Movies and the Pursuit of Communism

Two movies on the subject of communism were consumed this weekend. (You’d think I was from Russia or something.)

The first one was Underground by Emir Kusturica. The name sounded familiar, but I couldn’t place it until I realized he also directed Arizona Dream(the one with Johnny Depp and Lili Taylor). Without giving away too much, I can say that the movie is set in former Yugoslavia. It starts straightforwardly enough, though not without some vaudeville-like flourishes: Yugoslavia under German occupation, two likable friends (communists or thieves or both), a girl they are both after who seems to prefer a German… All of this accompanied by the scenes of drunken revelry and Balkan music. Then the movie jumps ahead. The war is either over or not. Some of the main characters are either dead or alive or played by actors in a movie that’s being filmed as a part of the plot. It’s a glorious mess that ultimately begins to make sense. Suddenly what we have is a perfect allegory of what communism (or socialism rather) was: a bunch of people living in the dark, blindly believing in the ideals that didn’t apply anymore -- a farce created by a group of corrupt puppeteers. The movie might be a bit too long, but its third part, in which Yugoslavia doesn’t exist anymore and what’s left of it is, once again, in a state of war, feels especially poignant.

Which is more than I can say for the second movie, 1900 (aka Novecento). On the one hand, it’s Bertolucci. On the other hand, it’s 5+ hours long. And yes, in the uncut version you get to see naked Depardiu and De Niro, in the same scene and with their genitals visible. But is it worth it? This story takes place in Italy and starts long before the WWII. De Niro plays a landowner's son (at least his grown-up version, and trust me it takes a while to get to that point); Depardiue plays a peasant’s son. From their early days, the two share an uncertain friendship, made even more so by the good old class antagonism. De Niro’s character is interesting. He means well, but he’s indecisive and corrupted by his family wealth. He wants to please too many people at once. Depardiue’s character is supposed to be likable, but he’s way too smug for my taste. The third significant figure is played for Donald Southerland—and I’m sorry to say that even Southerland’s charm (see Kelly’s Heroes or The Eagle Has Landed) can’t help this evil character.

Still, despite the lengthiness, I basically enjoyed the movie. Until we got to the ending. I’m not sure what Bertolucci was up to here, but the scene of incoherent peasants testifying in a makeshift court does little to endear one to the idea of socialism in action. And maybe that’s how it should be.