1900

[Johann]

Bernardo Bertolucci spent a year making this gorgeously cinematic epic which I finally saw, a 2-disc special edition release from Paramount.

This DVD set is the definitive version, too.
In the special features Bernardo explains how after it was completed he had to compromise with the producer Alberto Grimaldi on how it would be released. His director's cut clocks in at over 5 hours (this DVD) and the producer wanted a 3hr, 15 minute version. The U.S. release compromise was 4 hours and a few minutes, edited by Bertolucci himself. He says he didn't take out any scenes- he just cut the length of shots. A few seconds here, a few seconds there.

Vittorio Storaro is possibly the greatest cinematographer in cinema history, and if you're a serious film buff, you have to bow at what he achieved here. Every single shot is pretty much breathtaking. The cinematography is unmatched.Unmatched.
The lighting is absolutely perfect. Some shots I just wanted to pause and stare at for a few minutes. Beauty in all of it's glory.
So much for your eyes to absorb...
Hundreds and hundreds of brilliant images- I don't know how Bertolucci and Storaro did it.

The story, oddly, doesn't quite live up to the images. It does, but I can see a lot of people feeling detached while watching. Not being engaged. I was, but that was triggered by the absolute power and glory of the pictures.

Robert DeNiro and Gerard Depardieu are great in this, as two very very close friends from childhood whose lives are shaken up by various major events and circumstances.
For the first hour and a half or so it's the two as young boys, then it's them as young men, then it's them as adults, mature, and finally in their 80's.
I'll have to watch it several times to get it completely- at over 5 hours, a first viewing is hard to understand it in story total.
This cut is unrated, with lots of sexuality and innuendoes, very Fellini. You want some shock value? How about seeing *yes actually witnessing* Bob and Gerard getting hand jobs? Bob and Gerard smooching?
There's other scenes that might offend people but I won't describe them- the film has more important things going on. It's an epic in every sense of the word and I don't know why I haven't seen it before. Always wanted to.
I gotta buy it on DVD- just for the cinematography alone it's worth owning and watching over and over.

I love it. One of the best films I've ever seen.
But it's not for everybody.
It's for lovers of extremely foreign films, stunning camerawork and historical dramas.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by Johann
2-disc special edition release from Paramount. This DVD set is the definitive version, too.
I've seen screen captures from this release and they look as good as 1900 looked in the theater when I watched the 4 hour version almost 30 years ago.

In the special features Bernardo explains how after it was completed he had to compromise with the producer Alberto Grimaldi on how it would be released. His director's cut clocks in at over 5 hours (this DVD) and the producer wanted a 3hr, 15 minute version. The U.S. release compromise was 4 hours and a few minutes, edited by Bertolucci himself. He says he didn't take out any scenes- he just cut the length of shots. A few seconds here, a few seconds there.
This whole saga was prompted by the Cannes premiere in May of '76. We never got to watch the original cut because of extremely and undeservedly negative comments like this one from Roger Ebert:
"I remember the excitement before the world premiere of "1900" at the Cannes Film Festival in May, 1976. Tickets and passes were being traded on an impromptu black market, and the crush at the first morning screening was so savage that one man was pushed through a plate-glass door. The atmosphere was totally different by the end of the afternoon, after the dual press screenings for both halves of the (then) 320-minute film. People were quiet and puzzled and dismayed: How had Bertolucci gone so wrong?"

I haven't seen the long version. I know I must and I will. However, it's hard to believe that Bertolucci could cut 75 minutes from the original release by simply shortening scenes.

Every single shot is pretty much breathtaking. The cinematography is unmatched.Unmatched.
The lighting is absolutely perfect. Some shots I just wanted to pause and stare at for a few minutes. Beauty in all of it's glory.
So much for your eyes to absorb...
Hundreds and hundreds of brilliant images- I don't know how Bertolucci and Storaro did it.
Some of the sequences are still as grand as any ever filmed. There's something about the way these two artists deal with film space (or "the frame") in relation to the passage of time that makes 1900 a must-see for anyone who likes movies.

The story, oddly, doesn't quite live up to the images. It does, but I can see a lot of people feeling detached while watching. Not being engaged. I was, but that was triggered by the absolute power and glory of the pictures.
I don't love Pauline Kael the way many do but, when she was fair, balanced and insightful, she had few peers. I love her review of 1900 and I wish it was available online so I could link to it. She had many wonderful things to say about it but I think she was right about "the content issue" when she wrote:
"The great sequences don't achieve their full power because there's no follow-through. Years pass between sequences, when we want to know what happens next. It's true that one remembers the great scenes from 19th century Russian novels, not the passages in between; but the greatness of those scenes derives from their meaning in the narrative, from the way they reverberate through what we have already read and what follows. Bertolucci's great sequences don't make us think back and anticipate". (Kael)

There's also something very simplistic, too simplistic for a film of this length, about the presentation of fascists as mere demons and the reductive, idealized view of peasants as oppressed subjects with no internal or intrinsic problems.

Kael was reviewing the 4-hour version and my comments refer to that version also. I don't know whether any of this would apply to the original version. Moreover, pointing out these flaws doesn't mean 1900 isn't engaging as narrative. It's just less than it could have been.

[Johann]

Huge thanks for all of that Oscar

The DVD transfer is glorious.
Brilliant bright colors, razor sharp clarity.
Indeed, a film for film buffs.

I've never seen the original cut, so I don't know what's been added- please let me know the difference when you see it. I'm guessing the sexual stuff was toned down or eliminated.

I know exactly what Pauline Kael means.
Scenes just go from one to another, without much by way of anticipation, as she points out.
The narrative is not living up to the greatness of the visuals. It still works for me. I still admire the holy hell out of the complete picture. I admire what was achieved. It could've been one of the ultimate masterpieces of cinema had the story been more compelling. (Feels wrong to say that, but tell me what you think when you see it).
I'm picking it apart when I actually love it in total. It's a masterpiece in it's own way. Cinema is pictures come to life, and this film IS that. In spades.

the opening credits give the impression of a masterwork of art unfolding before your eyes, and in many ways, for me anyway, it is.

Thanks for the quotes from Ebert and Kael.
I love info like that...

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by Johann
I've never seen the original cut, so I don't know what's been added- please let me know the difference when you see it. I'm guessing the sexual stuff was toned down or eliminated.
This is far from a complete comparison but it's what I found on IMDb.

* Longer shot of the boy dying in the very beginning
* Berlinghieri digging the wine out of the cellar before serving it to the peasants
* After Elma tells everyone of Berlinghieri's suicide, the crowd rejoices and dances
* The first scene with Attila is extended into a speech
* Graphic scenes of the mutilation of pigs is extended
* After Regina taunts Ada with keys to the wine, Ada pours wine over Regina's head
* Olmo's closing speech is longer.
* The long version of the film features ending credits whereas the American version ends with just THE END.
* Long version includes an explicit scene in which a prostitute masturbates Robert De Niro and Gérard Depardieu.


The narrative is not living up to the greatness of the visuals. It still works for me. I still admire the holy hell out of the complete picture.

I'll put it this way: 1900 lacks the novelistic nuance and sweep of the Tolstoy and Dostoevsky novels the film sometimes evokes. If I may compare cinema to the other arts: the film is not great as literature but it's great as visual art, like painting.

"The lighting suggests the moment in art history when the Barbizon school gave way to the summer sun of Impressionism_when color burst open and became diffused, as if nature, like a film director, could not control its own exuberance." (Kael)

By the way, a film that came out a couple of years later, Michael Cimino's Heaven's Gate had a similar release history. It was grossly maligned by a number of narrow minded critics. The entertainment press made a huge deal about how much money the film lost when a butchered version was released in the States. In Europe, the film had a good reception. I wonder if you've seen it.

[Johann]

Many thanks again for the info.
Yes, those scenes are all in the new 5 hour+ cut

Very true that the film lacks the nuances of those novelists but still, it has a potency. Some might call it dry, like Kubrick's Barry Lyndon is to some people. It's as grand as Barry Lyndon. People complained that Barry Lyndon was just a bunch of pretty pictures, hanging in some museum. Kael called it a "coffee-table movie".

Heaven's Gate I have seen and I appreciate in much the same way as 1900, but I enjoyed 1900 way more. While most scenes in 1900 just go from one to another, Heaven's Gate usually holds and holds, melding in a very dreamy, almost catatonic way. Last time I saw it I fell asleep!

Great analogy with Heaven's Gate.
The point is that these types of films just don't get made anymore. What studio these days allows a filmmaker the time to create a real epic anymore? Who has the faith in a years-in-the-making project anymore?

It's sad in a way. Lament for long epics!

Pardon: Ridley Scott is given some freedom (Kingdom of Heaven)

[Johann]

And that quote of Kael's in your last post is genius. Writing like that made her so great. (Sometimes) :)
In the context of the film, that quote is genius.

[Johann]

And did you know that Storaro is now shooting Carlos Saura's latest, oscar?
lo, Don Giovanni

[oscar jubis]

No, I didn't know. Having seen the Saura/Storaro Goya in Bordeaux, this is exciting news. The title makes it sound like a film about Mozart but the main character is lyricist Lorenzo da Ponte.

Bertolucci is working on a similar period film, about 16th-century Italian musician and murderer Gesualdo da Venosa. Bertolucci's planned adaptation of Ann Patchett's novel Bel Canto is apparently on hold. I couldn't find out anything about whether Storaro is involved with either project.