The essential question (and complaint) I have with Bernardo Bertolucci's "1900" is, "Why is it more than 5 hours in length?". We suffer from too many characters, too many repetitive sequences, and too much gratuitous excess. I am not a proponant of grading everything by its' length but it is, in my opinion, a valid criteria of artistic acheivement. My favorite work of fiction ("The Cypresses Believe in God") is over 1000 pages long yet its' brillance was the way the author was able to personalize the labyrinth that was Spanish politics in the 1930's. Most accounts of the Spanish Civil War merely focus on the major political parties involved in the struggle. The complexity of the subject required a deeper explanation. On the other hand, my favorite TV show ("The Twilight Zone") "jumped the shark" when it expanded from 30 to 60 minutes. The show was a weekly series of morality plays that delivered its' messages clearly and succinctly. The added half hour that it expanded to (with the exception of 2 or 3 episodes) did nothing to enhance the impact and often left us waiting for the show to end. The subject matter of "1900" was expansive (although they couldn't seem to fit in WWII except in acknowledging that it had ended). However, this was more a focus on the political and social structure of the times. Except for an interesting look at the emergance of Mussolini and the Black Shirts (I always thought it was Brown Shirts), nothing much changed except the owners of the estate. Admittedly, the three different generations of owners offerred some added perspective in their handling of the peasants. However, we didn't need another 3 hours of film to get the message. There were a variety of characters that we learned way too much about. The character named "Atilla" (played by Donald Sutherland) is the epitome of evil but we learned that early in the movie and kept getting unnecessary reminders. Think of Robert Mitchum in "Cape Fear" and how several brief sequences told us all we needed to know about his evilness. Compare Lincoln's Gettysburg address to any 5 hour speech by Fidel Castro and you'll get my point.

I gave "1900" 4 stars because there were a number of the excessively numerous sequences that were very well-done. I chose to watch the film in Italian with English subtitles. At times it seemed like all of the audio was dubbed. My guess was that the American actors (including DiNero) spoke their lines in English and had them dubbed in Italian. The acting was pretty good but I would appreciate knowing where Sterling Hayden fit in. This film is definitely for adults only and the politics is left of Socialism. I'd like to return to the subject of the length of this film but that would be over-doing it and somebody should be setting an example.

I SAW THIS WHEN I WAS 55 YEARS OLD, WITH MY DAUGHTER AGED 30... WE WERE GLUED TO OUR SEATS AND THE 5 PLUS HOURS PASSED AS IF THEY WERE 2 and ONE-HALF. THIS WAS THE FIRST FILM OF BERLINI'S I'D SEEN (NOW THIS WAS 10 YEARS AGO), WHERE I REMEMBERED THE DIRECTOR'S NAME... THE CAST, THE WRITING, THE HISTORY, THE PERFORMANCES, THE RANGE of EMOTION WERE LITERALLY UNBELIEVABLY and INSPIRED AWE IN A FILM, THE LIKES OF WHICH I HAD NOT EXPERIENCED BEFORE...

"We don't want vengeance. We want order first...We are the new crusaders!"
--a patrone' (landowner aristocrat)


I know what you're probably thinking, throwing spitballs at an obscure masterpiece is the equivalent of bullying. Accuse me of having a short attention span, but I thought there were many ways Bertolucci could have tightened up '1900,' his epic about the rise of socialism and fascism in Italy during the last century. There are plenty of haunting scenes to be sure, but at five hours, I can only prescribe a much shorter exposition, which would still have readied us for some solid scenes that condense during the movie's second half.

There's no nitpicking about the performances, though. Robert DeNiro is Alfredo, grandson of a patriarch landowner (Burt Lancaster). He befriends a peasant son of a tenant farmer, Olmo (Gerard Depardieu). As boys they forget their status, although Almo is quick to show Alfredo what a soft sissy he really is. In one of the truly memorable moments, Olmo shows his courage by lying on the train tracks as a train goes rambling by; as a stunned Alfredo merely watches.

The relationship is renewed at certain points, but it's easy to see that the peasants, including Olmo, are required to fight in World War I as Alfredo enjoys the fruits of bribery his wealthy family provides for deferment. (Not entirely different than Vietnam or even today.)

After the "Great War" Italy (as the rest of Europe) is really unsettled. Socialism takes hold of the workers as they learn to strike and seek better conditions and wages. Meanwhile, the dark seeds of fascism start their harvest and could seldom be personified better than by Attila (Donald Southerland), a truly twisted weasel of a character whose treachery is a personified vengeance against both sides of the material fence. Keeping low, he pretends to be sympathetic both to the aristocracy (in the role of a foreman) and as a worker's ally. At his side is Regina (Laura Betti), an Eva Braun in miniature--a truly formidable performance with cackling witchery.

The camera shots contain the sweeping stature of an epic, and there's no doubt about the emotional depth in the middle of the drama, but there's excess as well. Do we need know every detail when getting to know everyone? There's some surface banality in the dialogue in parts that markedly improves, and I guess, especially for the wealthy, maybe this banality is meant to be revealing.

Period messages permeate throughout, too. Alfredo's wife, Ada (Dominique Sanda), is a French aristocrat, and there's decadent cocaine use and prostitution to boot. (I was surprised at the amount of nudity and thought that it took 'til the ault years to find equal time for men and women, but this film proves that's not so. Full frontals by Sanda as well as DeNiro and Depardieu show equanimity. There's over five hours of film folks, so they need to keep everyone awake.)

I also think the talking scenes near the end aren't tightened up well enough. You don't have to deliver Marlon Brando (ala Marc Anthony) speeches, but, well, you get the idea.

`1900' is worth a look, but especially recommended during fall or winter when you're drinking hot beverages and need long viewing stretches to keep you occupied. With start and stop capacity, you could stretch this film out like 'Roots'.

A J.P.'s Pick 3.5 *'s = Good-Very Good

(Short Assessment: Directing Bernardo Bertolucci well done, but long-winded. Editing, definitely an acquired taste. Screenwriting Franco Arcalli w/Bertolucci mixed, but needs improvement. Performances are excellent.)

If you want to know what 20th century history is from a European or Italian point of view, you ought to see this film.
If you want to just enjoy an impressive story about three generations, love, hatred, loyalty and betrayal, you ought to see ths film.
Heimat - Chronicle of GermanyHeimat II: A Chronicle of a GenerationHeimat, Vol. 3: A Chronicle of Endings and Beginnings

Bertolucci's massive epic has wonderful and grim moments, and is a must for every serious cinema buff. That said, it isn't for everyone and demands much of the viewer. Dominique Sanda's performance alone is worth your time, to say nothing of De Niro back in the days when he still acted...