374 Bicycle Thieves

[ando]

Insightful comments. However, I don't think Sarris was in any way "writing off" De Sica or Bicycle Theives with his comment. He, undoubtedly, was/is placing it in a category which, to my mind, is appropriate. But surely no one can argue that Bicycle Theives has any more resonance than a rather pitiful spectacle.

Why are we supposed to feel compassion for the main character, who doesn't seem to be able to enlarge his scope or broaden his field of action? He's a world unto himself (and, of course, his kid). We don't see, for example, how the community around him suffers like he does. We really aren't privvy to the collective dynamic of the community the way we are with, let's say, James Mason's fugitive Johnny in Carol Reed's Odd Man Out. Granted, I'm comparing a felon (and reluctant murderer) with a simpleminded thief, but the plight of the latter would seem far less incidental (or small and, therefore, subject to the trap of melodrama) if De Sica had enlarged the scope of the film (broader and thereby raising far more interesting implications).

The film has its charms and whether or not it qualifies as a masterpiece seems as arbitrary as any other qualification (one likes what one likes). But I do think Sarris was right on when he quipped that Visconti, for instance, might have upped the ante a bit...

And Ozu has never made me cry.

[gubbelsj]

We don't see, for example, how the community around him suffers like he does. We really aren't privvy to the collective dynamic of the community the way we are with, let's say, James Mason's fugitive Johnny in Carol Reed's Odd Man Out. Granted, I'm comparing a felon (and reluctant murderer) with a simpleminded thief, but the plight of the latter would seem far less incidental (or small and, therefore, subject to the trap of melodrama) if De Sica had enlarged the scope of the film (broader and thereby raising far more interesting implications).

That's an argument I've heard before - I think David Thompson wrote that Bicycle Thieves was a too-long fragment, and might work better as one episode among several. But I can't see it, really. I'm not sure DeSica's centering on the man rather than the community takes anything away from the picture. On the contrary, one of the strengths of this film is how such a rambling narrative, a depressed picaresque if you will, can accurately portray both one man's plight and the larger social realities.

Then, too, I've always found in Bicycle Thieves an even deeper subtext, that of post-war alienation, the urban landscape turned against the modern individual. Despite the potential melodrama and tugging-of-heartstrings, the seeds of Antonioni and films like L'Eclisse are clearly planted in this film. But you raise interesting points, ando. How do you think Bicycle Thieves could have been enlarged without becoming too unwieldy, too specific?

[HerrSchreck]

Insightful comments. However, I don't think Sarris was in any way "writing off" De Sica or Bicycle Theives with his comment. He, undoubtedly, was/is placing it in a category which, to my mind, is appropriate. But surely no one can argue that Bicycle Theives has any more resonance than a rather pitiful spectacle.

Why are we supposed to feel compassion for the main character, who doesn't seem to be able to enlarge his scope or broaden his field of action? He's a world unto himself (and, of course, his kid). We don't see, for example, how the community around him suffers like he does. We really aren't privvy to the collective dynamic of the community the way we are with, let's say, James Mason's fugitive Johnny in Carol Reed's Odd Man Out. Granted, I'm comparing a felon (and reluctant murderer) with a simpleminded thief, but the plight of the latter would seem far less incidental (or small and, therefore, subject to the trap of melodrama) if De Sica had enlarged the scope of the film (broader and thereby raising far more interesting implications).

The film has its charms and whether or not it qualifies as a masterpiece seems as arbitrary as any other qualification (one likes what one likes). But I do think Sarris was right on when he quipped that Visconti, for instance, might have upped the ante a bit...

And Ozu has never made me cry.

I don't know about pitifiul. Sad maybe. Tragic? I don't know that a victim of a theft that snatches his just recovered livelihood and ability to provide for his family away from him, and is trying & straining & struggling to reverse that theft, is necessarily pitiful. At least not pitiful in the sense of "Sir you are just pitiful." Sad or tragic in the way that any lower-class victim of a dead-end postwar stalled economy filled with refugees is, as he is doomed via having had the misfortune of having been born into a historical zone virtually guaranteeing misery for those without their own cattle farm or winery or heap of stolen art objects or international bank. Just like in America during the depression, Germany 1918+ or 45+ or similar times/countries of rampant misery victimizing innocents throughout history.

Enlarging his scope how?-- I mean this sincerely. He has sold belongings to put food on the table. He hangs around waiting patiently & obediently for a job via the law-abiding "respectable" route as he has been told to. He's not pushing junk or used condoms or swiss cheese parachutes or pennicillin that are ground-up pez or inviting alley apes to dunk their cookies into his wife or son for a half a sandwich. I think many, many, many, many, many people feel and felt that B THEIVES is much much more than a pitiful spectacle... proof of which we are talking about it here. You may or may not be aware of it but the film was for many years #1 on the BEST FILMS EVER MADE list on Sight & Sound, & elsewhere.

We do see the suffering of his community! The original thief's miserable family & disposition, his homeless old cohort, we see the soup-kitchen relief operation with gratis haircuts given out to the masses with nourishing broth. Nourishing broth. (lovely little phrase.) A nourishing broth. Now I'm hungry.

We see the frustrated men trying to be law abiding massing around every morning praying to be dispensed a job! We see the very govt official who dispenses the job attending a "workers" meeting, giving credence to the plight of these starving men (when "the man" is going to Proletariat Rallies you know your municipality is mildly distressed!).

Enlarging the tale into the baldly political would sink the simple, fable-like quality and unassailable perfection of the film (for those who love it). Highly political films inevitably date themselves as the era passes and they inevitably become less human tales than propoganda, which this film most emphatically isn't. Rare is the political film that remains fresh and timeless (Battle of Algeirs & Hearts & Minds being the few exceptions owing to the fact that mindless imperial occupations seem to be a permenant feature of douche bag idealogues.)

EDIT: and douche bag idealogues seem to be a permenant feature of western democracies.

[kinjitsu]

I don't think Sarris was in any way "writing off" De Sica or Bicycle Theives with his comment. He, undoubtedly, was/is placing it in a category which, to my mind, is appropriate. But surely no one can argue that Bicycle Theives has any more resonance than a rather pitiful spectacle.

Why are we supposed to feel compassion for the main character, who doesn't seem to be able to enlarge his scope or broaden his field of action? He's a world unto himself (and, of course, his kid). We don't see, for example, how the community around him suffers like he does. We really aren't privvy to the collective dynamic of the community the way we are with, let's say, James Mason's fugitive Johnny in Carol Reed's Odd Man Out. Granted, I'm comparing a felon (and reluctant murderer) with a simpleminded thief, but the plight of the latter would seem far less incidental (or small and, therefore, subject to the trap of melodrama) if De Sica had enlarged the scope of the film (broader and thereby raising far more interesting implications).

The film has its charms and whether or not it qualifies as a masterpiece seems as arbitrary as any other qualification (one likes what one likes). But I do think Sarris was right on when he quipped that Visconti, for instance, might have upped the ante a bit...

And Ozu has never made me cry.

Antonio is unable to "enlarge his scope or broaden his field of action" for the simple reason that he is a humble, honest working man who suddenly finds himself in an impossible situation. The fact that he cannot find any other recourse in order to regain his livelihood so that he can feed his little family, pay the rent and regain his dignity seems pitifully obvious. There is no need to for us to see the collective suffering of the community since it is made perfectly clear that Antonio's neighbors are no better off than he is. As Shreck more or less said in his previous post, to invite the entire neighborhood into the picture just to provide a socio-political subplot is irrelevant because it's already there. Furthermore, Antonio is a world unto himself because his family is the only world that exists for him.

Face it, this is pure De Sica territory. I'm not usually a sucker for over-ripe melodrama, but Ladri's uncomplicated purity of gets me every time, as does Cicognini's score. That you think the film has no more resonance than a pitiful spectacle makes me wonder why I even bothered typing this, but to each his own.

And while Visconti might have made something else of Ladri, he was too busy making a film about the plight of poor Sicilian fishermen.

Ozu brings tears to my eyes. Often.

[pzman84]

Just out of curiosity, does anyone have the Sarris review so we can judge ourselves?

[ando]

The Sarris comment is taken from his collection of reviews that he wrote for (among other publications) The Village Voice called Confessions Of A Cultist; On The Cinema, 1955-1969 (1970). I suppose I'll have to reborrow the thing from The New York Public and reproduce the quote word for word, though I don't understand why his comment seems so out-of-hand to so many...

[kinjitsu]

I suppose I'll have to reborrow the thing from The New York Public and reproduce the quote word for word, though I don't understand why his comment seems so out-of-hand to so many...

It doesn't ando, at least I don't think it does, so you needn't put yourself out, unless...

[ando]

Well, actually, there is a very specific comment made by Sarris in regard to The Bicycle Thieves, though it does come from an article entitled, Italy's Big Four:

If Visconti and Rosellini invented neorealism in Ossessione and Open City and then invested it with the ultimate profundity of La Terra and Paisan, De Sica milked it dry with Shoeshine and The Bicycle Thief. Lacking insight into the real world, De Sica relied instead on tricks of pathos that he learned too well as an actor. It is unlikely that any of the big four (Visconti, Rossellini, Antonioni, Fellini) would have made The Bicycle Thief in the De Sica-Zavattini manner. Visconti would have catipulted his victim into the Roman underworld, where social corruption and a sense of personal dignity would transform the wronged laborer into a professional bicycle thief. Rosselini's character, heroically transfigured by God during the search, would return home with the awaremness that his integrity as a human being was more important than any material object. Antonioni's hero, realizing the futility of his isolated existence in an impersonal society, would ride the recovered bicycle off an embankment in a quasi-suicidal gesture. After some bizarre experiences, Fellini's protagonist would find his bicycle only to have it stolen again the next day, but the hapless victim would come up smiling at the hope radiated by a little girl playing the harmonica.

[HerrSchreck]

If Visconti and Roseeellini invented neorealism in Ossessione and Open City and then invested it with the ultimate profundity of La Terra and Paisan, De Sica milked it dry with Shoeshine and The Bicycle Thief. Lacking insight into the real world, De Sica relied instead on tricks of pathos that he learned too well as an actor. It is unlikely that any of the big four would have made The Bicycle Thief in the De Sica-Zavattini manner. Visconti would ahve catipulted his victim into the Roman underworld, where social corruption and a sense of personal dignity would transform the wronged laborer into a professional bicycle thief...

There are so many steaming absurdities in that statement that to actually tweeze one out and attempt to apply to it a fair discourse to it would merely stain the dignity of the calorie expenditure. There are so many Asshole-Flags here-- that is, lack of cool-dude-in-back-of-head-voice warning to be careful not to dress opinion up as soaring fact, a la

Lacking insight into the real world, De Sica relied instead on tricks of pathos ...

or turning one's opinion of one's self as the one actual genuine prophet & legitimate seer of hypotheses on the earth as a completely settled factual matter, thereby smugly proclaiming

It is unlikely that any of the big four would have made The Bicycle Thief in the De Sica-Zavattini manner. Visconti would ahve catipulted his victim into the Roman underworld, where social corruption and a sense of personal dignity would transform the wronged laborer into a professional bicycle thief...

Not to mention a lack of just plain old prefacing or some form of ackowledgement of the idea I know I'm just a single head on a great big planet full of other heads.. other heads see what this one sees and respond differently. This is what makes critical writing just so much runny snot-- these guys are just turning Fandom Into A Science, so that they may tenderly nourish their self-images with the idea that they're no longer just fans, but elevated individuals on an artistic par above the filmmaker to be feared. Don't kid yourself, they are just fucking fans like you & I, dudes with a job, and their opinions mean nothing once they are no longer telegraphed by the organs of the press. Cinematic history is one thing, is wonderful, important, necessary, just like all art history-- and in that history it is fascinating to recount general reception of films upon release. I personally however cannot & could not ever bring myself to read a compendium of a critic, most primarily because of the factual language used is just too funny to take seriously.

On a less irritated note, Ando, one thing I'd amicably remind you to remember is the time in which that was written.. the period of the 60's saw neorealism so far overplayed, squeezed dry, finished.. thus "the problem of the bicylcle," etc. The public & critical mass had such reverence for BICY THEIVES which was reflected in the film always occupying #'s 1-5 on BEST FILMS lists from Sight & SOund et al. Directors like Antonioni, Bellochio (along with Bresson, Tarkovsky, Melville) elsewhere), et al were desperately trying to break through into something new (don't forget the initially bad reception LAVVENTURA received at Cannes) beyond neorealism and of course Fellini. THIEVES was what the average Joe coming out of any random theater thought to be the pinnacle of Uncompromising High Art Filmmaking. So of course in the 60's, taking a public dump on the BICYCLE THEIVES was a badge of honor, as the film was a very loaded symbol of what was stale and musty in the publics idea of Great Film. Shunning the film was the sign of the critics desire to place himself on the cutting edge, align himself with more revolutionary forces taking shape at that particular time. Maintaining that position now, I believe, is just fucking pedestrian-- especially for the outdated reasons that Sarris states. Did you like it or not? Never mind all this other critics-concern, dragging everything from behind it and everything ahead of it yet to be made-- did the fucking film, in and of itself, move you or not?

[gubbelsj]

Lacking insight into the real world, De Sica relied instead on tricks of pathos that he learned too well as an actor..

Interesting that Sarris can find Bicycle Thieves crammed with "tricks of pathos," but can still manage to gush enthusiastically with Molly Haskell over the Heaven Can Wait finale - Henry Van Cleve reaching for a random book off the shelf, only to discover he's holding the very book his deceased wife purchased during their meet-cute years ago. Cue the strings. A trick of pathos, and a successful and moving one, too, if the viewer has by that point fully immersed themselves into the picture. I respect Sarris, and have learned much from him, but disliking Bicycle Thieves and loving Heaven Can Wait on grounds of pathos is less a result of critical analysis and more one of personal taste. And what's wrong with admitting that?

[ando]

Nothing wrong with it. (Btw, I edited (suppled the complete passage - a paragraph, to be precise) the Sarris quote above). But his point that the movie lacks the scope which would engender new discoveries in repeated viewings still holds in my book. That was my initial (and only) point, really.

[zedz]

Surely "neo-realism's" true successors are the turgid and worthy pictures of hacks like Zinneman and Delbert Mann in the fifties. Best be my last word on the subject, I think.

Quite possibly. But I see the major Italian filmmakers of the 60s (including those involved with NR in the first place) as all quite consciously reacting against neo-realism in some form. It was definitely a formative influence. Why I find that later generation of filmmakers much more interesting is that they tackle the 'problem' of cinematic realism in such diverse ways. You get Antonioni's use of real time, and far more thorough-going questioning of artificial narrative structures; Rosi's erasure of the central hero in Salvatore Giuliano; Visconti's more operatic take on reality, and interrogation of realism within a historical context; Pasolini's radical, crypto-ethnographic exploration of mythic subjects; Olmi's poetic realism. Even Fellini preserves traces of Zavattini in an urban fantasia like La Dolce Vita.

[godardslave]

WTF? $50 for 1 film (and only 2 discs).

[Antoine Doinel]

The lack of a commentary surprises me.

[gubbelsj]

Yeah, never thought I'd have any complaints about Criterion introducing Bicycle Thieves into the collection, but the price listing is surprising. Hope they're not taking advantage of this title's popularity and the assured massive amounts of people out there who'll spring for this thing come February. I mean, this is one of the most beloved films of all time. Maybe getting the rights cost an exorbitant amount?

[Cinephrenic]

Maybe getting the rights cost an exorbitant amount?

Probably a typo, or like you said, exorbitant amount.

[arsonfilms]

Considering the film is only 89 minutes, the three main special features could be feature length (or close) which would make it all a lot more reasonable.

Its also unusual that there are no reference to essays or booklets, which means they may still be putting all that together...

[domino harvey]

unfathomable that there would be no commentary on this one.

[Saarijas]

Bicycle Thieves is by far my favorite movie, and I have been secretly hoping for a criterion release for over a year. So I am insanely excited about this title.

My opinion on the high price and no comentary, is that there will be a commentary track (or two?), but they haven't announced it yet due to some odd reason. So the details would be updated when they find out justifing the high price tag.

[solaris72]

I'm seeing $39.95 on the page right now.

[denti alligator]

This is among the (now) short list of "essential classics" that I've been meaning to see for over a decade now, but have continued putting it off. I even have a DVD-R of the Image release, but keep delaying watching it. Now I've got a really good reason to wait until February to pop my Bicycle Thieves cherry. Thank you Criterion!

[arsonfilms]

I'm seeing $39.95 on the page right now.

Oh Thank God!

If the announcement for this title didn't make my day, the price drop sure did.

[The Fanciful Norwegian]

It's nice (and a bit surprising) that they're using the proper English translation instead of the traditional U.S. title.

[jon]

It's nice (and a bit surprising) that they're using the proper English translation instead of the traditional U.S. title.

I don't think it is surprising. It is a commonly known misnomer. Criterion would be torn up on the if they used The Bicycle Thief over Bicycle Thieves.

[gubbelsj]

This may sound strange, but I'm going to find it difficult to view the new interview with Enzo Staiola (Bruno), as fascinating as I'm sure it will be. His portrayal has always been one of the more magical and heartbreaking in cinema, and I'd like my image of him to remain solely drawn from those desperately sad final moments. Sometimes seeing a child actor many years later is a wonderful opportunity, but in a weird way, thinking of "Bruno" in a realm outside of Bicycle Thieves gets me all choked up. Maybe because of how long ago I first saw this movie.....