Watch Europe '51 For Free

I love this movie so much

I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

Europa 51 has a big heart, this much is clear. It's a story where Rossellini and his collaborators want to pose a basic question: what does someone have to do, like literally do with their own hands and wills and TIME, actually taking time and energy out of their days, to make a difference for people? The question may be surrounded by an, arguably, heavy-handed set-up, where Ingrid Bergman plays an ambassador's wife in Italy, and their son, a bit of a spoiled mama's boy (or, no, maybe he's just the sensitive sort, you pick, but either way not dubbed particularly well), dies accidentally. Bergman's Irene can't stand herself for what has happened - all her time being a dilettante and not spending enough time with her son made this happen - and she can barely go on.Someone, a friend who has Communist ties, tries to convince her that perhaps it's time to make a change amid this time of Societal Upheaval (in caps) as political sides are being more sharply drawn. She sees how people suffer, and a day at a factory basically makes her completely light-headed (a montage of images, if memory serves, makes this clear). She wants to help. Maybe if she puts her energies to positive use, to help others, she can... what, find some solace? Alleviate her guilt? Or that now she can't be a mother to her son - and there's not much effort between her and her husband to find love again - so why not be a Mother to others? It's a little more difficult than that, of course, which is the riding factor of conflict in the narrative.Bergman plays this character with all of the beats just right. Early on in those first scenes with her and her son you might wonder whether the writing isn't totally clear - IS she being a bad mother, or is he just whining, or is it a little 'much' determining either, who knows - but she plays it just right, this woman in her life who has it all and doesn't have to worry about much. This includes hearing conversations about class struggles (this before she sees them first hand) and can barely comprehend it. How Bergman channels grief is even better, showing us a face that has the life totally drained out, and she is always *listening* as an actress too to what's around her, and is a strong listener which is key. Ironic then that many of these, almost all of them, are speaking Italian and are dubbed over - this includes Giuletta Masina, who plays a local housewife.Not all of the writing is superb here, at least for me. It's surprisingly melodramatic in its last quarter as Irene is looked at as being completely crazy (possibly, borderline, criminal) in how she's helping these people, which includes keeping one man evading prosecution in her home. I have to wonder if this story could work today, though a filmmaker like Scorsese, one of Rossellini's disciples, sort of made his version with Bringing Out the Dead - a protagonist who is haunted by death and wants to make a difference. It is a very hard thing to be saintly, or just be a decent person when there are many, many indecent things and people that go about in this world, certainly in this context post-war, post-fascist-cum-Communist Italy.There's a lot to digest here, even if some of it may come off as dated or simplistic. But, once again as with Stromboli, the combination of a director with a clear, very moral message, and an actress giving it her ALL (and it's a case where Bergman does give one of her best performances from this period, even if the film isn't), that you can watch it and be wrapped up in this woman's drama.

Excellent film dealing with the upper echelons of society that are unable to deal with a member of it who undergoes profound tragedy, leading her to live a life in total commitment to the impoverished.Ingrid Bergman gets this calling when her son dies, and it's first looked upon as having taken totally socialistic or Communistic beliefs.Alexander Knox plays her supposedly understanding husband, but soon relents when she is taken to an insane asylumGiulietta Masina is as always excellent as the woman taking care of 6 children, but still having her own immoral agenda.There are some scenes which remind me of Bergman's 1948 "Joan of Arc." I think the film was a great prelude to 1958's "The Inn of the 6th Happiness." Society was so fortunate to have Miss Bergman's appearance on screen.

This film should make you think. As children (and even as adults), we are constantly being told to love our fellow man, that the least among us is the greatest in God's eye, that faith without acts is worthless, etc. But try to put these principles into practice, and you will be considered eccentric at best, and a lunatic at worst. When you try to live according to the values that everyone else around you is paying lip service to, you will find out what their real values are. How can your duty to your fellow man, your sense of wanting to ease the suffering of the sick, wounded or lonely, ever compete with your social obligations or your spouse's selfish needs for your company and perhaps even your servitude, even if he is perfectly capable of taking care of himself and would do well to join you in your efforts to help those less fortunate than yourself? Perhaps you can get support from your local clergyman? Don't count on it. He will be the first to sign the papers committing you to an insane asylum. You're better off living the high life and just quietly making a weekly contribution to his collection box! One of the most provocative movies of the 20th century.

I am surprised this film is so undervalued on IMDb, as it is the one that Gilles Deleuze talks about more than any other in Cinema 2 as one an example of what he calls the 'time-image', those postwar films in which rather than 'movement prevailing over time', 'time prevails over movement'. Basically what that means is that, because of the social and political transformations that emerged in the wake of WWII, people were essentially incapable of reacting to their new situations, yet for that reason also became that much *more* capable of attaining a shift in consciousness, and this was reflected in the cinema of the time. Rational, linear, sequential narratives, which tended to follow very cliché progressions are themselves overcome by this change, so that there often is no satisfying 'conclusion' to the story, the characters often being as much an 'audience' of unfolding events as we are. As he puts it, "if all the movement-images, perceptions, actions and affects underwent such an upheaval, was this not first of all because a new element burst on the scene which was to prevent perception being extended into action, in order to put it in contact with thought?" (1) So, this is what he says occurs in such Rosellini's 'Europa 51'; the character Irene, the bourgeois housewife , who in the course of the story, is lead by the suicide of her war-traumatized son to question the structure of her society as a whole. Thus, intrigued by the insight offered by her friend Andreas, she wanders aimlessly, but with the highest of awareness through the slums, the factories and other elements she had never taken into account previously: "her glances relinquish the practical function of a mistress who arranges things and beings, and pass through every state of an internal vision, affliction, compassion, love, happiness, acceptance, extending to the psychiatric hospital where she is locked up at the end of a new trial of Joan of Arc: she sees, she has learned to see" (2). It is not only the audience then, who become 'seers' (as opposed to 'agents' in the narrative structure that prevailed before the war), but the characters such as Irene are also a kind of 'audience', they perceive a world which they can barely conceive how to intervene in. When the character's motor capacities are short-circuited by overwhelming situations, says Deleuze, "he records rather than reacts. He is prey to a vision, pursued by it or pursuing it, rather than engaging in action" (3). Thus, just as each of us have sensory-motor patterns that make us turn away at the sight of something we would rather not see, so too does Irene, but because of her son's suicide she suffers a 'shock' and this habituated way of 'living' is interrupted so that just as she does not, *we* do not turn away either so that we become *seers*. 'Europa 51' I would say, breaks with what at the time was the prevailing emotional posture, particularly that of metaphor and cliché, which tend to direct our attention away from that which is difficult to comprehend. As Deleuze says, "we normally only perceive clichés. But if our sensory-motor schema jam or break, then a different type of image can appear: a pure optical-sound image, the whole image without metaphor, brings out the thing in itself, literally, in its excess of horror or beauty, in its radical or unjustifiable character, because it no longer has to be 'justified' for better or for worse…the factory creature gets up, and we can no longer say, 'Well, people have to work…' I thought I was seeing convicts: the factory is a prison, school is a prison, literally, not metaphorically. You do not have the image of a prison following one of a school: that would simply be pointing out a resemblance, a confused relation between two clear images. On the contrary, it is necessary to discover the separate elements and relations that elude us at the heart of an unclear image: to show how and in what sense school is a prison, housing estates are examples of prostitution, bankers killers, photographs tricks - literally, without metaphor" (21). What was especially interesting in regards to all of this was the reversal that occurs in the main character, (that is very similar to Joseph Losey's 'Mr. Klein') in which, once Irene comes to the factory and spends a day working there, says "I thought I was seeing convicts" to her friend Andreas, only for her to end up in a similar position, under the similarly knowing gaze of others. This matching is foreshadowed when the sound of the 'work whistle' that starts the workers' day sounds very much like the air raid siren she reminisces with her son about just before his death, and when her husband begins to worry that she is cheating on him with Andreas, her only response being that her love has expanded to encompass the entire world. By the end of the film, after being persecuted by this newly 'liberated' society for her beliefs, the situation has turned upside down, as we begin to see *her* as a kind of 'prisoner' also, though I will not say in what sense (so as to not cross the spoiler boundary). Her son's death mirrors that of her 'downfall', as well as how it is 'understood': as the doctor says of Michel early on, "unusually sensitive children are liable to go to extremes when they are upset". Despite the kind of 'do-gooder' mentality that prevails, which may be tiresome for some, I thought it was a quite powerful film and I can definitely see why it made its way into some of the most outstanding film theory texts out there.