiful and effective film-making. It doesn't follow a big story in which a big conflict suddenly arises or something needs to get solved or found but it's simply a movie about a, somewhat elderly British(?) couple, on holiday in Italy, who suddenly start to realize that they have never really loved each other.

It's a movie that works because of how well done and beautifully it all got done. It obviously helps that the movie is being set in Italy and features some of the famous landmarks, in and around Napels. The movie focus a lot on the culture and history, since the movie is seen through the eyes of our two main characters, that are tourists and new to the country. There is always something happening in the movie, even though it really doesn't follow a that complicated or thick storyline. It's a movie that prefers realism and is basically a random slice of life and about marriage, that of course is not always anything romantic or love filled. Suddenly they start to learn more about each other and about themselves, which makes them realize that they are perhaps not meant to be together. Doesn't sound that interesting perhaps but the way the story gets told simply makes this a great one to watch, that also never bores. Granted that it's also a quite short movie.

The movie also works well because the characters in it are being realistic and they interacting convincingly with each other. Both George Sanders and Ingrid Bergman gave some fine performances in this movie and were a convincing screen couple, who's marriage has worn out.

It's also a movie that benefits from the fact that it got done in black & white. For some reason I think this movie would had been way more cheesy had it been shot in full color. Instead now the movie has some real class and beauty to it as well.

Despite that it's a movie set in Italy and also an Italian produced movie, with an Italian title, it's still an mostly English spoken film. At least the two main characters speak Italian throughout. So those who normally won't come near a 'foreign' film can also easily watch this one, if you pick up the right, original, version of it of course.

Simply one fine little, well done, effective movie, by Italian director Roberto Rossellini.

8/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

European filmmakers just think differently

[blanche-2 · 7/10 · 27 June 2015]

I've been reading with some amusement the comments on this board.

"Journey to Italy" from 1954 stars Ingrid Bergman and George Sanders and was directed by Bergman's husband, Roberto Rossellini.

Catherine and Alex travel to Naples so they can negotiate the sale of a villa they inherited.

The marriage has broken down; the two don't seem to communicate much, and there is tension. Eventually they both state their unhappiness and decide to divorce and to spend time apart during the trip.

Catherine goes on a sightseeing tour of Naples while Alex hangs out in Capri flirting with women.

The fact is that neither one of them want to divorce, but they simply don't know what to do to make things better.

European filmmakers often don't deal in dialogue as much as they do in images and in feelings. That means watching a film and not waiting for something to happen in an action way but rather in an emotional way, or the way in which a film makes a statement. A great example of this is Antonioni's L'Eclisse.

If you watch a foreign film with the expectation of it moving quickly or that something big is going to happen, you're often bored or disappointed. On the other hand, sometimes a movie is simply boring and disappointing or pretentious. I don't think this is one of them.

Catherine and Alex come to grips with their marriage against the beauty of Naples, and what Catherine and Alex see and experience allows them to make a decision.

There is certainly still love there - Alex is jealous when he sees men paying attention to Catherine. Catherine has inner dialogue when she's driving that indicates that she has forgotten the qualities that caused her to marry Alex in the first place. Instead, she now focuses on his sarcasm and his critical nature.

When one falls out of love, one becomes apathetic. Yet he still has the power to hurt and annoy Catherine, and she can make him jealous.

She can't help but say to him, "You should rest now too" and noticing when he comes in late. Rather than admit that, she merely says I heard something and wanted to make sure it was you.

At the end of the film, they witness a miracle and experience another one.

I actually didn't think Sanders and Bergman had much in the way of chemistry but I suppose for a falling-apart marriage, that works. Ingrid Bergman gives a beautiful performance as a disappointed and sometimes angry woman who is able to come out of herself while seeing Naples.

Ingrid Bergman's radiant beauty shines throughout; she gives a lovely, gentle performance; Sanders' character for me was less fleshed out - and again, isn't that just like a man, showing little of his real emotions.

I'm sure it sounds like I'm trying to give a lecture on How to Watch a Foreign Film. I'm not - I've hated plenty of them. It just seems to me that sometimes, particularly among young people on this board, there's an emphasis on the technical aspects and a desire to be passively entertained. Doesn't work in this case.

That gripping sense of mortality

[hunaja5 · 9/10 · 15 March 2005]

The neorealist director Rossellini introduces us a firm cinematographic study of a couple (played by Ingrid Bergman, Rossellini's spouse at the time, and George Sanders) with marital problems midst of beautiful Italian landscapes.

I would above all underline the central theme of death, mortality, and the ever-so-relentless notion of the fleetingness of human life. The scenes with a funeral convoy (seen by Catherine/Bergman from her car), or Natalie telling about the catacombs with dead people in them ("the forgotten dead"), the museums in general, and very last the visit to Pompey where the archaeologist digging up and dusting a couple dead in the eruption of the volcano - these all add up into a quite clear, yet not so obvious as to be irritating, message. In the end, this time in the middle of a communion (?) parade, after several discussions and a decision to get divorced, the couple decides to go on, after all they do love each other (and may I remark here, why on earth is the film's Spanish title, "Te querré siempre" = I will always love you, such a spoiler? - This often happens when titles are translated...) and they only have this one life to live.

There are many other successes to Viaggio in Italia, such as for example showing subtle notions on people's feelings and attitudes (Catherine notices Alexander flirting with another woman in a restaurant while a band plays a cheerful tune; Catherine and Alexander talk on the balcony while sunbathing; Catherine waiting for Alexander and feigning to have fallen asleep...); these moments someone might call "realistic" but I am far too careful to do so.

All in all, Viaggio in Italia is a great film for a film aficionado/a to watch with their mother (it she's anything like mine), the both will love it, but maybe not for all the same reasons ;).

Mildly engaging

[bandw · 7/10 · 21 January 2012]

(Spoilers) This is the story of an upper class English couple (Alexander and Katherine) traveling to Italy to settle up the sale of a villa that Alex had inherited from an uncle. From the fist scenes on we see the friction in the marriage--the fact that they take separate bedrooms is not a good sign. When either of the two hints that there may be some spark left to their marriage, the other quashes it with a contrary act or comment. When Alex suggests that they have never really known each other and perhaps they can start over, Katherine says, "Let's go down to the bar." During an argument, Alex haughtily tells Katherine that, "Of course there are a few things I don't like about you. Your lack of a sense of humor, your ridiculous romanticism." Each plays to the jealousy of the other throughout the movie.

I did not feel that the actors were challenged to play beyond their comfort zone. Sanders can play a somewhat cynical, upper class Englishman without breaking a sweat and Bergman, while good, turns in a performance that is not particularly noteworthy, although just having her on screen is a plus. The dialog is quite stilted--in fact I thought the film had been dubbed into English until I did some lip reading to determine otherwise.

The movie offers a bit of a travelogue for Naples and the surrounding area. Those scenes are captured during Katherine's solo sightseeing trips after Alex had gotten disgusted and headed off to Capri to stay with some friends. The urban scenes that Katherine sees as she drives to various attractions are the most artificially inserted I have seen. It is clear that Katherine is being filmed in a studio, and then some stock footage is being shown of street scenes. The filming at tourist highlights were the most enjoyable parts of the movie for me. Those scenes would have been much better in color--I am sure that the Naples harbor looking toward Capri must be spectacular, but it's rather unimpressive as seen here.

The ending is about as preposterous as I have seen. After all of the antagonism between Alex and Katherine, less that a minute after Katherine emphatically says to Alex, "I despise you," the two are embracing and saying, "I love you."

This movie has been praised as a masterpiece and as the first modern movie. Those who think it is a masterpiece were certainly plugged in to this at a higher level than I. And is "Citizen Kane" not a modern movie? Or De Sicas's "Shoeshine" or "Bicycle Thief" for that matter?

Estranged strangers coming to Italy and, hopefully, to terms

[ElMaruecan82 · 8/10 · 14 July 2015]

It's another "Voyage to Italy" that lead me to that one, Martin Scorsese's documentary recollecting the Italian classics that forged his inspiration, among them was that intriguing Rosselini movie starring George Sanders and Ingrid Bergman. It didn't have a De Sica vibe but there had to be a reason Marty put it on his to-watch list.

Indeed, "Voyage to Italy" is another of these raw diamonds like only Italian Neo-realism could produce. It starts with a couple coming from London to Napoli to sell a villa belonging to a recently deceased uncle. There's no further development in that element of the plot, the focus is on the relationship between Alex and Katherine Joyce, and from the first exchanges, we understand that something is not going well. And that journey in Italian countryside might affect their relationship, for better or worse.

Fittingly, Ingrid Bergman gives an eerie 'Bergmanian' feeling to these first interactions, an odd mix of personal involvement and total detachment that you can only spot when you're married. I've been married for four years now, and I can tell when a husband and a wife only talks to break the silence. This is how dialogue is crucial in the movie, what they say is secondary to the story, it's all in the 'how they say it'.

What we take from the exposition though is that this highly educated, upper class, a bit worn out, couple never did anything together besides marrying: no children and no travels. So, this trip to Italy might be a good medicine against the monotony that kept poisoning their couple or the deathblow on an agonizing marriage. She admires poetry, Mediterranean idleness and fascination for sweet and simple things; he abhors this laziness, so common among little people. While they converged to the same point, they couldn't be more divergent everywhere else. And it doesn't come as a surprise when they choose to visit Italy separately.

Katherine visits museums, temples, she's fascinated by art, by these looks on marble statues, by these colossal relics where men imitated Gods, saw things in big, and she seems to remember how little his life has shrunk to. The delight of these visits is also spoiled by the old guides whose nonchalant and rapid tone make impossible any form of contemplation or meditation on such majestic beauty, anything to forget her marital boredom.

Alex is more drastic; he simply meets other women, spending as many pleasant evenings as he can. After all, didn't he see Katherine being courted by all these luscious Italian bourgeois during a party and let it go? Did she or did she not intervene when he was talking to an old feminine acquaintance the night before? Alex rhymes with complex, his language consists on hurting to provoke a reaction, and bizarrely, a non-reaction is much more displeasing. At the end, they never acknowledge having fun and never really talk. Why? In fact, both are looking for ways out.

It's obvious that Katherine needs Alex more than a guide. And so does Alex. During a crucial night, he meets a prostitute and takes her for a ride, she then confesses in the car that she was about to commit suicide and needed someone to spend the night with. Alex doesn't accept as if he felt it could be that mistake he might regret forever, and no girl yet would be worth such sacrifice. Yet when he's back to the hotel, he wastes another opportunity to let his heart talk.

The day after, Katherine goes for a last trip to the catacombs, discovering meanwhile the joyful population of Napoli, full of children and pregnant women, everything she lacks. Her guide, a lady who works at the hotel, notices the same because she can't have children. As a married man, I remember before my wife got pregnant, we couldn't help noticing those who were. Loveless and childless people have the eye for such things. And Katherine doesn't even have the luxury to love Alex through a child.

And that boiling frustration explodes when she's confronted again to an infuriated Alex and the argument escalates to a "let's divorce" that sounds the death knell of their marriage. But they have no time to digest the decision as they're coerced to visit Pompeii's ruins. And in a heart-pounding moment, we follow the disinterment of a corpse, followed by another one, a husband and a wife, literally rooted to the spot by a sudden torrent of lava and ashes. A moved Katherine leaves the site, followed by Alex, who'll admit later the sight hit a sensitive chord too.

In their way back, they're blocked by one of these typical Italian crowded processions, so they get out of the car. And while the taboo word was spoken, Katherine felt even more uncomfortable than she was at the beginning, and God, how true to life it is. Couples are weird you know, once you talk of separation, this is when you realize that there's something that deeply ties you to that person, more than love, a sort of moral commitment and visceral need to stay together. Alex still believes it is the right choice, probably exhilarated by the perspective of enjoying life, too short to be drowned in an ocean of unhappiness.

And in one of the greatest twist endings, Katherine is literally swept along the human wave and literally taken out of Alex' hands. Alex feels then how precious she is for him and goes save her and they embrace and there's no need for words anymore. We know they lanced the boil. And I wish this could be the last image of the film, the conclusion of an ordinary story speaking so many true statements about marriage.

Indeed, there's more to discover in marriage than the country you visit as you might feel even more estranged to the beloved one than you are to the country.

Realistic only in visuals, groundbreaking only in atmosphere

[timothywalton-31924 · 6/10 · 11 June 2023]

Voyage to Italy is Rossellini's celebrated masterpiece precisely because a couple of stuffy film experts have proclaimed it as such, rather than it being a film universally beloved by audiences. Journey To Italy has been described as being a landmark film in unleashing the French New Wave onto the world. While I can see how this is so, and I appreciate the significance of this film and the French new wave, there isnt actually much in Journey To Italy which would please ordinary cinema goers. To start, the tone of the film is, by design, dull and passionless. Whereas films can often be classified into either being character driven or plot driven, Journey To Italy has neither character nor plot. The films plot is made up of a travelogue of tourist sites in Italy explored by Catherine, while there isn't much in the way of character development. Nor is any background or history between the two characters introduced- the film focuses solely on the present, and at present their relationship is dull, meaningless, and soulless. The film can thus be described more of an atmospheric piece than a plot or character driven movie- it is about the uneasy tension, the uninspiring, tepid existence of the two characters. It is not about finding reasons to their animosity, solving their problems, or developing their characters. This, no doubt, makes for an extremely languid story. The dialogue in the film also seemed cold, though admittedly by design. Regardless even then, Rossellini was known to not care much about dialogue, and the effects of this are clear- what the characters say are banal, for even heated arguments can be interesting, and even cold conversations can be tense and disquieting. The film does not exploit this potential. While visually the film definitely feels like the Neo realistic style, the plot(or rather the resolution) is quite lacklustre. It seemed as if Rossellini wanted to make a deeply atmospheric piece, but still had to give an adequate conclusion, so he came up with the characters ending up together in a contrived happy ending. Overall, Journey To Italy does have some interesting moments, especially its travelogue-esque scenes involving Catherine with some sulfur rocks and some Pompei bodies. But on the whole, Journey To Italy is style over substance for the average movie goer.

Good but there is better elsewhere

[cafescott · 8/10 · 22 June 2013]

I recommend "No longer bodies, but pure ascetic images", chaos-rampant from Greece, 6 August 2011).

I missed the first twenty minutes of "Journey to Italy." Usually when this happens I come back to the theater another time. However, with this particular slice-of-life study of marriage, I feel comfortable discussing it.

Robert Rosselini deserves a lot of credit for making it work. Without much happening, we have to like what we are seeing and Rosselini is up to the task. We notice details; e.g., the faces of the two principals, children viewed through the window of a moving car, etc. The framing is well done. Rosselini has the right size of image on display at all times.

Ingrid Bergman's Catherine is of course, impeccable. Bergman's combination of strength and vulnerability really makes her characters come to life. Her Catherine is just another argument she is the greatest screen actress so far.

George Sanders' Alexander is written to be emotionally distant and often confusing. Sanders is convincing. However, since he always comes off as sinister (e.g., as the blackmailer in 'Rebecca'), it seems a stretch that he would be so sexless, particularly with the despairing prostitute he picks up.

'Journey To Italy' is well done, and offers very interesting cultural and historical knowledge about the Naples + Pompeii region. However, I am not anxious to catch it again. It is curious how Francois Truffaut offered up so much praise for it. I'd sooner watch most of Truffaut's catalog than this again. Also, there are dozens of films made at the same time that are simply more appealing for repeated viewing.

'Journey to Italy' describes love and marriage as filled with trials. Curiously, Rosselini gives love a chance to succeed while repeatedly informing us that the residents of Pompeii had no chance when their volcano unexpectedly erupted.

starting a wave

[SnoopyStyle · 7/10 · 31 August 2021]

Katherine (Ingrid Bergman) and Alex Joyce (George Sanders) are on vacation in Italy. It's been eight years of marriage and they feel like strangers to each other.

This is scenes from a marriage and a road trip to personal discovery. It's meandering but that's perfectly fine. It's meant to be. Director Roberto Rossellini inadvertently starts a new movement in looser story telling in films. It's jazz when music has been all classical. The only ill-fitting aspect is the glamor of Ingrid Bergman. It's not a big thing or even a bad thing. She cannot be less than the movie superstar beauty that she is. It takes me out of the movie sometimes although there is an autobiographical suggestion within these characters. It takes away from their everyday struggles within their relationship. I do wonder if an average looking couple would make this an even more compelling examination into a marriage. I also wonder if the couple should stay together throughout the movie so that they can fill out their relationship more. I want them to talk this out together from start to finish.

nothing happens

[rupie · 3/10 · 1 January 2022]

I was flabbergasted to see this movie has a user rating of 7.3. To paraphrase Gertrude Stein speaking of Oakland California, "there's no there there." OK, this couple has an unhappy marriage. That we get, but the film does little to show us the fundamentals of their issues. George Sanders was a fine actor, but in this flick he is lifeless, which is no surprise considering the lines he has to read. Ingrid Bergman does what she can to enliven a dead script. There is a lot of beautiful cinematography of the Neapolitan countryside, but far too many street scenes taken from a moving car. One waits and waits and waits for something to happen, but it never does. The resolution, in the street festival at the end is utterly, entirely unconvincing. This movie is a complete bore, Rosselini or no Rosselini.

A patient, beautiful film that portrays a convincing marriage in crisis against the beauty and details of Naples

[bob the moo · 23 August 2004]

The death of her uncles brings married couple Catherine and Alex to Naples in order that they might handle the sale of their inherited villa. From the first journey they make together, there is a real frost in the air and an apparent lack of love between them. After several difficult nights together where they acknowledge the tenuous state of their relationship and decide to use the holiday to spend time apart as opposed to being alone together. As Catherine heads off to catch up on the history and museums of the area while Alex idles around Capri, flirting and enjoying the friendly company of the young ladies he meets there.

It has been said that not a great deal happens in this film and those that say this are mostly correct – but they are not being critical of this fact, merely stating it. The basic plot is: couple comes to Italy with marriage problems and, in between fights, travel around the area – and that's about it in terms of definable action. However to simply leave it at that is to do this film a great injustice because so much of it is about more than just what is happening at any given moment and it is actually a beautifully shot and moving story of love within marriage. We join the story where Catherine and Alex (in a very well drawn marriage) have both come to the conclusion that their marriage must nearly be over. Neither really wants that but neither can manage to make things change; frustrated they go off and travel around Naples alone.

At this point the film balances two aspects with real skill. On one hand the film is a really intimate travel film, not just focusing on the sweeping scenery of the region but getting closer, looking at the specific histories, sites of interest and the people that reside there. Its strength is that it is never just about this because the scenery is just the backdrop for the two characters to discover themselves undergoing soul searching – but in a casual manner, not a heavy, gut wrenching fashion, more of a dawning realisation than anything else. This is subtly down and all the better for it; a convincing marriage that has been worn away to the point that the couple have simply forgotten to just be in love and instead have allowed other aspects of their relationship (the sarcasm, the niggling, the familiarity) to become the main part of their daily interactions. Those who have not been married or in a long-term relationship may not 'get' this film but I can assure you that it will likely be recognisable to you if you have been.

The chemistry between Sanders and Bergman is very convincing – I felt like there had been love between them but it had just been forgotten. Individually they both played their parts really well – there was no real 'eureka in the bathtub' moment until the end but, up till then, we had seen both the characters pick up little things along the way in a very able manner. The support cast were all good trimming round the edges but, in the version I saw, the dubbing into English was a little heavy at times and made it difficult to judge their performances. However the three stars here are all very good and drive the film without anybody else. Three stars? Sanders, Bergman and Naples itself.

Overall this is a slow film that has very little happening in it and, for that reason, it may frustrate some modern audiences who prefer their romantic dramas to have more spark and energy to it – however this is much more convincing for being subtle and elegant. The playing of Sanders and Bergman is pitch perfect and help keep our interest in their marriage alive, while the detail and sweep of Naples is well used as a suitable backdrop for them to rediscover their love against. If it were remade today it would be a massively different film, but this should be enjoyed for what it is – a great film that is of its time and should be enjoyed as such even if it requires at least a bit of patience.

Movie magic in its final minutes, but there's not much to chew on in the journey there.

[Sergeant_Tibbs · 7/10 · 14 May 2014]

Journey To Italy is one of those films with recognisable names in front and behind the lens and appears to be very acclaimed, most notably ranking very high in They Shoot Pictures Don't They's top 1000, yet I don't personally know anyone who's a fan. Besides Martin Scorsese, I can't name anyone who vouches for it. In starting the film, it's difficult to see why it deserves such a noteworthy position. It's quite haphazardly produced with clunky framing, editing and exposition in its script. I suppose it's a necessary evil essential to all films but it didn't seem to have much life to it. Perhaps it was ahead of its time in some regard. Fortunately I love Ingrid Bergman and I felt her performance was remarkably subdued, particularly in her reaction shots. A lot internally going on there. Very whole-hearted compared to George Sanders who relies on bulky screen presence.

The plot continues and dwindles as we follow the two characters independently exploring their impulses, Bergman inquiring the remains of Pompeii and Sanders experimenting with infidelity. It's difficult to be invested in such a neutral relationship, especially when the cameras don't really pick up the beauty of the scenery. The film hits fever pitch late and we swiftly come to the predictable conclusive moments and that's when something incredible happens. The film, or the version I watched, is a short 80 minutes and it must be all set to build to these final minutes. It becomes movie magic, both emotional in the characters and the suddenly electrifying camera-work. Even though the catalyst is something you can see coming, the film feels worth it for that satisfying sense of love in the end. It's a shame the film is so unbalanced and it could've delivered more treats along the way, but I guess I can kind of see what Marty sees in it.

7/10

Ingrid Bergman and George Sanders avoid their crumbling marriage in Naples; sarcasm and jealousy keep their feelings in check.

[ncweil · 8/10 · 17 April 2017]

In this third film in which Roberto Rossellini cast his lover Ingrid Bergman, he again makes her a misfit in a world of open curious people. She and George Sanders, British husband and wife Alex and Kathryn Joyce, drive to the Italian countryside to dispose of the villa her uncle has left her. In contrast to the warmth of the people they meet, at parties and by chance, Kathryn and Alex shoot barbed remarks at each other. After a party where he watches her charming several men, he comments she must have enjoyed the evening. She counters that she was bored, and he must be jealous. He loves the wine, and the food, but his sensuous appreciation is blunted when he gets near his wife. They wander separately, each experiencing emotional connections with places and companions, but their chilliness to each other undercuts the richness of every encounter. One of their visits is to the ruins of Pompeii, where archaeologists have discovered in the ash the cavities left where bodies were vaporized, the outlines of their forms preserved. Having seen Pompeii a decade ago, I marveled at how much more has been excavated than in the mid-50s - this excursion alone is worth seeing the movie for.

Just a few thoughts, not a proper review...with mild spoilers

[FilmAlicia · 6/10 · 16 August 2015]

This movie was playing during an Ingrid Bergman 100th birthday series. Since I had never seen any of her films with her then-husband, Roberto Rossellini, and since I also really like George Sanders, I decided to see "Journey to Italy."

My first thought, uncharitable as it may be, was that Bergman made a mistake when she became involved with Rossellini, and went into exile from Hollywood. "Journey to Italy" certainly wasn't lacking in realism, either in the conflicts between the couple whose story was featured, or in the footage of Pompei and Naples, but it felt unfinished and rough, lacking the polish of the, I believe, far superior films Bergman made in Hollywood, such as "Notorious," "Gaslight," "Casblanca," and the others.

There's a lot to be said for movies that have polish. I essentially adopt the Hitchcock view of film-making. He once said, "Some directors make films that are slices of life. Mine are slices of cake."

I believe art, and that includes cinema, shouldn't merely reflect reality, it should reflect on and heighten reality, otherwise it might as well be journalism or a documentary. While the conflict between the couple felt real and plausible, and their shared experience in the ruins of Pompei was insightful, I did not feel much moved as I watched those scenes. The insight gained was essentially abstract and intellectual.

However, I did think that the film resembled a couple of other noted "marriage" movies - "Two for the Road," and "The Awful Truth." I have to say I think both are superior to "Journey to Italy," in spite of the intriguing cast and premise.

Hauntingly powerful

[gbill-74877 · 8/10 · 25 September 2021]

A couple traveling to Naples (Ingrid Bergman and George Saunders) find the thin veneer of happiness in their marriage torn away rather suddenly. It seems they were content enough back in England going through their routine in life, but now forced to be alone together for the first time, find that they really can't stand one another. They bicker and spend time touring the beautiful sites in the area separately, each noticing members of the opposite sex.

There was something very special about people going through such emotional distress while walking though ancient ruins, Bergman's character especially. The marble statues in the Naples Archeological Museum, skulls in the Fontanelle cemetery, and smoking calderas of Vesuvius seem to echo the crumbling marriage of her marriage, and whisper that all is transient, including love. At the same time, they seem to silently mock the living, whose troubles seem so small against the grandeur of eternal things.

The scene where they see the plaster molds of a man and a woman being freshly created at Pompeii and then, emotionally upset, wander back to the car, arguing bitterly while faded frescos look on impassively, is fantastic. "Life is so short," she says, and he replies "That's why one should make the most of it." The music soars as they walk along, together and yet separate, completely broken - it's a sublime, brilliant moment.

There is a very modern feeling to the subject matter and how it's explored in understated ways, and it seems clearly influential, starting with films like La Notte (1961). Unfortunately, after an entire film of honesty, the film gives way to an ending which feels forced and frankly pretty awful. I don't what possessed Rossellini to do that, but the film as a whole is still hauntingly powerful.

Not for everyone

[jacobs-greenwood · 6/10 · 2 September 2017]

Billed as one of Roberto Rossellini's best, Journey to Italy aka Strangers (1954) is difficult to appreciate unless you understand the language (Italian) or can read its English subtitles as fast as they appear on the screen. Plus, if you're reading, you're missing a lot of the scenery - Naples, Pompeii, Mount Vesuvius, and Capri - which is so beautiful (and could have been more so, had it been filmed in color).

Also challenging for many moviegoers is that there isn't much of a plot; it's the study of a marriage that's collapsing after 8 years. Even though it features Ingrid Bergman (the director's wife at the time) and George Sanders, I find it hard to recommend to a general audience. However, the print I saw on TCM was barely 80 minutes in length, as much as 15 minutes less than the original running time, so it's possible there were scenes missing that would have made it more palatable.

Katherine (Bergman) and Alex Joyce (Sanders) travel to Naples to sell a home that was left to him by a recently deceased uncle, who was popular in the idyllic town. They realize that they hardly know each other as they struggle to have any kind of meaningful dialogue or interactions without frustration or heartache. He's a workaholic while she's overly critical and sensitive. They no longer see each other as desirable, though each is curious to notice that their spouse is fun and attractive to others, when the couple mingles socially.

For me, the film's best scene occurs after Alex returns late at night from a several days trip to Capri, where he was hot for a dalliance that didn't happen and Katherine is clearly hoping he'll romance her (absence makes the heart grow fonder). He's typically unaware - even aloof - of her wishes, and she's too timid to express her vulnerability, e.g. need of him. Unfortunately, much of the rest of this marital study fails to illuminate, and their reconciliation at the end feels as tacked on as any Hollywood production.

Roberto Rossellini's Night of the Living Dead Marriage

[Quinoa1984 · 10/10 · 11 November 2014]

Roberto Rossellini wasn't about to rest too much on his laurels - or let a little thing like a controversy slow him down (an affair with Ingrid Bergman that wrecked marriages, albeit produced daughter Isabella which is nothing short of miraculous) - so a film like Journey to Italy seemed like just the thing to get him motivated and challenged. It's a challenging picture. There's not the same sort of melodramatic drive through a lot of it that you see in Rome Open City or even Stromboli - at least until perhaps the last third. I remember seeing the clips in Scorsese's Italian movies documentary, though it was hard to come by except on over-priced VHS online, until the Criterion collection put out a Rossellini/Bergman box-set, which gave me my chance last year.

I have to wonder if Kubrick might've watched this film before making Eyes Wide Shut, if only for the early scenes. But there's little chance for real romance here; Bergman and George Sanders are the married couple, on holiday in Rome. Well, partly holiday anyway, more like an estate deal that's being closed on (an inhereted villa in Naples actually), and she's bored out of her mind... at first. Very slowly as she goes on trips to museums, encouraged by an acquaintance, there is a certain mood about Rome, a history, the objects which loom over her and speak to something MORE than what she is experiencing in her life and marriage, that do something to her.

Of course, stuffy George Sanders can't see that - nor that their marriage isn't very happy at the moment, or about there being a lost lover in the equation as well (flirting for Sanders, too). And there may be more trouble on the horizon as well, but what's so fascinating is that Rossellini keeps a lot of things under the surface, the unspoken between the two, the tension, is what has to be put forward. For drama, this can be tricky, and Rossellini with his documentary background is able to get his actors to such a place as to be totally comfortable in their characters - people who are paradoxically uncomfortable with where they're at, romantically, spiritually (spirit's a big one), and geographically.

And in a sense the ultimate message here reminds me of the line from Night of the Living Dead, where an unhappy married woman says to her husband: "We might not like living together... but dying together won't solve anything." Is this couple sort of, you know, trapped? Most likely, and the zombies are actual conflicts they're avoiding in life.

A lot of what they end up seeing together is death. This comes by the way right when they tentatively agree after a really bad argument (there's a lot of arguing here by the way, but all believable because it's these two stars who are tremendous talents. They're taken along on an archaeological expedition, and they're privy to the remains of people from long ago. It's a startling, breathtaking sight for them, maybe more for Sanders in a way because he hasn't already been exposed to these bewildering, eye-opening sights like Bergman has. And this realization of one's mortality dawns ever closer.

Journey to Italy was a prized darling among the French New Wave, and perhaps it's because of the questions it raises about life and death, love and loss, and having any sort of REASON for anything, that gives it an existential edge. Have things been too petty for them? Can they reconcile? The ending is where Rossellini finally lets things boil over dramatically speaking: in a way this is a more sophisticated film, if a little harder to exactly "enjoy" outside of a sort of intellectual level (unlike, say, Open City), but when Bergman and Sanders are torn apart, if only briefly, by a parade, it becomes a BIG struggle, and that's what counts. What will you do with the time you have here? Love, squabble, fight, bicker, take things in and experience things? Maybe all of those.

I'm glad the movie was re-discovered and championed by those crazy bunch of Cashier du Cinema folks; the movie works its way ever so slowly on you, and has the layers of great art revealing itself. Did I mention how good these two actors are, especially Bergman again with her husband/musee? Good, it's worth repeating.

A dramatic and unusual Love Story about an alienated English couple

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 11 February 2023]

Classic melodrama about a bored marriage with no children who little by little breaks their relation and things go wrong . Concerning a troubled marriage (Ingrid Bergman , George Sanders) who attempts to find direction and insight while vacationing in Naples at sensuous locations in which they feel so ill at ease . As sensitive Ingrid Bergman and suave George Sanders do spend time together in Italy , there is a tension and an underlying increasing want on both sides to hurt the other emotionally in their own beliefs .

Thoughtful and brooding melodrama about a love story that goes awry . It deals with isolation , loneliness and misunderstanding against the city of Naples . Some films have to be seen to be believed , the secret of the most beautiful and magical of films is 'nothing happens' . From the slight tale of a tired English couple holidaying in Utaly , Rossellini builds an excellently passionate story of cynicism and cruelty swirling into a renewal of love : Sanders' gentle , caddish businessman superbly complements Bergman's Greta Garbo-like presence. And though critics may have always praised it as one of the most enjoyable films ever made , its genuinely romantic tenderness mark it as never so unfashionable , never so moving . The best scenes deal with Naples , depicting the citizens , their customs , photographed in neo-realist style by cameraman Enzo Serafin and detailing the hardships and the way of existence of the people , as well as the museum visits and the walks through the volcanic city of Pompeii.

There stands out the agreeable Ingrid Bergman giving very good acting as wife who's brought by her husband to Naples where she finds isolation and and her marriage a trial . Roberto Rossellini and his future wife Ingrid Bergman met for the first time while making Stromboli (1950). This vintage melodrama was even greater off-screen than on, this is the film which introduced Bergman and Rosselini and began their scandalous affair. Rossellini had a celebrated, adulterous affair with Ingrid Bergman that was an international scandal. They became lovers on the set of Stromboli while both were married to other people and Bergman became pregnant. After they shed their spouses and married, producing three children, history repeated itself when Rossellini cheated on her with the Indian screenwriter Sonali Senroy DasGupta while he was in India at the request of Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru to help revitalize that country's film industry. It touched off another international scandal, and Nehru ousted him from the country. Rossellini later divorced Bergman to marry Das Gupta, legitimizing their child that had been born out-of-wedlock.

The motion picture was well written/produced/directed by Roberto Rosselini who worked with no written script but a handful of personal notes , being his final film as a producer, after that, he produced 2 documentaries and a TV series. Rossellini produced his first classic film, the anti-fascist Roma, ciudad abierta (1945) ("Rome, Open City") in 1945, which won the Grand Prize at Cannes. Two other neo-realist classics soon followed, Paisà (1946) ("Paisan") and Alemania, año cero (1948) ("Germany in the Year Zero"). "Rome, Open City" screenwriters Sergio Amidei and Federico Fellini were nominated for a Best Writing, Screenplay Oscar in 1947, while Rossellini himself, along with Amidei, Fellini and two others were nominated for a screen-writing Oscar in 1950 for "Paisan". Rating : 7/10 . Better than average. Essential and indispensable watching for Ingrid Bergman and George Sanders fans.

"Tell me. I want to hear you say it."

[elvircorhodzic · 8/10 · 28 November 2016]

JOURNEY TO ITALY is a film about a failed marriage, unpleasant past, the empty present and uncertain future. The couple comes to Italy, in order to sell their inherited property. However, staying in Italy becomes a conflict of character and both spouses go into seclusion, unaware of the beauty of life and attractions that surround them ...

This movie is a combination between the social neo-realism and the psychological drama. The story is difficult to understand. It contains genuine periods of loneliness and anxiety. Characterization is very good and is based on changes in mood, emotions and the life logic. The symbolism of the Italian landscape and culture has probably stirred the passions of the majority of viewers. Although the couple is emotionally and spiritually depleted, and their marriage is jarring and painful and they can not resist the colorful images that surround them. The main protagonists are symbolically faced with marital problems such as infidelity and sterility. The final scene in the film, which contains a religious ceremony, symbolically shows that the protagonists must find more faith in love and preservation of marriage. Frankly, I would not agree.

Ingrid Bergman as Katherine Joyce is a lonely woman, who would like to run away from her unfaithful husband, but to her almost everything in this world is no longer interesting. Ms. Bergman is quite good in this role. However, it is obvious that she has no such lightness and passion for performance. George Sanders as Alexander 'Alex' Joyce is really a great choice for this role. The actor that barely shows emotions. Sarcasm and cynicism in the air.

For the Italian cinematography this movie is really something new. I do not experience it as a turning point. This is a very solid psychological drama.

Always a pleasure to see Ingrid Bergman

[qeter · 6/10 · 29 November 2016]

Luckily they projected an old 35 mm copy to get the right feeling of looking at the past. This is not a very spectacular movie. It seems that the tourism promotion of Naples in 1954 sponsored part of the movie. There is a lot of advertising time for the area around Naples (Pompeij, Capri) in it. But from today's point of view these scenes are quite interesting. You see explanations how they uncovered the remains of Pompeij and wonderful statues of ancient times. Besides that we see a very believable struggle between man and woman in a late stage of their marriage. How first love is translated into a somehow different, but never-the-less, important feeling.

Fatally flawed

[elision10 · 4/10 · 28 May 2018]

Look, it's Rossellini in the Fifties, B&W, with Bergman, shot at all these great sites in Italy. So sure, on some level I'm going to enjoy it. But that doesn't mean I have to buy into its reputation as a great movie. The story centers on the relationship of an "English" couple. They've been married for eight years. They're unhappy. Their marriage is on its last legs. At the end of the movie, they get back together. So the movie has to be how whatever we see happen in it culminates in their reconciliation. And it utterly fails to do that. First, WHY are these two together at all? She's obviously not English. How did they get together? But more important, the husband, played by George Sanders, is SO unappealing, so cold, so wretched, that's it's impossible to see what attracted a romantic like the Bergman character to him. I get it that he's English, upper (or upper-middle) class, emotionally stunted from going to English public schools, etc. You don't expect him to insist on couples' counseling. (I love the Sanders line, when he wants to describe the essence of a couple he met, and settles on simply "talkative.") But Rossellini has got to give us SOMETHING to go on, something to show us that he has some humanity, or had at one point. Or show us in the film how he has changed, and why, because of his time in Italy. This is a guy who goes into a rage because his wife takes the car without asking him. But there's so little sign that he can be more than what we see. He has a short dalliance with a woman who tells him that she is going back to her old lover. And you get the feeling if she hadn't said no, he would still be with her. As for Bergman, her character is more sympathetic and interesting. But she looks frumpy -- why hire Bergman and then make her frumpy? -- she's self-pitying, and weak. She stirs some sympathy, but not much. At the end, in a last-second, not-believable change of heart, the husband says to his wife: "If I tell you I love you, do you promise not to use it against me?" Just what every woman longs to hear.