L'incompris

Since 1966, when I watched for the first time the beautiful "Incompreso - Misunderstood" of Luigi Comencini, I was moved to tears. I was 9 yo, had already red the book of Florence Montgomery and I was a little bit disappointed that Comencini had turned the story in Italy, in Florence, and adapted all the situations. During next years I grew up and I understood that the choice of Comencini was correct. I was always fascinated by the performance of Andrea (Humphrey), "actor" Stefano Colagrande... we are nearly the same age and I really felt in myself the same children's anxieties and passions that he shows so well, and acts perfectly, in this movie. I'm very glad that, thanks to internet, I found where Stefano Colagrande, who didn't act anymore, is today, and which is his job: he's a great Physician, and he's a Professor at the University of Florence. Sometimes life is grateful with sensitive persons! Thanks a lot for what you gave me, Doctor Stefano! GP

It is a bit slow moving at first, but well worth the wait! The acting is GREAT! The story is realistic (which accounts for it being a bit slow). Stefano Colagrande (Andrew) does such a good job, it makes me wonder why his acting career was so short. The movie is about how Andrew's father misunderstands him, because Andrew seems to have no emotion when sad events take place, the main one being his mothers death. Andrew also misunderstands his fathers feelings toward him, as dad only seems to care about Miles (Andrew's little brother). The ending is very quick but very precious! A wake up call for parents of a cold nature!

Duncombe, cold and distant father, besides UK Consul General in Florence, carelessly applies his stark communicative methods with his first son Andrew after his wife's death, which Andrew had sensed well before his father's disclosure of the sad news.

Duncombe's several duties, which constantly keep him away from the family, force Andrew to look after Miles, his little brother. Andrew valiantly carries on, humoring his spoiled sibling, putting on the apparent front of a strong man, getting himself into a lot of trouble due to Miles' continuous mischiefs.

Unbeknownst to his father, Andrew silently suffers his loss; blame is all Duncombe lays on young Andrew, probably due to his incapacity to deal with such pain himself.

It will be at the end, as often seen in life, that the diplomat will experience his second loss, probably the ultimate one, the one he negligently couldn't prevent. His coldness will eventually hit him during the last moments of Andrew's early, shattered adulthood.

Comencini gives this young man the power to annihilate the lavish and colorful home and surrounding environment, reminding us that once it's too late there's no return. There's perfect synchronicity between the colors/tones/score and the setting of the picture, a rather clear representation of life in Florence during the late 60's where roles, both social and professional were well defined.

Using a term I have commented with for a different movie, we are seeing a positive-negative image of Comencini's Pinocchio, where the father is constantly running after his son, both for loneliness and to keep him out of trouble. I think some of us will agree with the fact that Miles' role somewhat reminds us of the fictional character.

The comment's title has, for the record, its ambivalence.

With a script based on a novel by Florence Montgomery, this is a tragic story, of a family torn apart by the premature death of the mother and the attempt by the husband and two young children to overcome this irreparable loss.

The father, believing that his eldest son would be more mature and better prepared to face the tragedy, seeks his complicity, to avoid further suffering for the youngest. But this decision turns out to be tragically wrong.

It's a well-made film (although the Italian dubbing, by British actors Anthony Quayle and John Sharpe, takes away some of the authenticity of the adaptation), centered on a child's perspective on family tragedy.

But the adapted work lacks the British spirit, that coldness that gives a certain nobility to the tragedy. Dubbed in Italian and centered on two mischievous children, with a clearly Latin spirit, the work is excessively melodramatic. A Latin fatalism, which does not fit well with the haughtiness of Anglo Saxon suffering.

I think the work loses strength in this Italian adaptation. A more formal and British treatment of these young orphans, with the rebelliousness and wit that should characterize them, would give more meaning and depth to the final outcome.

Childhood is in the center of Comencini's work."Incompreso"sees him going at a peak of true emotion and aesthetic refinement.Comencini is one of the greatest directors Italy has ever known even if he remains in the shadow for so many cine buffs.If you have the chance to see "incompreso" do not miss his other works "lo scopone scientifico" "Pinocchio" ,the best version of the Collodi classic and his mammoth series "Cuore" ,these two works dealing with childhood too,not to mention such achievements as "Casanova veneziano" (which beat Fellini at his own game)and "l'ingorgo"

"Incompreso" is one of the saddest movies in the world and however,it's not a melodrama:it's pure emotion,realism,quivering sensitivity . A man's -a consul- wife dies and he 's left on his own with his two children.He's a good father,but he wants his older son to become adult ,to act like a man .Anthony Quayle's portrayal is not that of a tough man; it's only little by little,in spite of his good will,that he leads his son whom he loves to despair.Some people say that you become a man when you lose one of your parents,after all!In many a melodrama,we have heard the mother say after the father's death "now you're the man".Comencini's work is the contrary:for him ,even if a child shows more perceptiveness than the grown-ups (see "lo scopone scientifico" or "cuore"),he still remains a child who should be allowed to suffer ,to cry and to love.Because the father thinks that a big boy does not need tenderness anymore and he takes only the little brother in his arms.

The mother is still here even if the boy does not see her anymore:there's a painting in the house ,a tape which the father recorded before her death and mainly a big garden where the two brothers speak of intimate things like death .All the nannies (are you like Mary Poppins? asks the younger boy) in the world that the wealthy dad can pay cannot help:that's why they stay out of the game (and out of the games):never the boys will communicate with them.

The first part of the film tends to show that Milo,the little kid ,is the frail one;an admirable sequence,taking place during a storm at night,shows the father taking his little boy to his room...but closing his door to the other.

SPOILERS:Because his father does not seem to understand him,to love him,to treat him like a ...child,the only way for him is to go where his mother is.Then begins a harrowing finale,during which the father understands (but too late) that his son wanted to die ,even if the accident had not happened.The essay which the boy wrote "my best friend,my father", climaxes the movie .the last picture is an extraordinary fade -in(the mother's picture) fade-out (the dead boy in his bed).These final pictures alone would make the movie a masterpiece.

Superb cinematography ,remarkable cast and credits over paintings of another century,first-class score which enhances the emotions but never drowns them out.

Absurd remake by Jerry Schatzberg in 1984 ("misunderstood") with Gene Hackman taking on the part of the father and colossal mistakes (flashback where the mother appears ,hollywoodian happy end).These remakes are really a curse.