During week three, we viewed Rome, Open City and it was enjoyable as well as an interesting film. What was most interesting to me was how the creation of this film coincided with the neorealist movement and historical events. Based on the reading by Shiel, “Filmmaker, critics, and the cinemagoing public came to a consensus that neorealism rose out of the trauma of fascism, war and occupation in response to which it offered a means of national and personal self-examination” (Shiel 9). When you look at Rome, Open City, it truly is a reflection of this conclusion that Shiel wrote about. When you take into consideration the fact that neorealism is made up of untrained actors, on-site shooting, and limited equipment as a result of the German occupation of Rome, it is truly admirable that they were still able to create a masterpiece such as this. In the film, Pina is truly a symbol of the trauma of this event as when she is killed off halfway through the film, it acts as a cry of defiance for Italians against the fascist state. 

From a viewer’s standpoint, this film made me think about the historical impact of this event as of course I have never experienced anything remotely close to this kind of trauma. But having the opportunity to see this film makes me appreciate that art of film as well as get a better sense of the impact of historical events on it. Scenes such as Pina’s death like I mentioned earlier shows the raw emotion of how the occupation impacted so many people in Italy and although I can never truly connect with that feeling, it allows me to understand the effort that went into making something of this caliber as well as the struggles they endured. Camera tactics in this scene like the shot/ reverse shot when Pina and Francesco try to get to each other when the Germans take him away reinforce the raw emotions and pain of common occurrences like this that is inflicted add a feeling of authenticity.

Continuing on the theme of understanding struggle and the neorealist movement, week four brought along with it the film Paisan that depicted events as you move from southern to northern Italy. What stuck with me specifically was the part of the film involving the monks and the people staying with them. In terms of historically, it signaled to be a sign of unity among Italians because despite having differences in religious beliefs, it showed they are able to still accept them and house them there as the fight against the fascist state required all of Italy to work together in any way possible to break free. When discussing how film during this time was a depiction of struggle Bazin makes a great comparison, explaining “Italian film has that air of documentary, a naturalness nearer to the spoken than to the written account, to the sketch rather than to the painting” (Bazin 43). It’s the naturalness filmmakers of this time use that create the authenticity of film. Rather than having a completely polished outcome like a painting would be, comparing these films tacts to sketching brings out the flaws in creating these films such as those like untrained actors or having to film in actual locations. In addition to this, Schoonover describes “The recently exposed scale of the human violence wrought by the war did not threaten to confound this aesthetic. In fact, this aesthetic showcased just how suited cinema was to the task of accounting for the war” (Schoonover XIV). This furthers the argument of authenticity contained in the short films because displaying the brutality of war will truly show the emotional scars left by real-life events. 

Overall, both Rome, Open City and Paisan are both depictions of the Italian struggle of the time period, and is used for viewers to gain a better sense of this feeling. Personally seeing both films furthered my understanding of the sheer impact of these events. On top of that, the use of camera movements, as well as framing, help further depict this and create an authentic film experience.