Scipião, O Africano... General de César

This film is not understandable outside Italy if you do not have a strong artistic sensibility, and a good cinematic culture. From the reviews I read it seems that even many Italians do not fully understand the meaning, proof of the vanity that persecutes my people.

Scipio is an irreproachable man. He has fought Hannibal since he was little more than a boy, and defeated him in Zama when he was now a man. He dedicated his life to the salvation of Rome, Rome recognizes and honors him. Perhaps too much for Cato's taste.

For Cato, Rome is a utopian republic, driven by great ambitions, but made up of small, simple, frugal people. In this republic Scipio is too much, it would be enough for him to make a sign to become the absolute master, qualities and references are not lacking.

Cato must make a laughingstock of Scipio, to make it smaller, bring it back up to everyone, in the mediocrity that characterizes the salvation of the republics.

He insists on the fact of the 500 talents precisely in this sense: he wants Scipio to admit that he is a political thief like everyone else, so that the people no longer recognize him as the imperial eagle for Rome, but as the usual leader who gets rich at the expense of the people.

For Cato Rome is in danger, there is the influence of the Greek colonies in southern Italy just conquered, with their individualistic philosophy, which is undermining the Roman mos maiorum, the sense of the state as supreme entity, the good of the state as the only one purpose of every action of a Roman citizen.

The world he helped create is crumbling in his hands. He insists that Rome's attentions are only for Carthage (now tamed and obedient), to divert the curiosity of the Romans from the softness of Hellenic culture.

Scipio then, famously known as part of a family that has always appreciated Greek culture, becomes an enemy twice.

Cato immediately realizes that Scipio the African is not guilty of the theft, but this is certainly not a relief. He also understands that Scipio is not willing to take power by force, but this is not a security for the future.. He has to cut down the only tree left standing in the forest, a tree that is too lush, very straight and without imperfections.

To achieve that result, that tree-Scipio gave up everything else: family affections, the love of his wife, friends, his town which he could not enjoy for decades.

He thought he had esteem and honors in return, but instead he finds only political disappointments and quarrels.

So he leaves the world he has saved: "Ungrateful Rome, you will not have my bones".

Such a courageous film, so full of history and culture but filtered through the irony of the centuries. The eternal ugly side of politics reflects itself on the mirror of the past, with the bitterness of Scipio, the cynicism of his brother Lucio, the moral (and physical) beauty of his wife Emilia (Silvana Mangano), the stern but utilitarian morality of Cato, the indifference of the Gods, while the roman ruins of the scenery, and the modern language (roman dialect in the original) of the characters (splendid all the actors),demonstrate that past is present. Forty years old, this movie keeps being a perfect metaphor not only of the actual Italian situation but of the human factors, tragedy and comedy together. For refined palates.

This semi-historical talkathon about the Ancient Roman warrior Scipio Africanus is an attempt at an intimate 'anti-epic' in the style of Pasolini's Medea or Oedipus Rex. If nothing else, it reminds us just how inspired those other films are. Shooting in the deserts of Morocco or Eastern Turkey, Pasolini makes us feel his camera has somehow time-travelled back to Antiquity - and the story he tells has the intensity of Greek tragedy or primal myth.

In the far-less-gifted hands of writer-director Luigi Magni, we get a bunch of big-name actors standing round in cut-price togas. All of them seem to wonder just what they are doing there, and whether or not they can be bothered to stay. Most ludicrous are the authentic Roman ruins that stand in for sets. Did nobody point out that these were NOT ruins at the time the story takes place, but new and glittering triumphs of modern architecture?

A pity, because the cast is highly skilled. A bald Marcello Mastroianni tries hard as Scipio, Silvana Mangano looks predictably stunning as his wife and Vittorio Gassman is brilliantly slimy as his arch-enemy - the wily, cat-loving statesman Cato. The struggle between Scipio and Cato (i.e. between military force and civilian government) is as relevant today as it was when it happened. You can hear the same debate any night on the evening news...

Much too difficult to be fully grasped by not Italian-mother-tongue people ... I'm afraid I don't agree with the main review by the Scottish fellow. Things are quite different from what appear to be, although I can understand the point of view of a non Italian ... This film is not so much about an episode in Roman history, as it is indeed about life and people themselves ... All over the world and all along times ... Here, the figure of Scipio is one that entails all men with an unbreakable ideal in their mind and his fight against a world of common people hopelessly prone to everyday trivialities ... It is a story about the impossibility for the later to comprehend the former, and about inevitability of disenchantment of this heroic figure, as he expects gratitude and respect for his out-of-the-ordinary deeds ... Even the role of his wife Emilia (well performed by Silvana Mangano) is there to underline the fact that Scipio was a problem even before his conquests, in his family relations, and afterward he became a problem to all Romans at large ... There are two connections to Greek tragedy as well in the "narrating" roles of Giove Capitolino (Turi Ferro) and Licia (Wendy D'Olive) ... Which represent the ideals of the mythological Rome of the Fathers; both of which - in the end - can't help but see Scipio go away and give up his home town with sadness and dismay ... I've watched this film every time it was broadcast by the TV, and I must admit that I myself was disappointed originally, because of some apparent approximations - like for instance the improbable aforementioned ruins - and mostly for the use in dialogues of present Roman slang ... But indeed this is an issue: The end of the heroes - like Scipio and Cato himself - didn't preserve the republic in the end and even today - in our present republic - we can see the same misery in human behavior; the ruins where already there in those times and were the ruins of humanity and decency; the use of Roman slang is the metaphor of the language of the resentful people, good only at talking about miserable things ... Scipio went to war to save his homeland and their national pride ... high-minded and ready to win or die for Rome ... But on his return, he found a different country; one without anymore fear and ready to live a quiet life in freedom and safety: NO MORE HEROES NEEDED ! Scipio learns the truth only thanks to a cruel outburst by Emilia, that clarify things to him. Then he goes to Senate and falsely confesses any kind of misdeeds ... This is the main point, in which a very cryptic (for non Italians) dialect exchange of lines explains why all that fuss was needed ... Scipio and Cato are finally aware - in private - of being probably the only two honest men in Rome, but nobody has to know ... for the sake of the Republic (in which everybody is - and must be - equal) ... the only important thing to be protected ...

*** PS. Much too difficult to be fully grasped - in the original release - by not Italian-mother-tongue people ... Not even to mention it, in a dubbed version! ...