MartinHafer "A Special Day" is not a film for everyone. While it is very well made and the acting is terrific, it's style and subject matter make it a movie that the average person would probably not enjoy.This film is set in Rome during the first meeting between Mussolini and Hitler. The city is abuzz and fascists are excited to see the treaty between the two formidable nations. However, while this is a bit, global event, the film is very small--confined to a couple apartments nearby and involving two strangers who quickly become friends. While Antoinetta (Sophia Loren) stays home and keeps house while her husband and children attend a fascist rally, she is left alone--with little to actually do. When her pet bird escapes and flies towards another apartment, she gives chase and meets Gabriele (Marcello Mastroianni). The two hit it off--and the rest of the film consists of the two talking....and talking. Some of it is very interesting (such as when Antoinetta falls in love with Gabriele--only to learn he is gay) and much of it seems like small talk among friends. As for me, I liked it for the acting, but even with my high tolerance for this sort of film, it did get old after a while. Additionally, the film's lousy print (it appears to have either been copied from a degraded videotape or directly from TV) makes it a rather unrewarding viewing experience. Not bad--just not all enjoyable.

vanwilgen Why isn't there a decent copy of this movie available? This brilliant cinematic event (has anyone ever figured out that opening shot?) gets bad reviews on Amazon because they only seem to sell bootleg copies of VHS-tapes, it's a shame. The only possible explanation I can think of is that the distributors expect this movie not to sell. If you are a beer-drinking, big game hunting, football-obsessed, wife-beating American executive would you be able to sell me a movie about a loser? No. For the same same reason you drive (ride) an F150 and you will never be able to get near a Peugeot or a Fiat. This particular movie is a great example of how movies are cultural markers exposing elements of a culture that is in a way a modern version a the Roman empire. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a hater, I still think there are more positives than negatives in the US, I'm still here, aren't I, but when it comes to the American macho culture I have to pass. What we see in this movie is the acceptance of a homosexual man. Note, there is no such thing as gay-life style or demands for gay- marriage. Because many people are still incapable of accepting men like Gabriele gay life in this country has been socially segregated, don't ask don't tell in the workplace, in your own area you can do whatever you want. You have to be that F150 guy otherwise you will not make it here. If I had a billion dollars I would have that movie broadcast as a superbowl commercial.

RResende This is remarkably well done, a lesson in many aspects of film staging and economy of resources. Scola is someone i always come to face as a dear friend, for the great moments he gave me as i discover every time the world he creates with his films. Here is one of his most genuine compositions, quite complex in the way the things are placed to strike us as the simple thing in fact it is.The basic idea is contention. Few characters, one single scenario (a courtyard housing building, probably built by fascists, or at least it has that monumental look). The first sequence is essential: we get lots of real footage and narrations of an historical day, when Hitler visited Mussolini in Rome. We see military parades, ceremonies, the whole description, this must last 5 or 6 minutes, fully with documentary material. So we get a background, useful on the social side (more than the politic) for what follows.Than we get our two characters, alone and ready to meet. They are, for sure, typical characters, the housewife, brainwashed by fascism in its male chauvinistic thinking, even though she suffers daily with that. Mastroianni is the free thinker, homosexual and politically against fascism. The drama works out perfectly, everything is really intense, there are lots of things being told (and specially being felt) by us as we move along to the ending, which has to be one of the saddest in film history, not only for the inevitable conclusion that after the dreamy day, all rests the same, but for the way that is shown visually. So i tried to check the mechanisms: . we always get the radio on the background. It is the voice of the authority, the voice of the regime (notice that Mastroianni's character is a radio voice who gets silenced for his sexual and political commitments). This always shows as a shadow to remind us of the initial footage, the dark world there was than; . we have the caretaker, the crystallized result of ignorance associated to a manipulating regime (well, as in fact every regime is, totalitarian or "democratic"). She is always reminding our couple where they live in, the "truth" of the world, she's the voice of manipulated ignorance; these two points build and represent the oppression and cruel/inhuman world/context.Than we have our heroes, and the interaction between them. This is not explainable through words: one has to check it. But the magic here (yes, there was true cinema magic here) probably had to do with two things: . the performances, by Loren and Mastroianni, which were, to my view, ideal in what concerns cinema acting: they were as intense as i have seen only a few times, and they were contained. Very few times i've watched something like this. We get faces slightly changing, shy movements; the choreography inside the apartments as they interact is really perfect.. the camera: from this film i understood Ettore Scola is one of the best (and dearest to my taste) heirs of that sweet swinging camera that Hitchcock (may have) invented and that Godard, Polanski, dePalma and yes, Scola, came to caress. Check every movement. Check how the courtyard is explored, how the voyeur look into each characters apartment is made and above all, check how the camera moves inside the apartments. The movements have to do with the breathing and feelings of the characters, in a way close maybe to what Lumet did in 12 angry man (but this is even more meaningful, to my view). This approach lives on bringing the acting to the camera. There is no separated mechanics. What the actor does, and what the camera does are linked in such a way that one cannot tell who is more actor: the actors or the camera. Godard tried something like this in the apartment scene of Le Mépris, but here it is so much emotional and effective.... also worth mentioning the structural basis. Someone commenting on IMDb referred the relation with Greek tragedies (having the radio play the chorus part). I enjoyed that observation. I agree with it but to that contention that Greek tragedies have, i believe there is something more visceral and clearly Italian that shows here, which is the operatic influence, in the way the story unfolds, with everything happening quickly, concentrating actions that in fact take longer in a very short time measure. Italians know somethings about making emotions surface. Isn't this a much better homage to the best Italy has to offer than the crystallized vision of roman resurrection Mussolini invented and tried to spread? you make your choice, mine is made.My evaluation: 5/5 if you want to experience everything cinema was able to offer so far, you'll have to check this.http://www.7eyes.wordpress.com

alord-6 This film makes a strong comment about the Italian people of the time. The use of the mirrors to enhance the revelations of the characters is lovely and I can't not mention the beauty and magnificence of Sophia Loren and Mastroianni. I love them both. Their way of interacting is so beautiful and natural that you may question whether or not the camera is actually there. The husband, in his brief role, is also excellently portrayed as the fascist Italian who commands his wife and children but, in his own way, a loving father. The beginning scenes with Hitler at Piazza Venezia with all the Italians is incredible and really places the film historically. I loved the film and I also agree that it is funny it isn't more renowned.