Misunderstood

Since 1966, when I watched for the first time the beautiful "Incompreso - Misunderstood" of Luigi Comencini, I was moved to tears. I was 9 yo, had already red the book of Florence Montgomery and I was a little bit disappointed that Comencini had turned the story in Italy, in Florence, and adapted all the situations. During next years I grew up and I understood that the choice of Comencini was correct. I was always fascinated by the performance of Andrea (Humphrey), "actor" Stefano Colagrande... we are nearly the same age and I really felt in myself the same children's anxieties and passions that he shows so well, and acts perfectly, in this movie. I'm very glad that, thanks to internet, I found where Stefano Colagrande, who didn't act anymore, is today, and which is his job: he's a great Physician, and he's a Professor at the University of Florence. Sometimes life is grateful with sensitive persons! Thanks a lot for what you gave me, Doctor Stefano! GP

In terms of status, Italian director Luigi Comencini reminds me of his American contemporary Sydney Lumet : as a director, he would embark in equal proportion into projects that were his very personal and others which were more like a studio contract thing. Yet (and that too is true of both directors), all along his fifty-year career, he has shown a remarkable ability to make personal, ambitious projects highly entertaining for millions of spectators, while on the other hand imprinting his unmistakable touch on projects that were meant by producers to be for the standard production. In other terms - and that again is true of both Lumet and Comencini - he's been, for more than fifty years, walking the tightrope between art and entertainment with outstanding virtuosity.

Incompreso, now... Well, Incompreso is not only an excellent movie. It is not only one of the many, many proofs that popular entertainment made in Cinecittà during the Golden Age (1950-1980) is exactly as outstanding, and perhaps even more, than all the "great-author" films that critics (including American critics, when it comes to Europe) automatically favor, while ignoring completely - back then, at least - the marvels of popular movie entertainment. Incompreso is not only one of the best movies ever made about childhood. It is not only one of Luigi Comencini's greatest achievements outside of "commedia all'italiana", the tragicomic new genre of which he was one of the three Grand Masters (the two others being Risi and Monicelli).

Incompreso is more than all this because all this - all that I have said so far - is about classification, status, polemics with those darned intellectuals, etc, the will to save a dream-come-true cinematography that was tragically underestimated not only abroad but in Italy as well - the country that for decades showed the greatest gap of all between the tastes of the critics and those of the public. All these are my personal axes to grind. But now, you must forget about this, and concentrate on watching Incompreso.

When you will watch Incompreso, and I know you will, something will happen to your heart : at some point, you will feel it cracking and you won't be able to help it. And then it will crack some more. Near the unforgettable conclusion, it will fall on the ground in thousands of little pieces. But unlike so many other melodramas, this one refrains from using one single cheap trick. I mean it. It never tricks the spectator into crying. The crying comes only too naturally, with no strings attached or pulled.

Luigi Comencini's Incompreso is the most intense, the most powerful, the most poignant melodrama ever put to screen. And ever means ever. Straight from the heart, straight to the heart, without one single cheap trick. Why use artificial tricks that treat spectators like puppets, while simple reality is enough to reach to their heart? Childhood is the best of times, childhood is the worse of times : both are equally true at the same time and there is nothing we can do to change this.

As a movie-goer, I feel deeply indebted to Mr. Comencini. But the children in me loves him even more. Thanks to the many french-speaking TV channels of my country (Canada), I grew up with the best movie ever made FOR kids, in six perfect episodes of 52 minutes each : Luigi Comencini's Le Avventure di Pinocchio, which made me laugh so much. Then I saw the best movie ever made ABOUT kids : Luigi Comencini's Incompreso - and I cried a river.

Luigi Comencini is 90 years old.

Duncombe, cold and distant father, besides UK Consul General in Florence, carelessly applies his stark communicative methods with his first son Andrew after his wife's death, which Andrew had sensed well before his father's disclosure of the sad news.

Duncombe's several duties, which constantly keep him away from the family, force Andrew to look after Miles, his little brother. Andrew valiantly carries on, humoring his spoiled sibling, putting on the apparent front of a strong man, getting himself into a lot of trouble due to Miles' continuous mischiefs.

Unbeknownst to his father, Andrew silently suffers his loss; blame is all Duncombe lays on young Andrew, probably due to his incapacity to deal with such pain himself.

It will be at the end, as often seen in life, that the diplomat will experience his second loss, probably the ultimate one, the one he negligently couldn't prevent. His coldness will eventually hit him during the last moments of Andrew's early, shattered adulthood.

Comencini gives this young man the power to annihilate the lavish and colorful home and surrounding environment, reminding us that once it's too late there's no return. There's perfect synchronicity between the colors/tones/score and the setting of the picture, a rather clear representation of life in Florence during the late 60's where roles, both social and professional were well defined.

Using a term I have commented with for a different movie, we are seeing a positive-negative image of Comencini's Pinocchio, where the father is constantly running after his son, both for loneliness and to keep him out of trouble. I think some of us will agree with the fact that Miles' role somewhat reminds us of the fictional character.

The comment's title has, for the record, its ambivalence.

"Sir John" (Anthony Quayle) is Her Majesty's consul in Florence. It's a job that comes with a gorgeous villa in a city of beauty and history that is home to his family. It's when a tragedy impacts on that family that he must come to terms with his own loss and continue to support his two young sons. "Andrea" (Stefano Colagrande) is the elder of the two and has been taken into his father's confidence, "Milo" (Simone Giannozzi) is much younger and so is initially left only knowing that their mum is away. These two lads get on like an house on fire, and have some considerable joy winding up their new nanny "Luisa" (Adriana Facchetti) who seems to insist that "Milo" spend as much of his time in bed as he can. Eventually, they manage to drive her to the door, but along the way it becomes clear to us that their father appears to favour his younger son. "Milo" is at an age where he wants to tag along to everything his brother does, and inevitably that causes some trouble for which "Andrea" usually gets the blame - just ask the bus driver or the mischievous "Uncle Wili" (John Sharp). Aware that he is becoming a little distant from "Andrea", the diplomat attempts to spend more time with him, and it's now that it we truly appreciate just how much this youngster adores his dad - but does his dad? This is certainly one of Quayle's more personable performances. Sure, he has the usual imperiousness, but he also exudes a rarely seen softer side as the story evolves. That said, the film belongs, entirely, to the two kids. They bring a wonderfully and engaging naturalness to their personas. It is quite possible that they really are brothers, and work effortlessly together - even when the younger is being a pain and the elder is seeking something more meaningful with his father. Their dialogue, and occasionally some of the direction, reminds us that their is recent grief to be dealt with, but that is very subtly expressed by a triumvirate of characters who are dealing, as best they can, with the hand fate has dealt them - but without always understanding just how this has affected the others. For a change, a film set in this finest of Italian cities doesn't dwell on the location at all, they could be anywhere, it's all about these three and though I really, really, did not like the conclusion at all, I really did enjoy the film.

Childhood is in the center of Comencini's work."Incompreso"sees him going at a peak of true emotion and aesthetic refinement.Comencini is one of the greatest directors Italy has ever known even if he remains in the shadow for so many cine buffs.If you have the chance to see "incompreso" do not miss his other works "lo scopone scientifico" "Pinocchio" ,the best version of the Collodi classic and his mammoth series "Cuore" ,these two works dealing with childhood too,not to mention such achievements as "Casanova veneziano" (which beat Fellini at his own game)and "l'ingorgo"

"Incompreso" is one of the saddest movies in the world and however,it's not a melodrama:it's pure emotion,realism,quivering sensitivity . A man's -a consul- wife dies and he 's left on his own with his two children.He's a good father,but he wants his older son to become adult ,to act like a man .Anthony Quayle's portrayal is not that of a tough man; it's only little by little,in spite of his good will,that he leads his son whom he loves to despair.Some people say that you become a man when you lose one of your parents,after all!In many a melodrama,we have heard the mother say after the father's death "now you're the man".Comencini's work is the contrary:for him ,even if a child shows more perceptiveness than the grown-ups (see "lo scopone scientifico" or "cuore"),he still remains a child who should be allowed to suffer ,to cry and to love.Because the father thinks that a big boy does not need tenderness anymore and he takes only the little brother in his arms.

The mother is still here even if the boy does not see her anymore:there's a painting in the house ,a tape which the father recorded before her death and mainly a big garden where the two brothers speak of intimate things like death .All the nannies (are you like Mary Poppins? asks the younger boy) in the world that the wealthy dad can pay cannot help:that's why they stay out of the game (and out of the games):never the boys will communicate with them.

The first part of the film tends to show that Milo,the little kid ,is the frail one;an admirable sequence,taking place during a storm at night,shows the father taking his little boy to his room...but closing his door to the other.

SPOILERS:Because his father does not seem to understand him,to love him,to treat him like a ...child,the only way for him is to go where his mother is.Then begins a harrowing finale,during which the father understands (but too late) that his son wanted to die ,even if the accident had not happened.The essay which the boy wrote "my best friend,my father", climaxes the movie .the last picture is an extraordinary fade -in(the mother's picture) fade-out (the dead boy in his bed).These final pictures alone would make the movie a masterpiece.

Superb cinematography ,remarkable cast and credits over paintings of another century,first-class score which enhances the emotions but never drowns them out.

Absurd remake by Jerry Schatzberg in 1984 ("misunderstood") with Gene Hackman taking on the part of the father and colossal mistakes (flashback where the mother appears ,hollywoodian happy end).These remakes are really a curse.