La ricotta (1963), revisited

Sixteen years ago now I reviewed Pier Paolo Pasolini's 30-minute short La ricotta (1963), which was released as part of the anthology/portmateau film RoGoPaG. I've changed a lot since then, not least becuase now I've seen all of Pasolini's films – some of them multiple times – and read a lot and spoken about his movies as well. So I thought it was time to revisit this one, as I sat down to watch it in its entirety for the first time in a while.

Multiple crucifixions
The first thing that struck me was the multiple crucifixions we find here, all stacked up against one another. Most obviously we have the gaudy technicolor reconstruction of the film within a film – a close reproduction of Rosso Fiorentino's Mannerist "Deposizione dalla croce" [aka "Deposition of Volterra"] (1521) – but this is not the only depiction of the crucifixion in the film with the film, because the scene in which Stracci features stars a Jesus who looks significantly different (there's no long red hair for one thing). In another sense though, Stracci's death is also a crucifixion of sorts. He dies on the cross, perhaps even, one could argue, for the sins of the world, and the final line of dialogue from Welles's director, recalls the centurion at the foot of the cross. Stracci's own final lines are significant too.

But there is another scene that functions as a crucifixion scene, that is not so widely talked about. as the crew set up one of the shoots for the crucifixion scene we witness Stracci and the actor playing Jesus. While they are lying, nailed to their crosses, on the ground, the camera looks "up" at them as if the shot is taken at from the foot of the cross. Like the rest of the cast and crew the Jesus-actor talks down to Stracci, and their dialogue could be easily construed as just that. However, on closer inspection there's more to it:

Stracci:
I'm hungry. I'm hungry.
Now I'm going to blaspheme.

"Jesus":
Just try it and see what i give you.

Straci:
A fine Christ you are. You think
I've got no right to grumble?

Jesus:
Suit yourself, but I won't take you
into the Kingdom of Heaven.

Stracci:
I could be okay in the
Kingdom of the Earth.

(The argument moves on to politics)

This dialogue works as an ironic take on the text from Luke's Gospel. Instead of the thief humbling himself to beg a receptive and willing Jesus for entry into the Kingdom of Heaven, we have an already humbled Stracci talking up his suitability for the kingdom. Meanwhile the Jesus actor is anything but the figure we find in Luke 23. Rather than be gracious and receptive he acts like a petty and mean-spirited gatekeeper.

Sweary Mary
Sixteen years I didn't know any Italian, but I started learning around 2013-4 and have been making slow progress since. Enough, at least, to spot the odd thing that you don't get from the subtitles. Here, for example, there's a scene where the actors are trying to capture the deposition from the cross, reproducing the exact poses of another Mannerist, Jacopo da Pontormo's "Deposizione" (1528). Pasolini has studied the history of art, and knew his Mannerism, so he would have know that "its adherents generally favored compositional tension and instability rather than the balance and clarity of earlier Renaissance painting".(1) So Pasolini makes a visual art-joke, demonstrating the "instability" of the composition by having the actors – who have been ordered to hold their poses still, rather than move and act – collapse after a while. This is rather unsurprising given the general messing around that has been occurring on set and taken to be typical of the attitudes that Pasolini seeks to highlight. Most of the actors laugh and see the funny side.

One person, however, is not impressed. The film's major star, "Sonia, la 'Diva'" played by Laura Betti, is playing Mary, Jesus' mother. While her co-stars laugh-off the whole incident, she is incandescent with rage. Her voice though is not added to cacophony of sounds emanating from the cast at this point, which almost seems to add to her frustration. However, it's clear that one of the words she shouts several times is "basta", the Italian for "Enough!" only here it's probably a bit stronger in Italian than that literal translation. I can't lip read the rest, but I'd love to hear from anyone who can. I do wonder if this was the moment that was the tipping point for those who decided to press for Pasolini's prosecution (that said, Geoffrey Nowell-Smith says, in this piece, "that the real target of the prosecution was not La ricotta at all but the much talked about Gospel". In other words that this prosecution was a shot across Pasolini's bows.

Accattone and Stracci
This time around I was struck by the similarities between the title character (I won't say "hero") of Pasolini's debut feature Accattone (1961) and Stracci, the lead character here. Both characters have meaningful names. Accattone means "Beggar" or more colloquially ‘deadbeat’ or ‘grifter’. Stracci means "rags". The meanings of both resonate through their roles. While both are the lead characters, neither of them is a hero – not in any conventional sense at least – or even, really, an anti-hero.

More importantly for Pasolini was that they were both representatives of the bottom layer of Italian society that he treasured so greatly. For Pasolini it was this strata of society that most opposed neo-capitalism and refused to play by its rules, and was also where the last remaining vestiges of the sacred could be found.

Pasolini was hugely critical of bourgeois society, and the more I look into his work the more I am convinced he would have hated me and the majority of those who so value his films today. And this is perhaps why I find both Accattone and Stracci so difficult to sympathise with, certainly to understand their actions. Stracci is the more sympathetic. Selling a dog to buy food when you're starving is more understandable than grooming and then pimping out a young girl, but the way Stracci eats to such excess proudly refuses to make him a conventional tragic-hero and imbues the whole film with the sort of comic approach that Pasolini was going for.

The actor playing Stracci, Mario Cipriani had appeared, uncredited in Accattone and Mamma Roma (1962) and would do so twice more, firstly in "La terra vista dalla luna" his contribution to another composite film Le streghe (The Witches, 1967), then in "Che cosa sono le nuvole?" in another joint film Caprice Italian Style (1968). Franco Citti, who played Accattone, would go on to become one of Pasolini's biggest collaborators, fronting a number of his movies throughout Pasolini's 14-year career.

The cruelty
Not unrelated to the above is the cast and crew's treatment of Stracci. This time around I was struck by how unrelentingly cruel it is and how it seems to be generated largely by class hatred. Stracci is never shown as being part of the group or having any form of social acceptance. Sonia's dog is welcome on site, and even catered for, but Stracci's family have to remain at a distance. Even when his costars appear, they smile wave and pass by like the opening characters from the Parable of the Good Samaritan. The scene where Stracci overeats to bursting point is particularly noticeable – everyone goads and bullies him into eating more and more, pitting the desperation of his hunger against his human dignity – but this behaviour occurs elsewhere. Once when Stracci is fixed to the cross, and mentions his hunger, a co-star offers him bites from his sandwich to taunt him before another man pours drink down his throat and he is mocked in every scene.

I suspect this behaviour is not so much a call to the middle classes to improve their behaviour to other classes as it is to say to the sub-altern/proletarians that "this is how they will treat you if unrestrained"

 

While it tends to be Il vangelo secondo Matteo, Teorema (Theorem, 1968) or Salò o le centoventi giornate di Sodoma (Salò or the 120 days of Sodom, 1975) that are Pasolini's most celebrated films, there's a very strong case for La ricotta being his best short film, and his greatest comedy. And while there were often strong objections to his work, and threats of prosecution, I believe it was the only time Pasolini was convicted for one of his films.

Given its release came at a similar time to the start of the Vatican II Council I can't help but wonder if the timing was deliberately provocative, even for such a mild film by today's standards. Pasolini considered himself an atheist, but one who nevertheless realised the important and varying role the church played in Italian society in general. So while Il vangelo remains the more insightful film about the Gospels, La ricotta speaks with more insight and passion about the role of the Roman Catholic church at just the same time that the institution itself was undergoing major self-examination; and about Italian society in general and its often hypocritical attitudes to religion.

=========
1- Finocchio, Ross (2003) "Mannerism: Bronzino (1503–1572) and his Contemporaries", Department of European Paintings The Metropolitan Museum of Art website. Available online -  https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/zino/hd_zino.htm

La Ricotta (Soft Cheese - 1962 from RoGoPaG)

This article contains spoilers

La Ricotta is the second of four short films that were released together under the title of RoGoPaG - an abbreviation of each of the four film's directors, Roberto Rossellini (Illibatezza - my review), Jean-Luc Goddard, Pier Paolo Pasolini and Ugo Gregoretti. It was deemed so offensive that Pasolini was actually prosecuted for it.

Unsurprisingly, then, La Ricotta starts with a disclaimer. It's unclear whether this was added before to court case – to try and avoid prosecution – or as a result of it. Either way, the fuss is hard to understand today, and its clear to most that the film is satirising a sanctimonious form of Christianity, rather than the faith itself – let alone its founder.

The story takes place on the set of a Jesus film. Despite the inspirational nature of the story that is being filmed, no-one seems to be particularly excited to be there. The director (played by Orson Welles) looks on dispassionately, even reading a book in-between takes. The crowd of actors make their own entertainment – dancing, joking and even getting one of the cast to perform a striptease to taunt those pinned to the cross.

 

Not all of the cast are able to behave so frivolously. Stracci, the extra who is playing the good thief, is desperately poor – so much so that when he is handed his lunch for the day he runs off to give it to his starving family. In some way the scene functions as the Last Supper as Stracci, the film's hero, enjoys the fellowship of those he loves for the last time before his death on a cross.

Indeed much of what happens during Stracci's final few hours parallels Christ's passion. Some of these elements are supplied by his role in the film (being taken away to be crucified), and some occur because of his real life situation (being mocked and deserted and then left to die). However, this is not a straightforward Christ figure – some of Stracci's actions (his lying and stealing in order to procure more food) would be seen by many as somewhat un-Christ like.

Given Pasolini's famous Marxism, and the film's subversive tone, I can't help wondering if he is looking to explore some ethical issues here. Is it acceptable for the poor and starving to steal, or impersonate others in order to feed themselves? It's a question posed later, and somewhat inadvertently, by Stracci himself. As he hangs on the cross waiting for his big moment he rehearses what seems to be his only line "Lord remember me when you come into your kingdom". If Stracci is meant to deliver the goof thief's other words from the cross he is notably not practising them.

 

Stracci's death is somewhat confusing. Have given away his first meal to his family he then dons a wig and a dress in order to get another lunch which he temporarily stashes away whilst he returns the items that make up his disguise. In the meantime, the leading actresses's dog escapes, discovers Stracci's hidden treasure and eats it for himself.

It's far from clear why he died. If Stracci has died because he has overeaten then Welles' final line "poor Stracci he had to die before we knew he really lived" seems overblown. Is it just an extension of the pious pompusness which he has so far exhibited – a grandstanding gesture even as one of his casts lies dead? Or does it indicate that Stracci has died of starvation and that the scenes in which he buys the cheese and stuffs his face with it is actually Stracci's daydreams as is tied to the cross? There are certainly plenty of unreal elements in these sequences – the fast forwarded action, the sudden appearance of the entire crew in he cave, the abundance of food he is suddenly surrounded by – to suggest this as a viable reading.

 

The film's major theme is the contrast between the story of Jesus and those who represent him. The cast's treatment of this poor man is shown as the ultimate indicator of their impiety. Does he suggest that the real representatives and re-enactors of Christ's story (i.e. the church) also fail in this respect? It certainly seems more likely that he is primarily castigating kitsch, yet technically irreverent, religion rather than the makers of religious films. The tacky colours of the crucifixion scenes – the only colour scenes in the four films that comprise RoGoPaG - are far more akin to those from pious Christianity than anything Hollywood has produced.

Thankfully, Pasolini also seems to be aware that he is no better. Whenever a film features a film director it is likely to be self-referential. But in case anyone misses the link the part is played by one of the most well known film directors of all time, and Pasolini further strengthens the association by having him read Pasolini's own book "Mamma Roma".

 

It would not be long until Pasolini returned to these themes. Having pointed out the weaknesses in the human (and celluloid) conveyors of Jesus's message Pasolini filmed his version of The Gospel According to St. Matthew two years later. The portrayal Jesus as a crusader for social justice picks up from where La Ricotta leaves off.

Viaggio in Italia, Illibatezza and Roma Città Aperta

In preparation for seeing Atti Degli Apostoli later this month, I've been (re-)examining some of Rossellini's other films. I've now watched four in the last week, including and having recorded my thought on Il Messia in last month's podcast I'd now like to make a few comments about the other three.

Viaggio in Italia - 1953
The first film of the trio was 1953's Viaggio in Italia starring Ingrid Bergman and George Sanders as an unhappy married couple. The film opens with shots out of their car window. This gives the film a sense of immediacy such that it feels like the film had been playing for some time before we tuned in. Of course in the story of this couple's life, this is exactly what has happened. As the film settles down, it becomes clear that the marriage is starting to unravel, neither seemingly able to take the steps to bring about the necessary reconciliation.

Finally, after a short time apart (the whole film occurs in less than a week), they agree to get a divorce but are interrupted before the conversation reaches its natural conclusion. In the final scene whilst attempting to escape from the surroundings that have seemingly oppressed them so much during their stay, they are forced to abandon the car in the midst of a crowd. But once in the midst of the throng of people, Bergman is swept away and looks back in desperation towards her husband. He forces his way through to "save" her and the two are reunited and declare their love for each other.

To an audience bred on Hollywood romance, the film's ending feels incredibly abrupt and unrealistic. This has been variously interpreted by some as a deliberately false ending, or as a miracle – particularly as a man is shown directly afterwards carrying a pair of crutches. For my part, I can help but feel that this is part of the film's realism. Couples often argue over the silly little things, and the decision to get a divorce (particularly in 1953) seems facile.

In the same way the moment of reconciliation tuns on similarly insignificant event. Bergman faced no real danger, but it was enough to remind her of her need for her husband, and him of his love for her. Furthermore the moment has enabled them to express things to each other they both needed to share.

Illibatezza (Chastity) - 1962
Next up was Rossellini's section from the four way collaboration RoGoPaG (the other directors being Goddard, Pasolini and Gregoretti. Rossellini's film Illibatezza (Chastity) is the first of the four and last for about half an hour.

The story revolves around an American business man, Joe, and his obsession with a beautiful yet naïve air stewardess, Anna Maria. We first meet Joe as he looks at a copy of Playboy: that is until he sees Anna Maria when he puts down his magazine to watch her more closely. Clever use of point of view shots and editing mean that the audience quickly find themselves in Joe's place, viewing Anna Maria as an object of desire. He has clearly idealised her innocence which has, in turn, birthed an obsession within him.

Worried about the unwanted attention she is receiving, Anna Maria seeks the advice of her boyfriend. Significantly, we are first introduced to him via a film. Indeed the use of cine cameras throughout the film (Joe, Anna Maria and her boyfriend all use one) indicates that amongst the issues Illibatezza is raising is the medium of cinema itself. No less important is his absence from her life. Throughout the film's duration the two are never together.

Anna Maria's boyfriend discusses the problem with a psychologist friend of his, whose diagnosis is shocking: Joe is a psychopath with a fixation on Anna Maria's purity. In order to shake him off, she is advised to give the appearance of looseness. She dresses more provocatively and dyes her hair blonde.

Fans of of Hitcock's earlier, although colour, film Vertigo will notice numerous similarities. The voyeurism and obsession displayed in this film are reminiscent of that film as is the way in which a woman is co-ursed into turning blonde by an emotionally detached boyfriend. The scenario is far less extreme, and the genre is comedy rather than thriller, but thematically the two are very similar.

As predicted, Joe acts with horror and is left only with his memories. Having initially rejected the sexually "available" blonde of his Playboy magazine, in favour of a "virginal" brunette, he finds that she has become the image of the girl in the magazine. In the film's most comical scene Joe projects the film he took of Anna Maria onto the wall of his hotel room and seeks, in vain, to grasp her image. He has once again chosen the pure brunette over the sexually "active" blonde only this time he has chosen an image of a woman over the real thing. Joe's fruitless grapsing is both comic and tragic. He is left only with his obsession, unable to lay hold of a relationship with a real person.

Interestingly, Joe's revulsion at Anna Maria's new look is matched by that of her boyfriend. Even though she is clearly uncomfortable with her new image, Joe turns away in disgust upon seeing it. Like Scotty in Vertigo he has re-fashioned the appearance of his girlfriend only to be appalled by what he sees. In trying to protect her he has caused a rift in their relationship.

Roma Città Aperta (Rome, Open City) - 1945
This was Rossellini's breakthrough film and it was my second viewing. Whilst remembering only few images from the film prior to rewatching it (Pina's death and Don Pietro's interrogation in particular), I was astounded at how familiar the images were once I saw them again.

One thing I don't remember appreciating the first time around is the film's humour, particularly in the earlier scenes. This is not uncommon for Rossellini. Both of the previous two films involve some form of humour, and Il Messia occasionally injects irony into the proceedings.

I was also surprised at how graphic the torture scene was at the end. Sadly the person I watched it with found it all a bit much, and this detracted from me enjoying the film's climax as much as I did the first time I watched it.

As the film that popularised neo-realism it's hard to appreciate it's innovations over 60 years later. That said, knowing that this film was shot in the places where the original events occurred gave the film a real edge this time around. Similarly, the acting of Don Pietro in particular is strengthened by the expressiveness of his normal face.

I also noticed how the film blurs the line between the heroes and the villains by inserting two characters into the film who lie somewhere between the Nazi's and the Italian resistance. In the first half of the film (up to Pina's death – the sudden, unexpected nature of which causing a significant shift in the film's tone) there is an Italian policeman who is both friendly with those on his beat and who helps them during the Nazi raid on the neighbourhood. The second, darker, part of the film features a singer who has betrayed Don Petrino and his companions in order to get a fix.

What is interesting is that we sympathise with the policeman, even thought he works overtly for the enemy, whereas the singer's betrayal elicits the opposite response. However there is a twist right at the end when the cocktail of drugs and drink she bought with her information leave her unconscious on the floor. Her female confidant (and, it is implied, her lover) bends over only to reclaim the coat which she had supposedly given her. The singer remains on the floor only now our perception of her has become more sympathetic.

RoGoPaG Coming to DVD

I've been meaning to catch RoGoPaG ever since my friend Peter Chattaway reviewed it a while ago. It's actually a collection of four short films and it takes its name from Robert Rossellini, Jean-Luc Godard, Pier Paolo Pasolini and Ugo Gregoretti who each directed one of the films.

The film that is of most relevance to this site is Pasolini's La Ricotta in which a movie director makes a film about Jesus's death. The film was deemed so irreverent that Pasolini was initially sentenced to some time in jail. Shortly afterwards he released the far more reverent Il Vangelo Secondo Matteo (1964).

La Ricotta, with out the other three sections I believe, has been available on DVD since 2004 when it was released as an extra on the Criterion Collection version of Pasolini's Mamma Roma. (The director character - played by Orson Welles - reads passages of Pasolini's book "Mamma Roma" during La Ricotta).

However, the entire anthology is to be included in a boxed set of Pasolini's films which is to be released on 26th February 2007. The set will also include Accattone and Comizi d'amore (Love Meetings). Sadly, Il Vangelo Secondo Matteo is not included in the set. I long for the day that film gets the full treatment and not only gets released with the option to remove the subtitles, but also with La Ricotta and Seeking Locations in Palestine for The Gospel According to St. Matthew (which Peter Chattaway also makes some comments on). This set is actually only volume 1. A second box set will be released on the 23rd April featuring Hawks and Sparrows (1966), Oedipus Rex (1967), and Pigsty (1969).