Raffaello Matarazzo was 40 when he directed "Chains" in 1949. He'd been directing for 16 years, but this film is the one that really made his reputation, and it established Amedeo Nazzari and Yvonne Sanson as the most popular teaming in Italian films, at least until Marcello and Sophia got together. I've seen three later Matarazzo melodramas (hes been called Italy's Douglas Sirk) and found "Chains" the least satisfying of the four.
The stars play a happily married couple with two children. One day Sanson's previous boyfriend (played by Aldo Nicodemi) turns up and threatens to show Nazzari her passionate love letters if she doesn't desert her family and go away with him. His campaign culminates when she visits his flat and tries yet again to persuade him to leave her alone. The ex is trying to kiss her when Nazzzari turns up, throws her out of the room and a fight ensues . We don't see how it develops, but Nicodemi gets shot with his own gun, and Nazzari goes on the run.
I'm not too bothered that by today's standards the hero is a MCP: he tells his wife business is a matter for men, and slaps his son on the face for being rude to mamma. L. P. Hartley got it right when he wrote "The past is a foreign country, they do things differently there." What spoiled this film for me are all the holes in the plot. Sanson and Nicodemi were parted when he went off to war, yet in 1949 she and Nazzari have a boy who's maybe 9: obviously the undying love she swore didn't last very long. She insists she and Nicodemi, though engaged, were never lovers, which given the passion in her letters I found hard to credit: still, why doesn't she just tell Nazzari that? It's inconceivable that someone as gorgeous as Sanson would never have had a boyfriend. When Nazzari escapes he gets into the US using someone else's passport. I know this was made long before terrorism was a threat, but would US immigration authorities ever have been that lax? The police come for him when he's working in Ohio: how did they know he'd entered illegally?
When he's sent back to Italy and faces trial his lawyer persuades Sanson to save him from life in prison by saying she had an affair with Nicodemi when he came back into her life. This leads the court to find Nazzari not guilty on the grounds of self-defence. Was it really true in Italy in 1949 that a crime of passion meant you'd acted in self-defence and got you off scot-free? Finally his wife tells her husband she'd lied in court. Everyone's calling her a tramp, but Nazzari swears he'll tell them what she'd done for him. Really? Surely that would lead to her going to prison for perjury and (assuming a re-trial was possible) him going away for many years.
When a film's plot is riddled with so many holes it's ruined for me (I hope all my spoilers haven't ruined it for you!) You can't blame Matarazzo, who wrote many films but not this one. The leads are handsome and attractive, and Matarazzo directs with his usual sincerity, though the fight scene is strangely low-key. I can thoroughly recommend the other three Matarazzos I've seen: "Melancholy Autumn," "Slave to Sin" and "Let Him Who is Without Sin..." (a theme emerges.)
The stars play a happily married couple with two children. One day Sanson's previous boyfriend (played by Aldo Nicodemi) turns up and threatens to show Nazzari her passionate love letters if she doesn't desert her family and go away with him. His campaign culminates when she visits his flat and tries yet again to persuade him to leave her alone. The ex is trying to kiss her when Nazzzari turns up, throws her out of the room and a fight ensues . We don't see how it develops, but Nicodemi gets shot with his own gun, and Nazzari goes on the run.
I'm not too bothered that by today's standards the hero is a MCP: he tells his wife business is a matter for men, and slaps his son on the face for being rude to mamma. L. P. Hartley got it right when he wrote "The past is a foreign country, they do things differently there." What spoiled this film for me are all the holes in the plot. Sanson and Nicodemi were parted when he went off to war, yet in 1949 she and Nazzari have a boy who's maybe 9: obviously the undying love she swore didn't last very long. She insists she and Nicodemi, though engaged, were never lovers, which given the passion in her letters I found hard to credit: still, why doesn't she just tell Nazzari that? It's inconceivable that someone as gorgeous as Sanson would never have had a boyfriend. When Nazzari escapes he gets into the US using someone else's passport. I know this was made long before terrorism was a threat, but would US immigration authorities ever have been that lax? The police come for him when he's working in Ohio: how did they know he'd entered illegally?
When he's sent back to Italy and faces trial his lawyer persuades Sanson to save him from life in prison by saying she had an affair with Nicodemi when he came back into her life. This leads the court to find Nazzari not guilty on the grounds of self-defence. Was it really true in Italy in 1949 that a crime of passion meant you'd acted in self-defence and got you off scot-free? Finally his wife tells her husband she'd lied in court. Everyone's calling her a tramp, but Nazzari swears he'll tell them what she'd done for him. Really? Surely that would lead to her going to prison for perjury and (assuming a re-trial was possible) him going away for many years.
When a film's plot is riddled with so many holes it's ruined for me (I hope all my spoilers haven't ruined it for you!) You can't blame Matarazzo, who wrote many films but not this one. The leads are handsome and attractive, and Matarazzo directs with his usual sincerity, though the fight scene is strangely low-key. I can thoroughly recommend the other three Matarazzos I've seen: "Melancholy Autumn," "Slave to Sin" and "Let Him Who is Without Sin..." (a theme emerges.)