Vanina Vanini

i watched this movie as i found many Rossellini's works crucial for the history of Italian cinema, the likes of Paisa' or Roma Citta' Aperta, Germany year zero, those are well-known masterpieces.. So i took a look at Vanina Vanini, even knowing that the later Rossellini showed a radical change from the earlier works, generally in a deteriorating way.. This movie confirmed this.. I couldn't watch this film for more than 1 hour... it is perhaps the most uninteresting movie i've ever saw, and i've seen quite a few... I mean, it is ridiculously amazing how the story is uninformative, we have no specific time references, apart from some indirect dialogues in the movie, very very basic, should have been articulated a bit more... The cast is not bad in itself, it's just totally out of context... paolo stoppa is absolutely unlikely in his part, the young carbonaro doesn't leave any sign of the passionate role he'is supposed to play, Sandra Milo does what she can but her looks are probably more memorable than the acting.. Overall, as some of these actors/actresses performed quite well in other movies, i have to deduce that Rossellini wasn't really capable to effectively direct them properly. Apart from this, the story has huge flaws, it's very static, stale and boring, dialogues are sheer banalities, passion is lacking and Stoppa's way of interpreting the part doesn't have absolutely anything to do with it. Only good thing was the soundtrack, which i found of very good quality, unfortunately without any support from the acting side. I'm sure anybody can find a better way to spend his/her time instead of watching this movie.

A fascinating prelude to Rossellini's series of historical films made for television, Vanina Vanini suffers a bit from the desire to showcase star Sandra Milo (wife of the producer) -- not a very interesting actress -- but its attention to historical detail is extremely interesting. See, for example, the scene in which prisoners are forged into their chains -- astonishing and vivid. Laurent Terzieff is excellent (and looks terrific), as is (and does) Martine Carol. I saw this film at the Cinematheque Francaise in a decent print. It was preceded and followed by talks by an uncredited co-scenarist, Jean Gruault, who revealed that, to highlight Milo, the producer insisted on cutting three reels (about a half hour's running time), most of it focusing on Carol's character. The producer destroyed the negative, but a few years later a print was found of all the missing material. In a dismal twist of fate, a fire in the suburban Paris warehouse where it was stored destroyed -- definitively -- the last remnants of this missing material. Pity, as the film is a little hard to follow as it stands and, according to Gruault, the lost material provided much of the motivation that is lacking.

If one doesn't let anticipation over the prospect of Rossellini working with Stendahl's work run too high, this film should not disappoint. It is not Rossellini being "hands on" - it involved many production problems and came at a time when RR was preparing to turn his back on cinema, and still it works as a costume drama with intelligent plotting and setting. Let's put it this way - as an RR film, it's maybe a 5. As a costume drama set next to the nonsense of today, it's a 14. Much of Stendahl seems to have gotten lost, but the film still has a cogency that may be due to RR's increasing interest in making use of history to explore themes that go beyond mere incident and character. He was moving toward Louis xiv, and beyond.

When I was a child ,I saw the trailer: it was the story of a princess in love with a shepherd in my child's mind.And of course I did not know who Rossellini was.

I had to wait twenty years or so to have the opportunity to see the film.The precedent user is completely right and his comment is more than useful: Martine Carol's part was reduced to nothing or almost nothing.She only appears at the beginning of the movie then she disappears after two or three scenes,leaving the lion's share to co-star Sandra Milo.The first thirty minutes are very hard to follow and the story really begins when Vanina visits Pietro,a Carbonaro who was injured after his escape from San Angelo Castle and taken in by her father whose motives remain a bit obscure (the precedent user wrote that thirty minutes were cut and that they were essential to understand them).

After a muddled beginning,the film hits its stride and remains absorbing till the very end.Rossellini is one of my favorite Italian directors and even when he was sub-par,he was better than most of his colleagues.

The most original thing in Rossellini's work is his great interest in history and in Christianity.From the Fascist years ( "l'Uomo della Croce" )to the birth of Neorealism ("Roma Città Aperta" ,"Germania Anno zero" ) and from the Bergman years ("Giovanna d'Arco al Rogo" and "Europa 51" ) to the final years ("la Presa del Potere di Luigi XIV" is the best film about the Sun King I know).

History and Christianity are both present in "Vanina Vanini": Vanina is an aristocrat of the past,she cannot feel History move ,she 's always a prisoner of a decadent religion,which is still firmly entrenched in the

good/bad conflict and she's still afraid of sin and damnation.In direct contrast to her,we have Pietro ,an educated carbonaro who was influenced by the French Revolution "which was not made by the populace but by enlightened minds " .Between Vanina's faith and Pietro's solidarity with his companions there is no room for a love as burning as theirs.

Based on a short story by Stendhal,this is probably the most overlooked of all Rossellini's works .Laurent Terzieff is a very gifted actor: although the most "Nouvelle Vague" of all the thespians of the era (late fifties/early sixties),he was never hired by Godard and his clique and found his best parts with "old" brilliant directors (Marcel Carné,Henri-Georges Clouzot,Claude Autant-Lara)