"Rocco and His Brothers (1960)" Movie Review Essay & Film Analysis

Do not be wise to understand how conventional boundaries of good and evil. The difference of geographical, historical and cultural features, the impact of socio-economic factors impose a strong imprint on the compass of moral and ethical views of man. Now we are trying to rationally adjust their actions, weighing every decision.
submitting a livelihood, we inadvertently torn between the probability of getting our funds into the hands of fraudulent groups and the desire to delay (or at least mitigate) the fall in public pit feeble old woman, a helpless cripple.
Several times think before you open the lock, drumming in the door to a stranger, justifying themselves sensible precautions in case if he had an ax to grind, reinforcing its position vivid example E literature characters chosen a different path, as in "Clockwork Orange" Anthony Burgess'. Although our albeit prudent, yet cowardly decision not to turn the key in the lock, like scissors goddesses of fate Moyer could break someone's life. In this case, returning to the literature, it comes to my mind at least a strong story to tell us about Victor Hugo's "The Man Who Laughs».
live under the mask of virtue and branded naive idiot, or suffer the same public reprimand for behavior cynic and selfish? One of the fundamental principles of this choice and of the subject of his productions I see in the already mentioned public opinion, supervise the contact as if in a "Panopticon". Then maybe do not care about the moral and ethical dogmas, imposed for centuries not very intelligent crowd and become like the Nietzschean superman.
from history if to rummage in our goals junk stores, we can get a lot of examples of such attempts, some of them were more fortunate as Alexander the Great, others less, like Cesare Borgia. Literature, and with it the movie, also every now and then throws us his supermen:. Pechorin nolanovskogo Joker from "The Dark Knight" Khan from Star Trek, etc.
In my opinion, one of the brightest and most thorough in this matter was not as Friedrich "Zoratustra" Nietzsche and Niccolo "Prince" by Machiavelli, and Fyodor Dostoevsky. In this vein, I would consider, thinking about the subject of this review, and delivered the epigraph at the beginning of Prince Myshkin, which has an easy flow kleymonosnogo society dubbed an idiot. In his work, this characteristic is less true knowing the prince, as the majority is convinced of his exceptional intellectual abilities at a more or less detailed conversation, reason was his demeanor in society and the lack of facilities in this regard. Therefore, due to its selective deafness obschepriobretennoy entering them into a stupor, and someone frankly annoyed, his responsiveness and messianic manners. But because he did not want to offend anyone, then, consequently, was not a threat.
If Myshkin presented by Dostoevsky, in my opinion, was a superman over morality, the opposite infromoralnym superman at the behest of nature became Rogozhin, distraught by lost its savor his passion. The role of each was assigned its own to us, to my regret, there is nothing left except how to wait for a legitimate tragic outcome. It seems to me, ephemeral categories of good and evil, their interaction, as well as, most importantly, its impact on others, appears to us the leitmotif of the novel, among other things, is the title theme and Luchino Visconti's "Rocco and His Brothers", which the author of the picture I not without success, interpreted by changing the original terms
The plot revolves around the widow of the Rosary -. mother, who has grown hateful dreary village life, so she decides to go with his four sons to the city where new life is already trying to build its first Heff, first off from the nest. Different in character and abilities of the children attached to each other and are ready to resist collisions of life in its unity. However, the apparent strong family idyll gives crack only at the threshold of their house is beautiful stranger, like Dostoevsky Nastasia sow the seeds of discord and strife among them.
And now the story tightly connected with the boxing ring, in one corner of which is ambitious but lazy Simone (Rogozhin), and the other gentle in behavior, but generous Rocco (Myshkin). The first goes to it consciously, not thinking about the end of this path, while the second stands by coincidence by his beloved brother in this way, without even thinking to hurt his feelings. But a chain reaction went ...
Despite the desperate, but at the same time futile attempts Rocco (to the detriment of himself as Prince Myshkin) reconcile all around, as importantly what he wants his family to be happy, a split between members family increases. A mother, nurturing dreams of a successful and serene life of their children, the add luck would certainly reflect on its social situation, trying to resist any threat that could interfere with the provincial-utopian plan. So she does not accept nor only femme fatale, conquering of two of her sons, that can be attributed to the notorious but still uncertain social status of the latter, everything else is not to her liking, and a pretty wife of the eldest son, the first of the brothers who became his feet and obzavodshegosya own family ; because these women claim the laurels of the hypothetical public approval, which do not allow her dreams to see the danger of these illusions.
Fortunately, Myshkin Visconti more resistant to shock not knowing the fate of pity and beyond this is an opportunity for reciprocal attacks, unlike his Russian analogue. And the endless belligerent turnover of generations, terrorizing our society, why is mostly not giving a meaningful progress of human civilization, yet here gives, in my opinion, a spark of hope, like Koli Ivolgina, in the face of Luke, the youngest of the family, is able to take into account mistakes of the past.
8 out of 10

How to cite this essay: