Gianni Amelio brings to the screen the story of Aldo Braibanti, an intellectual who at the end of the 1960s was convicted of plagiarizing Ettore, a young man who frequented the Tower, Braibanti's cultural centre. The intellectual from Piacenza is played well by Luigi Lo Cascio, but applause certainly goes to the young Leonardo Maltese who plays Ettore. The usually versatile Elio Germano takes on the role of Ennio Flaiano, the journalist of the Unità, a Communist newspaper, who immediately understands the delicacy of this process. The issues relating to civil rights begin to arise, but the country's culture is still anchored to the Catholic tradition, and Fascist heritage, which does not give any space to homosexuality. It is a film of shocking brutality, profound ignorance and Catholic bigotry. Anyone who thinks that things have changed consistently in Italy since then is grossly mistaken. It is sufficient to live in any of the small Italian provincial towns to still feel the same air of profound obscurantism and Catholic suffocation.
4 Reviews
Decent, but too intellectual for its own good
massimilianofoschi15 September 2022
The issue at the center of this movie is timely and direction Gianni Amelio courageously took on the responsability to tell the story of a man who was, on one hand, unjustly persecuted and, on the other, extremely unlikable. In this regard, the film was successful, with a good performance from lead actor Luigi Lo Cascio.
Elio Germano, who played Ennio Scribani, the journalist who decided to tell Braibanti's story, was very realistic, in this relatively limited role. Leonardo Maltese, who portrayed Braibanti's lover Ettore Tagliaferri, was unexpectedly capable in his acting debut.
On the whole, though, the movie suffers from a mediocre supporting cast, who seem uncomfortable in their roles and don't show emotion in a relatable way.
My main issue with the film, nevertheless, is the extremely unnatural screenplay, which showcases how perfect is the enemy of good. References to Hamlet, Socrates, Leopardi and Nietzsche or sentences full of metaphors might be apt for Braibanti's character, but the style of the dialogue between other characters is not too different leading to the viewer being left with a decently-crafted story, but very little emotional involvement.
Elio Germano, who played Ennio Scribani, the journalist who decided to tell Braibanti's story, was very realistic, in this relatively limited role. Leonardo Maltese, who portrayed Braibanti's lover Ettore Tagliaferri, was unexpectedly capable in his acting debut.
On the whole, though, the movie suffers from a mediocre supporting cast, who seem uncomfortable in their roles and don't show emotion in a relatable way.
My main issue with the film, nevertheless, is the extremely unnatural screenplay, which showcases how perfect is the enemy of good. References to Hamlet, Socrates, Leopardi and Nietzsche or sentences full of metaphors might be apt for Braibanti's character, but the style of the dialogue between other characters is not too different leading to the viewer being left with a decently-crafted story, but very little emotional involvement.
if you like...
ops-5253515 February 2023
Italian drama set in the 1950' and 60's, where homosexuality and lgbtq+ rights and the common condemnation and despite towards those individuals, and if you love the italian language and sole, spiced with a very nice acting cast, with superb filmatographic visuals, then go for ''the lord of the ants''.
Allthough its somehow a bit chewn out intellectual and verbalistic to the tip of a finger, it tells the story about the man who just wants to teach his students everything that worth to know into perfection, girls as well as boys, its just that he treads the green green grass of the common law of decent behaviour, the burlesque and the sodomistic ones.
Its shows how gay people were treated in gods name and in the name of the law, flusheb down the loo of the sanatorial realms of psychoteraphy, because the the signs where all there, even though ...
i just have two comments that draws down my review marks, its very slow paced and the playtime is an overburden that may stop people from watching the whole sacrament. But its a decent product in many aspects of filmaking, therefore a recommend from the grumpy old man.
Allthough its somehow a bit chewn out intellectual and verbalistic to the tip of a finger, it tells the story about the man who just wants to teach his students everything that worth to know into perfection, girls as well as boys, its just that he treads the green green grass of the common law of decent behaviour, the burlesque and the sodomistic ones.
Its shows how gay people were treated in gods name and in the name of the law, flusheb down the loo of the sanatorial realms of psychoteraphy, because the the signs where all there, even though ...
i just have two comments that draws down my review marks, its very slow paced and the playtime is an overburden that may stop people from watching the whole sacrament. But its a decent product in many aspects of filmaking, therefore a recommend from the grumpy old man.
Ambiguous
insightflow-206035 April 2023
The matter at hand is complex and controversial. There are beautiful poetry exchanges between the teacher and the young pupil, of whom we learn he is of age; there's clearly genuine affection and not just grooming (by the way, grooming in general is used not only when children are concerned). On the other hand, we learn that the teacher has taken advantage of - literally abused - other students who fell under his spell and intimidation. The other points are that there wouldn't be an issue were he heterosexual and abused girls; he would be praised for his machismo. Particularly harrowing is the ordeal of the boy who is forcibly institutionalised by his family and damaged through electroshock "treatment". I'm not sure where the director stands on this - on the one hand he portrays the accounts of boys who testify they were abused and even contemplated suicide; on the other, there's the tone of advocacy throughout - a fervent plea against the stigma on homosexuality, as if this were the only issue.
Aesthetically the film could be stronger; there are stretched episodes where not much is said or happens, as if we're supposed to get into the drama of the different characters intuitively - but they are given no background and remain vague. The forte is the poetry exchange and the ordeal of the young man, crippled and abandoned by his family. We learn he's also abandoned by the teacher, "the only one who cared" in his words.
P. S. On a second thought, poetry may be a sure form of grooming.
Aesthetically the film could be stronger; there are stretched episodes where not much is said or happens, as if we're supposed to get into the drama of the different characters intuitively - but they are given no background and remain vague. The forte is the poetry exchange and the ordeal of the young man, crippled and abandoned by his family. We learn he's also abandoned by the teacher, "the only one who cared" in his words.
P. S. On a second thought, poetry may be a sure form of grooming.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
