User reviews

At the Cahiers Du Cinéma, Francois Truffaut, a great representative of the New Wave in France, proclaimed Roberto Rossellini's production "the first modern film." What he meant by "modern" at that time is, perhaps, of little relevance nowadays: the film is black and white; the film's producers and cast represent the classic symbols of the past period. Moreover, it seems that we can afford more spectacular journeys to Italy than the one introduced here. The miraculous Sorrento Coast has been photographed and filmed in many far more impressive technologies. Nevertheless, Truffaut's viewpoint occurs to be relevant to many modern fans of this old yet 'modern' film.

To understand that, we have to underline something significant in that respect: although VIAGGIO IN ITALIA does not belong to the Neorealist films of the time, it appears to inspire and manifest the seemingly best period for Italian cinema that Neorealist movement was. The film art meant to address simple people with what they really experience in life. Therefore, the theme that is being developed in VIAGGIO IN ITALIA is so down to earth. We can still feel similar empathy with the characters that the 1954 viewers felt. Empathy with whom?

Two people appear to be in the lead, a married couple played by great cinema stars of the time: Ingrid Bergman (Rossellini's wife) and George Sanders. Although Ingrid Bergman was cast by Roberto Rossellini in more of his "Italian series" (e.g. STROMBOLI LA TERRA DI DIO), she is exceptional here. We get to see the couple in media res on their road (mind you the deliberate image of the road at the beginning) and gradually get to know them authentically through what they say and through what they do. Catherine (Ms Bergman) and Alex (Mr Sanders) experience the crisis of their marriage...although they are a couple, two people who should naturally love each other, they are as if strangers and feel like ones; although they are meant to be similar, they differ considerably. And there is one little step towards making this film an anti-marriage conclusion. Yet, Rossellini chooses something more demanding by listening to Italy's stones of history which seem to speak to us now. A woman and a man...having the same destination, will their ways face bitter separation?

Ingrid Bergman convincingly portrays a woman of sophisticated tastes, of intellect and feelings. Her character is the one to be liked and empathized with, particularly at the scene when she talks of her former love, a poet Charles. He is dead...yet, he seems to be alive in her, she follows his traces, she experiences the haunting whispers of the past. It is memorably executed in the overwhelming scene when she visits the museum of Naples. What a shot! We see Ingrid, a great beauty, walking among the grandiose sculptures, among the men of 2,000 years ago, people of the past who appear to be so much like the people of today. I think that this conclusion of hers which she shares with Alex is, as if, the quintessential message of the film. Although times change, people's desires and certain values are universal and timeless. We can say that Catherine is constantly haunted by her own past and by the past strictly linked to the places she visits...the echo of voices, the coldness of the catacombs, the might and power of the volcanoes, the chaos of the streets of Naples and the excavations at Pompeii. She dreams of a good life, an independent life, easy going life (the maxim 'how sweet it is to do nothing' makes some sense, at least an amusing sense for her); yet, the moments she sees mothers with babies in the streets fill her with unique nostalgia.

Alex is different....he does not find Italy very charming because of his practical, cold, unemotional view on life. He is a hypocrite-like master who has never seen 'noise and boredom go so well together.' He is bored and boring himself. He leaves because he has nothing to do...he has nothing to say and the stories about a dreamer, a poet make him both jealous and sarcastic. Yet, the experience with a chick he dates in idyllic Capri opens his eyes a bit and he changes within. He is strict and hilarious, particularly at the moment he searches for a glass of mineral water.... Work and duty that mean so much for him not necessarily mean much to Catherine...yet, does it mean that they have to be apart? His dominant role of a man is excellently directed towards the background and his egocentric desires are well crafted and manipulated both in the performance and the direction. Rossellini highlights Catherine more as the woman who goes through inner trouble but enlightens a lot within her inner self and in others. I wish the ending were more developed and not so condensed in the climactic idea of the movie...But the camera-work in the finale really escapes from the Hollywood cliché and it does deliberately and successfully so.

What does VIAGGIO IN ITALIA offer us? Good sense of humor with a bit of sentimentality, lovely views of Italian miracles, great performances of two celebrities among simple people, and the combination of the past and the present. It would be a lovely discovery to say that this film may be liked both by Americans and Europeans....because it is no chronology, no storyline, just a terrific combination of the past that haunts us and educates us, the present that follows us and influences us and the future that is the mother of the two and the mother of none alike. An old film with an ever 'modern' content.

The first shot of the film is the very first impression that highlights their way(s) which appear(s) to lead us to a certain moment...the final shot of the film is the last conclusion that focuses on people walking the paths of history with their own desires, with their own decisions.

Few films have inspired as much critical folderol as "Journey to Italy". Godard considered it a masterpiece, which is always a cause for worry; he had a sharp eye for directing technique, but not so much for storytelling. "Journey to Italy" reflects this defect, and cannot be called a masterpiece without caveat.

The title is certainly accurate. We follow Alex (George Sanders) and Katherine Joyce (Ingrid Bergman) on a journey through Italy, on their way to sell a mansion Alex' uncle left him, and enjoy some time together.

Their marriage is unhappy. We gather as much from the opening scene, when Alex requests that he drives instead of Katherine. Why so? To keep him awake, he says. Clearly, that's not the whole truth. He may think lowly of her driving skills. Or maybe he can't abide her being in control. Or is he really just bored? It's hard to tell with a sarcast like Sanders.

Katherine feels uncomfortable too, but doesn't call her husband out directly. 'It didn't occur to me that it'd be so boring for you to be alone with me,' she says instead. 'What's that got to do with it? I'm just bored because I've got nothing to do,' Alex replies. Neither is saying what they wanted to say.

That is "Journey to Italy" in a nutshell. Alex and Katherine's marriage could be saved if ever the two were honest with each other, but their emotional defences block every attempt. The tragedy is not that the two don't see what is happening. The tragedy is that they do, and fail to change their ways. Once living with a person for a certain period to time, one cannot suddenly play straight. Alex and Katherine are stuck in vicious circle they have created for themselves.

Rosselini is partially successful in portraying this tragedy. The parts that play out like the above scene have been rightly praised for their bold, elusive storytelling. The best scenes are those in which nothing of apparent notice happens: Katherine takes three tourist tours (set to foreboding music); Alex goes to a party and fails to enjoy himself. What goes on in their heads is left to guess. Antonioni was undoubtedly inspired by "Journey to Italy" when he employed the same technique in his Trilogy ("L'avventura", "La notte", "L'eclisse") -- to greater effect.

Comparison between the directors shows where Rosselini falls short. Note how Antonioni always stays on the surface. He complements the superficial quibbles of his characters with crystal-clear images, and leaves digging to his viewers. Rossellini, meanwhile, wavers. One scene, his characters speak in those natural and shrouded sentences. The next, they indulge in syrupy Hollywood platitudes, or worse: voice-over narration, to directly tell the audience how they feel. The script feels schizophrenic, possibly reflecting its two screenwriters. It is bold and elusive as often as safe and uninvolving.

As such, "Journey to Italy" can only be recommended with reservations. That certain critics fail to provide these is a serious fault. Imagine the Michelin Guide awarding a restaurant three stars despite part of their dishes being undercooked. To appreciate "Journey to Italy", one must seek out the well-done bits.

This is the film that Truffaut writing for Cahiers proclaimed 'the first modern film', going on to praise Rossellini as the father of New Wave. If we don't want to be stridently literal about these things, I agree with him. A bunch of filmmakers who changed the face of cinema in the 60's are all connected to Rossellini and flow out from this film.

At the heart of it we have the familiar trope of a marriage falling apart, melodrama stuff. But modern, meaning understated and without the soaring emotion. We fill the gaps, providing our own understanding of how a relationship works. We participate as players.

So it's about this affair whose nothingness is revealed by the surrounding world, it withers away; the lavish villa with endless views of far horizon, the large, empty veranda where the two of them languish in comfortable lounge chairs. A little outside, it's the countryside of Naples that engulfs them with languid time and hot, lazy weather, a tabula rasa dotted with old ruins.

We're taken on a pilgrimage of these ruins, as the woman looking for a portent that will divine her predicament. The museum filled with statues, the old Roman fort, Vesuvius and Pompeii; Rossellini presents them as mute, ascetic images, images all pertaining to some austere representation into which the woman projects her own world coming to pass. None of them, of course, hold any answers, except as what they are - reminders of the perishable, impermanent world in which we try so hard to grow roots.

Meanwhile, back in Capri, the cynical husband is squandered in his own aimless voyage for something that will fill the time. He courts a woman, much like he did his wife perhaps all those years ago. He feigns and thrusts for desire. Finally he returns home with the same void gnawing inside. Passable stuff, as in La Notte some years later, but the important stuff is with the woman's journey; the Stromboli part of the film as it were.

It is all about the painful process by which ruins are made, time into memory. We are privy to one such enactment in ancient Pompeii (then still being excavated): into the hole once occupied by a dead body, that holds nothing now and is hollow except with shape, the archaeologists pour plaster in order to surmise the shape of that past. Yet what they retrieve is merely the replica of empty space.

Oh, there's the stupidly saccharine finale, no doubt imposed once again on Rossellini by his Italian distributors at Titanus. It's something to be on the lookout for, for how marvelously Rosssellini confounds his censors.

As the couple magically decide they finally love each other, the mob of peasants that surrounds them - participating in some local religious ceremony - cries out in jubilee about 'il miracolo!'. The two lovers are swept aside by people rushing to see, reunited in this nonsensical miracle. The final shot is of police offers looking stern as they inspect the scene, like the censors would the film. Whether or not we choose to accept the one miracle, boils down to whether or not we would the other.

I want to summarize Rossellini here; he's largely forgotten now - probably because when the cinema he envisioned finally took hold, he had already abandoned it. But he's one of the most important filmmakers we have known. You find out that so much of what eventually blossomed with film, grew first roots with him. His transcendent vision was exceptional.

The only misgiving - slight, very slight - is that everything is relatively precise with meaning. Empty space abounds here, the pure ascetic images, yet is mostly filled for us. We're left with simply unearthing the cast, reading the signs. Perhaps I'm saying this because he envisioned so far ahead that I'm comparing him in my mind with later filmmakers who abstracted deeper. No matter, Rossellini ushered cinema far enough.

Now it would be Antonioni's turn to shoulder it; he would supply the breathing, incomplete space into which the imagination can pour into. There is no cast that explains away with him, only the means of immersion into a space empty, waiting-to-be-filled with us (not by us). The ensuing voyage that finally brings us to The Passenger is one of the most fascinating that I know of, but that is covered elsewhere.

Viaggio in Italia (1954) was shown in the United States with the translated title Voyage to Italy. The movie was co-written and directed by Roberto Rossellini.

The film stars Ingrid Bergman as Katherine Joyce and George Sanders as Alex Joyce, her husband. They are both very British. (Sanders was British. Bergman couldn't handle the English accent.) They no longer love each other. They decide to go to Naples to try to salvage what's left of their marriage.

A marriage that's falling apart is a classic narrative. A trip to try to repair the damage is also classic. What's not classic is why anyone could believe that this marriage could be saved. Sanders tells Bergman that when he's alone with her he's bored. (Right.) He leaves Naples for a few days, and when he returns he picks up a prostitute rather than return to Bergman. He drives the prostitute to a park, and then takes home without touching her. (Right.) OK--it's 1954, but even so that's a weird scene.

The ending of the film is so bizarre that it defies description, so I won't describe it. Voyage to Italy is considered a Very Important Movie, and has a solid IMDB rating of 7.4. Maybe fellow raters saw something in the movie that I didn't see, or maybe they saw a different movie. I rated it 6, and that was a gift to honor Bergman's acting skills.

This movie is being an example of some simplistic but beautiful and effective film-making. It doesn't follow a big story in which a big conflict suddenly arises or something needs to get solved or found but it's simply a movie about a, somewhat elderly British(?) couple, on holiday in Italy, who suddenly start to realize that they have never really loved each other.

It's a movie that works because of how well done and beautifully it all got done. It obviously helps that the movie is being set in Italy and features some of the famous landmarks, in and around Napels. The movie focus a lot on the culture and history, since the movie is seen through the eyes of our two main characters, that are tourists and new to the country. There is always something happening in the movie, even though it really doesn't follow a that complicated or thick storyline. It's a movie that prefers realism and is basically a random slice of life and about marriage, that of course is not always anything romantic or love filled. Suddenly they start to learn more about each other and about themselves, which makes them realize that they are perhaps not meant to be together. Doesn't sound that interesting perhaps but the way the story gets told simply makes this a great one to watch, that also never bores. Granted that it's also a quite short movie.

The movie also works well because the characters in it are being realistic and they interacting convincingly with each other. Both George Sanders and Ingrid Bergman gave some fine performances in this movie and were a convincing screen couple, who's marriage has worn out.

It's also a movie that benefits from the fact that it got done in black & white. For some reason I think this movie would had been way more cheesy had it been shot in full color. Instead now the movie has some real class and beauty to it as well.

Despite that it's a movie set in Italy and also an Italian produced movie, with an Italian title, it's still an mostly English spoken film. At least the two main characters speak Italian throughout. So those who normally won't come near a 'foreign' film can also easily watch this one, if you pick up the right, original, version of it of course.

Simply one fine little, well done, effective movie, by Italian director Roberto Rossellini.

8/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

Katherine (Ingrid Bergman) and Alex Joyce (George Sanders) are on vacation in Italy. It's been eight years of marriage and they feel like strangers to each other.

This is scenes from a marriage and a road trip to personal discovery. It's meandering but that's perfectly fine. It's meant to be. Director Roberto Rossellini inadvertently starts a new movement in looser story telling in films. It's jazz when music has been all classical. The only ill-fitting aspect is the glamor of Ingrid Bergman. It's not a big thing or even a bad thing. She cannot be less than the movie superstar beauty that she is. It takes me out of the movie sometimes although there is an autobiographical suggestion within these characters. It takes away from their everyday struggles within their relationship. I do wonder if an average looking couple would make this an even more compelling examination into a marriage. I also wonder if the couple should stay together throughout the movie so that they can fill out their relationship more. I want them to talk this out together from start to finish.

A couple traveling to Naples (Ingrid Bergman and George Saunders) find the thin veneer of happiness in their marriage torn away rather suddenly. It seems they were content enough back in England going through their routine in life, but now forced to be alone together for the first time, find that they really can't stand one another. They bicker and spend time touring the beautiful sites in the area separately, each noticing members of the opposite sex.

There was something very special about people going through such emotional distress while walking though ancient ruins, Bergman's character especially. The marble statues in the Naples Archeological Museum, skulls in the Fontanelle cemetery, and smoking calderas of Vesuvius seem to echo the crumbling marriage of her marriage, and whisper that all is transient, including love. At the same time, they seem to silently mock the living, whose troubles seem so small against the grandeur of eternal things.

The scene where they see the plaster molds of a man and a woman being freshly created at Pompeii and then, emotionally upset, wander back to the car, arguing bitterly while faded frescos look on impassively, is fantastic. "Life is so short," she says, and he replies "That's why one should make the most of it." The music soars as they walk along, together and yet separate, completely broken - it's a sublime, brilliant moment.

There is a very modern feeling to the subject matter and how it's explored in understated ways, and it seems clearly influential, starting with films like La Notte (1961). Unfortunately, after an entire film of honesty, the film gives way to an ending which feels forced and frankly pretty awful. I don't what possessed Rossellini to do that, but the film as a whole is still hauntingly powerful.

Voyage to Italy is Rossellini's celebrated masterpiece precisely because a couple of stuffy film experts have proclaimed it as such, rather than it being a film universally beloved by audiences. Journey To Italy has been described as being a landmark film in unleashing the French New Wave onto the world. While I can see how this is so, and I appreciate the significance of this film and the French new wave, there isnt actually much in Journey To Italy which would please ordinary cinema goers. To start, the tone of the film is, by design, dull and passionless. Whereas films can often be classified into either being character driven or plot driven, Journey To Italy has neither character nor plot. The films plot is made up of a travelogue of tourist sites in Italy explored by Catherine, while there isn't much in the way of character development. Nor is any background or history between the two characters introduced- the film focuses solely on the present, and at present their relationship is dull, meaningless, and soulless. The film can thus be described more of an atmospheric piece than a plot or character driven movie- it is about the uneasy tension, the uninspiring, tepid existence of the two characters. It is not about finding reasons to their animosity, solving their problems, or developing their characters. This, no doubt, makes for an extremely languid story. The dialogue in the film also seemed cold, though admittedly by design. Regardless even then, Rossellini was known to not care much about dialogue, and the effects of this are clear- what the characters say are banal, for even heated arguments can be interesting, and even cold conversations can be tense and disquieting. The film does not exploit this potential. While visually the film definitely feels like the Neo realistic style, the plot(or rather the resolution) is quite lacklustre. It seemed as if Rossellini wanted to make a deeply atmospheric piece, but still had to give an adequate conclusion, so he came up with the characters ending up together in a contrived happy ending. Overall, Journey To Italy does have some interesting moments, especially its travelogue-esque scenes involving Catherine with some sulfur rocks and some Pompei bodies. But on the whole, Journey To Italy is style over substance for the average movie goer.

I was flabbergasted to see this movie has a user rating of 7.3. To paraphrase Gertrude Stein speaking of Oakland California, "there's no there there." OK, this couple has an unhappy marriage. That we get, but the film does little to show us the fundamentals of their issues. George Sanders was a fine actor, but in this flick he is lifeless, which is no surprise considering the lines he has to read. Ingrid Bergman does what she can to enliven a dead script. There is a lot of beautiful cinematography of the Neapolitan countryside, but far too many street scenes taken from a moving car. One waits and waits and waits for something to happen, but it never does. The resolution, in the street festival at the end is utterly, entirely unconvincing. This movie is a complete bore, Rosselini or no Rosselini.

The death of her uncles brings married couple Catherine and Alex to Naples in order that they might handle the sale of their inherited villa. From the first journey they make together, there is a real frost in the air and an apparent lack of love between them. After several difficult nights together where they acknowledge the tenuous state of their relationship and decide to use the holiday to spend time apart as opposed to being alone together. As Catherine heads off to catch up on the history and museums of the area while Alex idles around Capri, flirting and enjoying the friendly company of the young ladies he meets there.

It has been said that not a great deal happens in this film and those that say this are mostly correct – but they are not being critical of this fact, merely stating it. The basic plot is: couple comes to Italy with marriage problems and, in between fights, travel around the area – and that's about it in terms of definable action. However to simply leave it at that is to do this film a great injustice because so much of it is about more than just what is happening at any given moment and it is actually a beautifully shot and moving story of love within marriage. We join the story where Catherine and Alex (in a very well drawn marriage) have both come to the conclusion that their marriage must nearly be over. Neither really wants that but neither can manage to make things change; frustrated they go off and travel around Naples alone.

At this point the film balances two aspects with real skill. On one hand the film is a really intimate travel film, not just focusing on the sweeping scenery of the region but getting closer, looking at the specific histories, sites of interest and the people that reside there. Its strength is that it is never just about this because the scenery is just the backdrop for the two characters to discover themselves undergoing soul searching – but in a casual manner, not a heavy, gut wrenching fashion, more of a dawning realisation than anything else. This is subtly down and all the better for it; a convincing marriage that has been worn away to the point that the couple have simply forgotten to just be in love and instead have allowed other aspects of their relationship (the sarcasm, the niggling, the familiarity) to become the main part of their daily interactions. Those who have not been married or in a long-term relationship may not 'get' this film but I can assure you that it will likely be recognisable to you if you have been.

The chemistry between Sanders and Bergman is very convincing – I felt like there had been love between them but it had just been forgotten. Individually they both played their parts really well – there was no real 'eureka in the bathtub' moment until the end but, up till then, we had seen both the characters pick up little things along the way in a very able manner. The support cast were all good trimming round the edges but, in the version I saw, the dubbing into English was a little heavy at times and made it difficult to judge their performances. However the three stars here are all very good and drive the film without anybody else. Three stars? Sanders, Bergman and Naples itself.

Overall this is a slow film that has very little happening in it and, for that reason, it may frustrate some modern audiences who prefer their romantic dramas to have more spark and energy to it – however this is much more convincing for being subtle and elegant. The playing of Sanders and Bergman is pitch perfect and help keep our interest in their marriage alive, while the detail and sweep of Naples is well used as a suitable backdrop for them to rediscover their love against. If it were remade today it would be a massively different film, but this should be enjoyed for what it is – a great film that is of its time and should be enjoyed as such even if it requires at least a bit of patience.

Journey To Italy is one of those films with recognisable names in front and behind the lens and appears to be very acclaimed, most notably ranking very high in They Shoot Pictures Don't They's top 1000, yet I don't personally know anyone who's a fan. Besides Martin Scorsese, I can't name anyone who vouches for it. In starting the film, it's difficult to see why it deserves such a noteworthy position. It's quite haphazardly produced with clunky framing, editing and exposition in its script. I suppose it's a necessary evil essential to all films but it didn't seem to have much life to it. Perhaps it was ahead of its time in some regard. Fortunately I love Ingrid Bergman and I felt her performance was remarkably subdued, particularly in her reaction shots. A lot internally going on there. Very whole-hearted compared to George Sanders who relies on bulky screen presence.

The plot continues and dwindles as we follow the two characters independently exploring their impulses, Bergman inquiring the remains of Pompeii and Sanders experimenting with infidelity. It's difficult to be invested in such a neutral relationship, especially when the cameras don't really pick up the beauty of the scenery. The film hits fever pitch late and we swiftly come to the predictable conclusive moments and that's when something incredible happens. The film, or the version I watched, is a short 80 minutes and it must be all set to build to these final minutes. It becomes movie magic, both emotional in the characters and the suddenly electrifying camera-work. Even though the catalyst is something you can see coming, the film feels worth it for that satisfying sense of love in the end. It's a shame the film is so unbalanced and it could've delivered more treats along the way, but I guess I can kind of see what Marty sees in it.

7/10

I recommend "No longer bodies, but pure ascetic images", chaos-rampant from Greece, 6 August 2011).

I missed the first twenty minutes of "Journey to Italy." Usually when this happens I come back to the theater another time. However, with this particular slice-of-life study of marriage, I feel comfortable discussing it.

Robert Rosselini deserves a lot of credit for making it work. Without much happening, we have to like what we are seeing and Rosselini is up to the task. We notice details; e.g., the faces of the two principals, children viewed through the window of a moving car, etc. The framing is well done. Rosselini has the right size of image on display at all times.

Ingrid Bergman's Catherine is of course, impeccable. Bergman's combination of strength and vulnerability really makes her characters come to life. Her Catherine is just another argument she is the greatest screen actress so far.

George Sanders' Alexander is written to be emotionally distant and often confusing. Sanders is convincing. However, since he always comes off as sinister (e.g., as the blackmailer in 'Rebecca'), it seems a stretch that he would be so sexless, particularly with the despairing prostitute he picks up.

'Journey To Italy' is well done, and offers very interesting cultural and historical knowledge about the Naples + Pompeii region. However, I am not anxious to catch it again. It is curious how Francois Truffaut offered up so much praise for it. I'd sooner watch most of Truffaut's catalog than this again. Also, there are dozens of films made at the same time that are simply more appealing for repeated viewing.

'Journey to Italy' describes love and marriage as filled with trials. Curiously, Rosselini gives love a chance to succeed while repeatedly informing us that the residents of Pompeii had no chance when their volcano unexpectedly erupted.

Roberto Rossellini wasn't about to rest too much on his laurels - or let a little thing like a controversy slow him down (an affair with Ingrid Bergman that wrecked marriages, albeit produced daughter Isabella which is nothing short of miraculous) - so a film like Journey to Italy seemed like just the thing to get him motivated and challenged. It's a challenging picture. There's not the same sort of melodramatic drive through a lot of it that you see in Rome Open City or even Stromboli - at least until perhaps the last third. I remember seeing the clips in Scorsese's Italian movies documentary, though it was hard to come by except on over-priced VHS online, until the Criterion collection put out a Rossellini/Bergman box-set, which gave me my chance last year.

I have to wonder if Kubrick might've watched this film before making Eyes Wide Shut, if only for the early scenes. But there's little chance for real romance here; Bergman and George Sanders are the married couple, on holiday in Rome. Well, partly holiday anyway, more like an estate deal that's being closed on (an inhereted villa in Naples actually), and she's bored out of her mind... at first. Very slowly as she goes on trips to museums, encouraged by an acquaintance, there is a certain mood about Rome, a history, the objects which loom over her and speak to something MORE than what she is experiencing in her life and marriage, that do something to her.

Of course, stuffy George Sanders can't see that - nor that their marriage isn't very happy at the moment, or about there being a lost lover in the equation as well (flirting for Sanders, too). And there may be more trouble on the horizon as well, but what's so fascinating is that Rossellini keeps a lot of things under the surface, the unspoken between the two, the tension, is what has to be put forward. For drama, this can be tricky, and Rossellini with his documentary background is able to get his actors to such a place as to be totally comfortable in their characters - people who are paradoxically uncomfortable with where they're at, romantically, spiritually (spirit's a big one), and geographically.

And in a sense the ultimate message here reminds me of the line from Night of the Living Dead, where an unhappy married woman says to her husband: "We might not like living together... but dying together won't solve anything." Is this couple sort of, you know, trapped? Most likely, and the zombies are actual conflicts they're avoiding in life.

A lot of what they end up seeing together is death. This comes by the way right when they tentatively agree after a really bad argument (there's a lot of arguing here by the way, but all believable because it's these two stars who are tremendous talents. They're taken along on an archaeological expedition, and they're privy to the remains of people from long ago. It's a startling, breathtaking sight for them, maybe more for Sanders in a way because he hasn't already been exposed to these bewildering, eye-opening sights like Bergman has. And this realization of one's mortality dawns ever closer.

Journey to Italy was a prized darling among the French New Wave, and perhaps it's because of the questions it raises about life and death, love and loss, and having any sort of REASON for anything, that gives it an existential edge. Have things been too petty for them? Can they reconcile? The ending is where Rossellini finally lets things boil over dramatically speaking: in a way this is a more sophisticated film, if a little harder to exactly "enjoy" outside of a sort of intellectual level (unlike, say, Open City), but when Bergman and Sanders are torn apart, if only briefly, by a parade, it becomes a BIG struggle, and that's what counts. What will you do with the time you have here? Love, squabble, fight, bicker, take things in and experience things? Maybe all of those.

I'm glad the movie was re-discovered and championed by those crazy bunch of Cashier du Cinema folks; the movie works its way ever so slowly on you, and has the layers of great art revealing itself. Did I mention how good these two actors are, especially Bergman again with her husband/musee? Good, it's worth repeating.

The day I'm writing this review marks the 100th birthday of my favorite actress, the lovely Ingrid Bergman. Because of this, I decided to watch an Ingrid Bergman film, and the one I chose was the wonderful "Journey to Italy".

I'd never before seen a film from the acclaimed filmmaker Roberto Rossellini, and I really wanted to considering how much praise Martin Scorsese has given him. After watching this film, I'm excited to see more of his work because this movie was pretty great!

It is a beautiful drama film about a married couple (played by Ingrid Bergman and George Sanders), and their trip in Italy. They're marriage isn't going very well, and it is possible that they're going to have a divorce. Other than this, the film is very light of plot, but the amount of plot in a movie doesn't really matter to me, the only thing that really matters is how good the movie is, and "Journey to Italy" is pretty great!

Classic melodrama about a bored marriage with no children who little by little breaks their relation and things go wrong . Concerning a troubled marriage (Ingrid Bergman , George Sanders) who attempts to find direction and insight while vacationing in Naples at sensuous locations in which they feel so ill at ease . As sensitive Ingrid Bergman and suave George Sanders do spend time together in Italy , there is a tension and an underlying increasing want on both sides to hurt the other emotionally in their own beliefs .

Thoughtful and brooding melodrama about a love story that goes awry . It deals with isolation , loneliness and misunderstanding against the city of Naples . Some films have to be seen to be believed , the secret of the most beautiful and magical of films is 'nothing happens' . From the slight tale of a tired English couple holidaying in Utaly , Rossellini builds an excellently passionate story of cynicism and cruelty swirling into a renewal of love : Sanders' gentle , caddish businessman superbly complements Bergman's Greta Garbo-like presence. And though critics may have always praised it as one of the most enjoyable films ever made , its genuinely romantic tenderness mark it as never so unfashionable , never so moving . The best scenes deal with Naples , depicting the citizens , their customs , photographed in neo-realist style by cameraman Enzo Serafin and detailing the hardships and the way of existence of the people , as well as the museum visits and the walks through the volcanic city of Pompeii.

There stands out the agreeable Ingrid Bergman giving very good acting as wife who's brought by her husband to Naples where she finds isolation and and her marriage a trial . Roberto Rossellini and his future wife Ingrid Bergman met for the first time while making Stromboli (1950). This vintage melodrama was even greater off-screen than on, this is the film which introduced Bergman and Rosselini and began their scandalous affair. Rossellini had a celebrated, adulterous affair with Ingrid Bergman that was an international scandal. They became lovers on the set of Stromboli while both were married to other people and Bergman became pregnant. After they shed their spouses and married, producing three children, history repeated itself when Rossellini cheated on her with the Indian screenwriter Sonali Senroy DasGupta while he was in India at the request of Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru to help revitalize that country's film industry. It touched off another international scandal, and Nehru ousted him from the country. Rossellini later divorced Bergman to marry Das Gupta, legitimizing their child that had been born out-of-wedlock.

The motion picture was well written/produced/directed by Roberto Rosselini who worked with no written script but a handful of personal notes , being his final film as a producer, after that, he produced 2 documentaries and a TV series. Rossellini produced his first classic film, the anti-fascist Roma, ciudad abierta (1945) ("Rome, Open City") in 1945, which won the Grand Prize at Cannes. Two other neo-realist classics soon followed, Paisà (1946) ("Paisan") and Alemania, año cero (1948) ("Germany in the Year Zero"). "Rome, Open City" screenwriters Sergio Amidei and Federico Fellini were nominated for a Best Writing, Screenplay Oscar in 1947, while Rossellini himself, along with Amidei, Fellini and two others were nominated for a screen-writing Oscar in 1950 for "Paisan". Rating : 7/10 . Better than average. Essential and indispensable watching for Ingrid Bergman and George Sanders fans.

In this third film in which Roberto Rossellini cast his lover Ingrid Bergman, he again makes her a misfit in a world of open curious people. She and George Sanders, British husband and wife Alex and Kathryn Joyce, drive to the Italian countryside to dispose of the villa her uncle has left her. In contrast to the warmth of the people they meet, at parties and by chance, Kathryn and Alex shoot barbed remarks at each other. After a party where he watches her charming several men, he comments she must have enjoyed the evening. She counters that she was bored, and he must be jealous. He loves the wine, and the food, but his sensuous appreciation is blunted when he gets near his wife. They wander separately, each experiencing emotional connections with places and companions, but their chilliness to each other undercuts the richness of every encounter. One of their visits is to the ruins of Pompeii, where archaeologists have discovered in the ash the cavities left where bodies were vaporized, the outlines of their forms preserved. Having seen Pompeii a decade ago, I marveled at how much more has been excavated than in the mid-50s - this excursion alone is worth seeing the movie for.

Luckily they projected an old 35 mm copy to get the right feeling of looking at the past. This is not a very spectacular movie. It seems that the tourism promotion of Naples in 1954 sponsored part of the movie. There is a lot of advertising time for the area around Naples (Pompeij, Capri) in it. But from today's point of view these scenes are quite interesting. You see explanations how they uncovered the remains of Pompeij and wonderful statues of ancient times. Besides that we see a very believable struggle between man and woman in a late stage of their marriage. How first love is translated into a somehow different, but never-the-less, important feeling.