“Viaggio in Italia”, or to English-speakers “Journey to Italy,” is a revolutionary, media changing film that was nothing short of a disaster at the box office and a challenge to create. Though few people at the time, including its own cast, enjoyed the film, critics today revel in it’s praises, with Critic Geoff Andrew calling it a “key steppingstone on the path to modern cinema” (Andrew, 2019). So how does a film that received so much disdain in 1954 find so much praise half a century later? Simply put, it was not the right time.

Director Martin Scorsese, who considers Journey to Italy’s Director Roberto Rossellini as one of his inspirations, credits the initial disdain to the “power of the neorealist movement” and how the film seemed to be a “complete rejection of what was so popular at the time, which was neorealism in Italy” (VICE, 2014),(Zagarrio, 2017, pg 118). For a more novice eye, this notion seems to be true. The film is incredibly different from the others during the time frame, with the exceptions to that being the two other films that paired actress Ingrid Bergman and Director Roberto Rossellini (Stromboli and Europe ’51). In short, it was not exactly the type of film that a country recovering from a failed World War could rally behind. While the film was filmed in Italy with an Italian director for an Italian audience, the film is in English, and the Italian language was dubbed over. It starred one of the greatest actresses of the time in Bergman but in a role that was inherently different from the ones that drew her to Director Rossellini in the first place (Brody, 2013). While far more people associated Rossellini with the day to day life of the “every” man, this film focused on a wealthy English couple. With these factors in mind, it takes a noticeably unconventional approach, and it feels as though the film is generally slower in pace than some of the others of the time (though that could be the personal preference of this author, rather than a comparison point).

This leads to the ever-important question of if everything that could go wrong did, why is the film so revered? For the time, it was very experimental, because of how “conventional” it was. At times I did find myself losing interest, but because it really did seem as though the characters were living their lives without a camera. It’s a testament to their acting but also to how well the story line depicted a regular, normal situation. While there was a “plot line,” there was more so an impressive attention to detail. Director Scorsese specifically draws attention to a scene with the two main characters, with one of them pretending to be asleep while the other comes home. There is a subtle back and forth as they take turns turning the light off and the dialogue that follows as the wife tries to play off the encounter as a long and hot day. It really felt like a conversation any normal person could have, and it addressed a real emotion in that the wife was trying to play coy. She did not want to give the impression that she had been waiting up for him or that she wished he had joined her for her day visiting the city, but she stills plays off his return home like it is no big deal. I am planning to watch the film again, because that was something I did not even really notice the first time watching it. So often we find ourselves focusing on the plot the first time that we miss little details that the production staff takes so much time to include, and this film does that to an impressive degree.

While the film was not of its time in regards to the social landscape, there is also something to be said for how the cast and director’s lives played a role in the filming of the movie. Ingrid Bergman was romantically involved with Director Rossellini in one of the first movies that she did with him and eventually married him, but by the time that were moving in the direction of divorce. Rossellini himself was described as “flighty and non-communicative and usually broke” and filming with Bergman did nothing for their personal relationship (Keough, 2013). The other main actor, George Saunders, hated the film and his costar, and to some, this boredom and lack of enthusiasm for the film played out in his acting. While there is no clear cut proof that any of these factors played a role, it is not inconceivable to think that their own feelings and emotions helped them to make the film that much more realistic and that much less profound to the casual viewer, interested in a feel good movie.