An odd moment. (Tell me what you think.)
-
BlueGreen — 17 years ago(October 25, 2008 10:38 AM)
Okay, first, it seemed to me that Fabrizio interpreted Clara's drawing his attention to her scar as self-consciousness on her part.
But if that were so, it would need some sort of explanation of how he arrived at that conclusion. Because Clara's reaction is unambiguously enthusiastic, both in her facial expression and her tone. (The scar is hidden, totally covered by her hair, and she volunteers the information: "Hey! Wanna see my scar?" - I am paraphrasing - like a child. :))
And so, IF he interpreted it as self-consciousness, we would need an explanation how could he have misinterpreted her tone and expression (which, of course, speak louder than any words he might have misunderstood). It is HIM who looks somehow embarrassed. -
macguffinlassie — 17 years ago(October 25, 2008 02:42 PM)
Because despite Clara's childlike "look at my boo-boo" display, Fabrizio is an adult in love and it's his reaction to assure the object of his affectionswhom he doesn't perceive as a childthat it's okay, just as it would be to any adult in love when so confronted. In fact, it's not unusual for a self-conscious adult to display the cause of his self-consciousness in an act of bravado, e.g., "Look, I have this hideous psoriasisisn't it cool? I really don't care about it, and you shouldn't either," as a means of (unsuccessfully) trying to demonstrate how unimportant it is while (successfully) grossing out his audience.
Look, this whole movie is about misunderstandings, with some deception thrown in for good measure. Why dissect them when they're the whole point of the film? We the audience don't NEED an explanation because we KNOW they're misunderstandings. They're the thrust of the filmFabrizio and his family misunderstand Clara's clinical simple-mindedness as mere sweetness, Meg misunderstands Fabrizio's father's sudden withdrawal as probable evidence of his having learned the truth, Fabrizio's father thinks his son is younger than he actually is, yada, yada.
I'm pretty sure this was intended to be a fairly straightforward filmit's not in the same league as, e.g., Suddenly, Last Summer or House of Games (or for that matter, We the Living). -
BlueGreen — 17 years ago(October 25, 2008 04:24 PM)
Yes, but the bravado shown by many people who have OBVIOUS "defects" is quite understandable. Volunteering to show something that would never have been perceived (and even then, it would not be a big deal, one would assume) is a different thing.
I think Clara's gesture is simply one more detail that is supposed to show her child-like nature - that seems to be clear as daylight. (Gosh, these titles really can be catchy and insidious
)
It's his reaction what I find ambiguous Ah, right: this is where you came in.
I am only dwelling on this because other details (some of which have been discussed here) show that Green has either intentionally planted A LOT of ambiguous clues - or his directing is hopelessly sloppy.
And while this film may not be perfect - or anywhere close to perfection - I do think he was a bit more savvy than IMDB seems to give him credit for.
(In fact, I would assume it was the film - not the novella, which is more flawed than the film itself - what inspired the producers of the recent musical.) -
macguffinlassie — 17 years ago(October 25, 2008 05:20 PM)
I don't think his reaction is ambiguoushe's besotted. To him, everything about her is beautiful. Love is not only blind, it's often deaf and dumb as well, plus, let us not lose sight of the fact that THIS MOVIE IS ALL ABOUT MISUNDERTANDINGS. I really doubt the director was trying to be slick by inserting the early-60's equivalent of Easter eggs into the film. That's not to say that they're not there, but I'm not picking up on them. (For the record, though, I'm not the kind who goes looking for trouble!)
I think you're digging WAY too deeply into this film. It's not terribly profound. I doubt it's even considered significant, which is probably why it never even made it to VHS, much less DVD (more's the pity). I just happen to like it a lot and was REALLY happy to see it resurface. Maybe if it creates enough buzz and enough votes on the TCM site, we'll see a DVD release. -
BlueGreen — 17 years ago(November 03, 2008 04:27 PM)
Oh, I definitely agree that the film is about misunderstandings!
I'd just like to know how many of them are legitimate - and how many are perhaps the consequence of sloppy editing or whatever.
And certainly I like to give films the consideration (literally) that they deserve; and the criterion is, quite simply, the pleasure I derive from them. I mean, if they were good enough for me to watch and perhaps enjoy them, then they are worthy of consideration in their details especially if the details are in any way ambiguous or unclear, that is.
I do that with "Citizen Kane" I do that with "LITP".
With films it's the same as with books (or even works of visual art).
I have read/seen works that are deemed "significant" - and I can definitely see WHY - but they gave me nothing I didn't know or needed at the time.
On the other hand, I have read/seen relatively obscure works that, even being far from perfect (but then very few works are, and that goes even for the likes of a "Citizen Kane" or "War and Peace" or a Rembrandt), I found intriguing enough to dwell on certain details about them.
It's the least I can do to honour their maker AND my own search for the transcendent in the trivial. -
macguffinlassie — 17 years ago(November 22, 2008 05:17 PM)
Okay, I finally read the novella yesterday. Before I address the question of Clara's scar, I want to point out that rarely have I watched a film that is as faithful to its source material as this one. There are VERY few deviations, and virtually none of them are significant. It's a lovely, kind-spirited, very well-written work of fiction (would that there were any to be found among todays writers). I thought it was delightful. Now, on with the show.
What follows is the exchange as it appears in the novella.
"Look," cried Clara and parted the hair above her ear. "I have a scar over my ear!" She pointed. "A scar. See!"
Fabrizio struck down her hand and put her hair straight. "No. Ma sono belli. Your hairis beautiful."
It then goes on to have Meg thinking that they really need to leave, soon. So there was no cryptic intention on the director's part. "Look at my boo-boo." "The boo-boo doesn't matter; your hair is beautiful."
I remember reading a novel in which one of the charactersa young womanis extremely self-conscious about a large birthmark. When she makes love for the first time with the young man she will later marry, she self-consciously draws his attention to her blemish; his response is "I wish I had one, too." See the analogy? -
pharmom — 16 years ago(March 28, 2010 06:50 PM)
I think you might be over reading these "clues".
TO me, Fabrizzio's reaction is perfectly natural. I think he's already seen that she's not quite as she should be, that something might be wrong, but that whatever the wrongs are, the rights completely make up for them. It may be natural for us in more cynical times to see what could go wrong, but I also believe there are still people who can see the good in someone and make the decision to deal with the bad. Marriage vows say richer/ poorer, sickness/ health etc but the divorce rate says that many don't really have a conception of what that really means. This movie (and the fact that the priest talks about it in the sermon during the wedding) points out to us that there are ways to be happy with simple things. Sometimes the movie's plot talks about making due with less money or moving to another place and giving up a career to slow your life down to make this kind of point.
Bottom line, it's the love that carries you through and I think Fabrizzio already knows that. -
BlueGreen — 15 years ago(April 25, 2010 08:29 AM)
Basically, that's what I thought (that he knew), so I tend to agree with your assessment of the situation, Pharmom.
(And, as I have said several times before, that sermon REALLY should have been subtitled!) -
BlueGreen — 17 years ago(September 20, 2008 12:37 PM)
Well, you've been waiting four whole months for a response, LOL.
It was well worth the wait.
His parents don't seem to notice, though, and I wonder why is that? Maybe in that culture, in that time period, and being "adults" they just don't pay all that much attention to the "children" once they are grown.
Well, the
mamma
hasn't seen enough of Clara, I suppose; and even after the hilarious/embarrassing visit ("But I already have a dog!"
), especially not understanding English, it would be relatively easy for her to think that Clara is
just
a sweet, naive girl - especially because:
a) people don't usually expect other people to be retarded
(gosh, for some reason this sounds harsh, but it's not meant like that
)
b) foreigners are always, automatically perceived as "different" to begin with.
Fabbrizio's father, on the other hand, is a true enigma in this case.
Who knows what he is really thinking?
And the fact that Brazzi made him so suave (but of course ;)), only adds a bit of eeriness to the character.
I'll have to think a bit more about him - and then, perhaps, come back. -
BlueGreen — 17 years ago(September 20, 2008 12:19 PM)
Thank you all so much!
True, I almost lost hope that anyone would ever reply (and I don't have a notification system in place), but I wouldn't have been terribly surprised or disappointed, considering how few people seem to be familiar with this film.
Anyway, I am going to read in detail each one of your replies, and I'll be back. -
beantownratt — 9 years ago(August 01, 2016 04:48 PM)
I think that Fabrizio's father knew and avoided the disclosure. When his "friend" was hit with the cannon, just as Meg was about to disclose Clara's condition, he got up abruptly and left saying he "thinks he knows this man". When Meg later asked him how his friend was, he said, "He died". Very offhandedly.
I also think that Fabrizio is slow. Not Forrest Gump slow, but an IQ just above room temperature. His father said, "he's not a scholar". A bit of an understatement, imo. He also displayed some immaturity and child-like qualities.
Meg and the Senor were both being less than honest with each other.