Andrea_Ratti It depicts its essence within its characters while the theme circles around faith. Much of Rossellini's pictures are somewhat a representation of this. Here the characters must escape or adapt the new federal law. Nazi forces have mobilized into Rome and the generals are tasked to sniff out any resistant leaders. This takes our main characters down several rabbit holes eventually leading into a torture; portraying the harsh brutality of World War 2. The movie undermines each character in better and worst situations. Most of them never prove within their strength. Rather they body themselves to fit in while others go against. It is the resistant characters who are trialled horribly and the general who is stern in approach. With each decision, our protagonists spiral into a lack of control. Ultimately, it leads to violence.There are tender moments however, between the lovers, a family, a couple and a priest where they find solidarity. This is its undertone and depicted gracefully through the acting. Then, after the first act, the movie climes its summit religious like. Death arrives, and the harsh reality turns into a darker bitterer atmosphere. Then, the final moments with the priest and the children direct us to a company of children with strength in their hearts and faith by their side. This is the third act in which it binds the tangent of the movie. With each directional point, it is presented with such a humane behaviour by Rossellini. Improvisational and spontaneous yet controlled by the editing. It's seamless. The acting is similarly yielded with praise, especially from the priest and the mother. We the audience encapsulates the essence and spirit that stands triumphant. Respectfully and rightfully, a great movie of history and of the human heart.

ElMaruecan82 It holds an odd but very understandable significance that one of the most impacting post-World War II movies ever was from Italy. I say "odd" because Italy is perhaps the only country that started as an ally to Germany before being invaded by her very ally (not to mention the real ones) in 1943 after the fall of Mussolini. It was the failure of the fascist dream that left Italy an open country for the German invasion, with the capital Rome, as an open city.Italians saw their country literally collapsing, their fleet annihilated, the North African campaign cut short by the Allies, Italy relegated to the ungrateful small-time role in the scale of World War II, a casting error that cost so much time and efforts for Germans, notably in Greece, that its downfall caused the anger of Hitler and made it a priority to control Italy and restore the fascist regime of Mussolini (from that point, a German puppet). Despite all the resistant movements, Italy's loss wasn't just economical, but also symbolical, and what strikes in Roberto Rosselini's film is how lucid Italian people are, it's silent anger that fuel their force with vital energy. That anger wouldn't be as silent one when they'll get a hand on the ex-Duce, and I guess his fate showed how much resentment they had to vent.Nonetheless, people's anger has never be so dignified in a film without it being unrealistic, you really feel it in the general mood, even in people's way to express resignation. And the reason why this is so perceptible in the film is because Rosselini shot it shortly after the end of the war, among real ruins, and the screenplay was written while the German presence was still a fact. It's a film shot with an urge to be made and brought up at time as if Rosselini and all the actors knew they were participating to an important project, one that would show to the face of the world, that Italian were as much victims as any other countries and were not allies of the Nazi, the real Italian heart beat in the Roman streets not in a parliament.Ultimately, the film didn't end up being a powerful tribute to the sense of sacrifice and the fortitude of Italian people, it's also a magnificent and powerful tribute to all the people, in all the countries in the world that resisted the German invasion or any other invasion. The film holds a similar significance than other contemporary movies' scenes like Chaplin's final speech in "The Great Dictator" or the Marseillaise in "Casablanca". Except that it was made in more restrictive conditions. So, don't take its uneven quality, the different level of brightness and lighting as some effects to provide documentary-like realism or some artistic license. The film was made in secrecy and urgency as if it was part of a resistance movement itself.But Cinema is a world of imagery, and the film had one to offer, one that forever captures the tragedy of war and the wounds it inflicted to people. The image of Anna Magnani running, arms raised, to the truck, that is taking her soon-to-be husband, only to be shot dead by the Nazis, under the eyes of her son. It was Scorsese's "Voyage to Italy" that prepared me to this scene, one of those that impacted him the most, and for some reason, I thought it was the end of the film, as the one emotional highlight the film could have. The death of a pregnant woman, a strong mother, a future wife, whose beliefs was shaken by war's reality, was a powerful allegory of a country carrying bright hopes only to see its dreams annihilated by a barbaric force. Anna Magnani didn't play an Italian, she was Italy.And the supporting cast is a microcosm of the best and the 'worst' that war can bring, an actively resistant priest played by Aldo Fabrini and a communist (Marcello Pagliero), there is also an interestingly flawed character in Marina (Maria Michi), a cabaret dancer who prostituted herself by selling information to a female informant agent and lover, to afford some fancy lifestyle, convincing herself that she never really hurt anyone. In a way, she embodies the attitude of Mussoloni when he sold Italians' soul to the German, in the firm belief that it was the right horse to bet… until Hitler, wrapped up in his megalomania decided to invade USSR. And the way, Marina Is finally treated at the end, echoed the way Italy was left and the disgraceful punishment that awaited the Duce and his followers. "Rome, Open City" is about people who incarnate the Italian spirit, oscillating between two poles, the true Italian like Anna Magnani and the wounded and weakened Italy (closer to Marina) People are torn between their patriotism, their belief in humanity and in barbarity, but all in all, only humanity can triumph, and it even inspires a Nazi officer to confront Captain Hartmann, the sadistic antagonist of the film played by Dutch actor Joop van Hulzen. He wonders why Germans dare to call themselves the Master Race, which race of lords can torture people to death, execute priests or mothers. Despite Van Hulzen's slightly over-the-top performance, you could feel that Rosselini didn't want to portray the Germans as a one-dimensional evil group either, and that foresees his future "Germany Year Zero" where he'd shine a light on the other forgotten victims of World War II: the German people. But while this film relied too much on amateur actors, "Rome Open City" is a cinematic triumph because only performances from true actors could communicate the right emotions and would have the right impact on the world.Rosselini's casting choices proved him right, and "Rome, Open City" is a masterful melodrama, a historical document and a great tribute to anonymous heroes who wrote the most glorious lines of Italian history.

Ilpo Hirvonen After WWII filmmakers tried to find their ways to deal with history. A British director Humphrey Jennings made evocative documentaries about WWII and Americans made more romantic features about the war from their perspective. Here Italy comes in. The nation which had just got away from the chains of fascist management. Today this postwar Italian movement is known as neorealism, which is recognized from its reportage-like characterization, national personal gallery and dramatization of the resistance. But it cannot only be described by these external aesthetic features. The starting points in Italian neorealism were in the anti-fascist battle and the Italian liberalization.The people who formed neorealism, Vittorio De Sica, Luchino Visconti, Roberto Rosselini and many others, wanted to bring Italy back to the midst of other nations. They wanted to find their own way of dealing with the history. Narratively the way was the documentary, reportage-like characterization. The shady cinematography combined with the daring description of Italians. Even today Open City is praised as the symbol of the resistance and the picture of the character played by Anna Magnani was actually published in a stamp after 50 years in Italy. Her character became the symbol of the resistance.Film historians often tend to argue, who actually started neorealism. In 1943 Luchino Visconti directed Ossessione, which at least aesthetically looks like the work of a neorealist. Which probably is true, but neorealism is seen as a postwar genre and since the WWII ended in 1945, the statement that Ossessione would've began the movement is weak. But it most certainly did give it a start and the ingredients. Some also state that De Sica's Bicycle Thieves (1948) is the greatest film of neorealism. I think that Bicycle Thieves is a masterpiece, but when defining what neorealism actually is Rosselini's reportage-like characterization works better than De Sica's lyricism. Open City is the first film, which finely defined neorealism.Open City is perhaps the most personal film by Rosselini. It was written under the watchful eyes of the fascist management, where the risk of getting arrested was always near. This made Rosselini and the other screenwriter Sergio Amidei feel like they were a part of the resistance - what would be greater than to write your own page to history? When young Federico Fellini (today the most famous of the team) joined the crew, they started to film it with an incredibly low budget. Roberto Rosselini has said: "Open City achieved more than all the efforts of the Italian Foreign Ministry put together. It helped Italy to find its own place among other nations." Rome Open City is a picture of its own time, it's a landmark in the history of cinema. In both the WWII genre and in Italian neorealism, which influenced the Japanese postwar cinema (Kurosawa, Ichikawa) and the Nouvelle Vague - French New Wave (Godard, Truffaut, Rivette, Chabrol & Rohmer). It's a cry for democracy and freedom. It is a hopeful picture of Italy free from the chains of the fascists. It meant a totally new way of dealing with the history. Open City was a very ambitious film, but it succeed in all of its intentions. It is still a timeless masterpiece.

Boba_Fett1138 It is debatable whether or not this movie is worthy of its title of early masterpiece from Roberto Rossellini but fact remains that this movie is simply a great movie about a real tough and dark period.What foremost makes this so unique was that it got made so soon after the actual end of WW II and the end of reign of fascism. Therefore the overall feel and look of the movie seems very authentic. Basically all people involved in this movie in front and behind the cameras had to really go through the period as portrayed in this movie. There also weren't too many anti-Nazi movies around yet during that them, at least not movies that got made in Italy itself. This is one of the very first that shows the horrors the common Italian population had to go through and how a brave few tried to make a difference by fighting the fascist enemies.It's a movie that features the common WW II movie ingredients focusing on the underground resistance, such as courage, loyalty and betrayal. In that way this movie is a real typical WW II, of which still so many get made. So perhaps in todays light this movie has to offer than it did in 1945. Not that it makes the movie worse though. Still I feel that the movie story could had been a bit more interesting and focused a more clear main plot-line and 'point' so to speak. But that's just not really the Italian-way.The movie is made in a real typical Italian cinematic way, which means that it's slow at times and also heavily leans and depends on its leading characters. Not that that's a complaint though, since the movie really features some great characters who also get portrayed by some real capable actors.The movie hasn't aged too well though, in terms of its picture quality. The movie could really use a restoration and re-release. Who knows, some day we might get lucky.The movie shows that Roberto Rossellini was really a great director, who knew how to tell a story, with an eye for detail and realism.It's not the most effective or intriguing WW II movie I've ever seen but it comes close enough.8/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/