vslucarelli
This film is not without its flaws. The middle is quite slow, linearity is minimal and some sequences are hard to follow. However, the ultimate courtroom sequence with Gaspare Pisciotta arguing his innocence packs quite a punch and gives this film's ending some substance that the middle fairly lacked. This saves a film that, in the end, blends multiple styles quite well and stands as an achievement in Italian Cinema that has few parallels in America. Use of the crash zoom and documentary style camera-work adds to the effect that Rosi was trying to create of melding fact with fiction in a unique way which is only heightened by the absence of the title outlaw in all but words and a corpse in the films opening minutes. Salvatore Giuliano is not for all viewers, but it clearly has many merits that its contemporaries lack.
museumofdave
The first time you experience this film is rather like going to an opera without knowing the plot: there are some grand scenes of murder and passion, some incredible scenery, but it's long and you're in a suspended state of confusion much of the time--and it's a two-hour film, almost a documentary.The second time you watch this film (and you should!) it can be enjoyed on so many levels, and you begin to appreciate Rosi's genius for mixing various kinds of truth, for exposing the sorts of lies governmental bodies can develop to protect their flanks, for demythologizing the idea of the folk outlaw whose ideals are supposedly those of the people. At heart this is a film about Sicily, about an island's struggle to find it's heart and it's heritage--not easy to watch, but magnificently photographed at every turn.
Gloede_The_Saint
Through the first hour of this film there are no focused characters, at most a character is seen in two or three short scenes. It's basically just following history and showing examples of it. Luckily it's not rushed, it's decently paced and it is realistic.The best way to describe this is to call it a docu-drama. A narrator tells you something and then some people either do what's described or continues where the narrator leaves off. Though this approach can work, I did find it distancing in this film and it did make me less interested. The above competent direction and photography did elevate it however and for a long time I felt that it was great.The films main problem is that we never really get to know anything, least of all about the title character who is despite the entire film being about his history only seen dead, or walking/running around. He only has a few lines.Then towards the middle we experience two horrendous acts of overacting which damages the film severely. Both involving screaming/crying, the worst offender was the woman playing Giulianos mother. She screams and cries so awfully and in such a high tone that you wonder if you are watching a cheap parody. This scene is agonizingly long.We do however learn a lot about the conflict going on and after a bit more than an hour, perhaps closer to 90 mins we get one character to follow. Overall I just don't think the film put us inside the conflict and despite giving us historical facts and let us understand the events we never got to the core. This made it cold and somewhat uninteresting for time to time. Not a film I would recommend but definitely a more or less good film.6.5/10
federovsky
Filmed in the actual Siciilian locations, this film is a fair attempt to strip away the myth surrounding bandit-cum-revolutionary Giuliano. In fact, he doesn't appear except as a gunned-down corpse at the beginning. The film winds back to unravel the events leading to his death, and forwards to its consequence. This is a clever method of achieving objectivity while at the same time subtly emphasising the man's elusive and mysterious qualities. To show Giuliano would have either been either hagiography or iconoclasm. The film rose above that and broadened its inquiry into the wider social and political context, effectively belittling him as the puppet of various forces jostling for position in Sicily after the war: bandits, police, local aristocracy, the Italian government, communists, and the Mafia.This sets quite a challenge for itself, partly because of the vacuum at its centre, partly because of the obscurity and complexity of the real events. We are delivered to a chaotic courtroom to try to piece it together. The film finally latches onto Giuliano's lieutenant the only one who seems to know something of what is going on - but even he is silenced. It's all the more disturbing for the confusion. Rosi is one of the best directors of crowds scenes and he gives raucous energy to any gathering of men, especially in the courtroom. He induces a kind of group hysteria in his actors; they are totally unaware of the camera and the result is an almost disturbing hyper-real feel (real crowds are dull in comparison) it's really something to appreciate. To get into this film, you need to invest something in the passions of the various parties involved - if not sympathise with them, then at least understand them. Without this, the danger is that it all boils down to so much petty bickering. The same might be said of the Godfather, which clearly owes a huge debt to Rosi's style.Influential then, somewhat brave, with some fine directorial moments, and an interesting history lesson. Hard to actually like, but hard not to admire.
AD
