Throughout most of his life, one of Italy’s most famous opera and cinema directors Luchino Visconti, had never ceased sparking public controversies, due to his unconventional sexual orientation and also due to the fact that Visconti’s Communist political beliefs could not possibly relate to his lavish lifestyle of an Italian aristocrat. Such metaphysical contradiction also marks most of Visconti’s cinematographic masterpieces, because neorealist motives, contained in his movies, appear to be of strictly formalist nature. In his article “Marxism and Formalism in the Films of Luchino Visconti ”, Walter F. Korte makes a perfectly good point when suggesting that: “In Visconti’s work one is struck by the primacy of formalism. In the majority of his films, the populist-progressive intent of the film-maker at the time of conception has been tempered and shaped, in the implementation, by the grand mise-en-scene of operaticism and the scenographic baroque” (Korte 1971, p. 2). In other words, there can be little doubt as to the fact that acting as promoter of “workers’ cause” was the last item in Visconti’s list of priorities, even though he never hesitated to pose as progressive Commie. Apparently, the seeming contradiction between Visconti’s existential mode and his public stance on the issues of socio-political importance cannot be addressed by the means of logic. Yet, in this paper we will aim at exposing “Visconti’s enigma” as not being utterly complex at all, because Visconti’s case fits rather well into the framework of psychoanalysis.
Luchino Visconti was born on November 2, 1906, into one of Italy’s most wealthy, aristocratic families. From his very early years, Visconti was being trained to treat “commoners’ ‘ with contempt. And, it needs to be said that, even though later in his life Visconti became deeply affiliated with Communist agenda, he would never go about referring to “proletarians” as equals. Moreover, he would never “sink” quite as low as to have each of his numerous villas being constantly “equipped” with less then 8 servants, even in time when Northern Italy was occupied by Germans, during the last two years of WW2.
It appears that, after having established himself as an acclaimed horse racer in Milan, prior to 1936, Visconti simply became bored with bellyful idling, which prompted him to go to Paris, where he became personally acquainted with French movie director Jean Renoir. It was Renoir who had introduced Visconti to the basics of both: Homosexualism and Marxism. Nevertheless, despite his now clearly defined left-wing political leanings, at the outbreak of WW2 Visconti went back to Italy. It is needless to say, of course, that Visconti’s decision to relocate to Italy in 1939 did not come as a result of his patriotic feelings being awakened – Visconti had simply decided to pursue the career of a movie director in Italy, at the time when his country was in the middle of war. Moreover, Visconti was not simply intending to shoot movies, while in Fascist Italy, but namely the movies that would subtly promote the Marxist concept of class struggle, as such that defines the essence of socio-political dynamics in just about any country. Amazingly enough, Visconti was able to succeed with such his intention – the year 1942 marks the production of Visconti’s first movie “Ossessione” (Obsession), which instantly gained him fame of a founder of neorealist genre in cinematography, even though “Ossessione” could be the least referred to as cinematographic masterpiece.
After the end of WW2, Visconti actively strived to pose as “Resistance fighter”, but such his claims cannot be taken seriously, simply because, up until the end of his life, Visconti used to take pride in the fact that he had never held any weapons in his hands. Apparently, Visconti valued his life little too much to risk with it. This, however, never weakened Visconti’s taste for “trying new things”, even at the expense of facing public ostracism.
The production of movie “La Terra Trema” (Earth Trembles) in 1948, proves the validity of earlier suggestion, because of this movie’s truly revolutionary essence – “La Terra Trema” can neither be referred to as documentary, nor as classic movie, because in it, the roles of fishermen, priests, policemen and schoolteachers are being played by real fishermen, priests, policemen and schoolteachers. In his article “The Fictional Worlds of Neorealism”, Patrick Keating discusses “La Terra Trema” in rather enthusiastic terms: “Consider La Terra Trema, surely one of the most rigorous of all Neorealist films. Visconti could have made a documentary about Sicilian fishermen if he had wished to do so; instead, he made a fiction film, based on a literary classic. In spite of the use of non-actors and real locations, no one would mistake the film for a documentary. The staging is too careful, the photography too beautiful, the narrative too deftly constructed” (Keating 2003, p. 11). Ever since “La Terra Trema” has been released to Italian movie theaters, Visconti had not only established himself as a cinematographic innovator, but he also created preconditions for his subsequent movies to be strongly associated with commercial success. This; however, had nothing to do with the strength of this movie’s socio-political implications, but with the fact that by directing “La Terra Trema”, Visconti had proven himself as cinematographic visionary, capable of providing seemingly banal scenes from Sicilian fisherman’s every-day life with utter dramatic effect.
It appears that, after having directed “La Terra Trema”, Visconti had realized that his value, as moviemaker, corresponded to his ability to fuse realism and decadence into one inseparable compound, despite such combination’s apparent illogicality. The fact that decadent motives become ever-more present in Visconti’s latter movies, is one among many indications that point out to sheer artificiality of his affiliation with Communism, as political ideology that refers to materialistic realism (socialist realism) as the only legitimate artistic method, even though that Visconti used to brush such suggestions aside. Plinio Perilli’s article “Luchino Visconti: the Melodrama of Decadence”, contains excerpt from Visconti’s 1975 interview to “Avant-scène du Cinéma” magazine, in which Italian movie director justifies his decadent existential attitudes as such that do not contradict Marxist theory: “How many times have I been called a ‘decadent’. But, I have a very high opinion of ‘decadence’, as did Thomas Mann for instance. I am steeped in this spirit: Mann was a German decadent, I am an Italian one. I have always been interested in the analysis of a decayed society” (Perilli 2001, p. 63). We can hardly agree with Visconti’s point of view, in this respect, simply because in such of his famous movies as “Gattopardo” (The Leopard), “Götterdämmerung” (The Damned), “Morte a Venezia” (Death in Venice) and “Ludwig”, Visconti does not simply analyze what he used to refer to as “social decay”, but savors it in rather passionate manner. And the reason he does it is because, being an aristocrat himself, Visconti continued to perceive surrounding reality within a context of “new money” vs. “old money”, while clearly taking the side of an “old money” – namely, the “blue blooded” aristocrats.
The watching of “The Leopard” would come in particularly handy for just about anyone who is being puzzled by Visconti’s Communist beliefs. In it, Italian movie director portrays the representatives of 19th century’s newly emerged Sicilian bourgeoisie as greedy, uneducated, smelly rednecks, totally incapable of carrying on an intelligent conversation and understanding what the concept of good manners stand for, regardless of whether they wear expensive suits and dresses or not Whereas, the associates of movie’s main character Prince Don Fabrizio Salina continuously refer to him as the Leopard – by the time movie ends, viewers are being left with no choice but to begin referring to Salina’s bourgeois “friends” as nothing but hyenas.
When we apply psychoanalytical approach, while deciphering this particular movie’s semantic meaning, the true essence of Visconti’s affiliation with Communism will become quite apparent – the only reason he continued to support Italian Communist Party, is because of his genetically predetermined hatred towards bourgeoisie as social class, which had deprived Italian nobility of its “God’s given” rights and privileges. According to Marxist theory, it is the bourgeoisie that poses the gravest danger to proletariat, as social class, which is why representatives of the bourgeoisie must be physically liquidated en masse. It is not simply a coincidence that, after the end of WW2, Visconti had been employed by Italian Commies to film prominent members of Italian Fascist Party (who were overwhelmingly bourgeois) being sentenced to death and publicly executed. Apparently, Visconti used to take a sadistic pleasure in seeing his “class enemies” being shot. In its turn, this also explains the particularities of Visconti’s homosexualism. It needs to be mentioned that Visconti was an “active” homosexual – that is, in his relations with younger male partners, he used to play role of a “man”. And, as psychiatric studies on this subject indicate – “active” homosexuals are almost necessary sadists. This is exactly the reason why graphic violence is being featured in Visconti’s movies with such prominence. Visconti’s longest lasting partner Helmut Berger knows all about it – even today, he has problems walking. Such was a price Berger had to pay Visconti for turning him into a movie star.
Nowadays, many movie critics strive to downplay homoerotic motives, contained in Visconti’s movies, while referring to them as another indication of Italian director’s intellectual sophistication. For example, in his article “A Battle d’Arrière-Garde: Notes on Decadence in Luchino Visconti’s “Death in Venice”, Giorgio Bertellini suggests that those who focus their attention on this movie’s homoerotic decadence are not particularly bright individuals: “Labeling Death in Venice a decadent work seems a gesture that has somehow acquired the tautology and automatisms of an old academic jingle, which stems out of euro-centric perception of manliness” (Bertellini 1997, p. 12). We will dare to disagree with Bertellini, in this respect, just as we do not agree with his politically correct interpretation of euro-centrism as something necessary “evil”. The close watching of “Death in Venice”, leaves no doubt as to the fact that savoring homoerotic aspects of relationship between Aschenbach and Tadzio was the primary motif, behind Visconti’s decision to make this particular movie, in the first place. In his article “The Case of “Death in Venice”: Luchino Visconti and Thomas Mann”, Hans Rudolf Vaget substantiates the validity of such our suspicion by stating: “Given the centrality of the Aschenbach-Tadzio relationship, the magnified role of the Polish boy cannot be considered a negligible detail. What it does is to emphasize homosexuality to a degree that actually changes the meaning of the story. In the film, Aschenbach’s love is no longer a strictly internalized monodrama, since Tadzio looks and acts almost like a consenting minor” (Vaget 1980, p.165). Thus, it appears that Visconti’s fascination with Marxism (political violence) and his active homosexualism (sexual violence) cannot be discussed as totally unrelated subjects, as many critics tend to do – director’s both existential pursuits suggest that he was not an entirely adequate individual.
However, this does not undermine Visconti’s supreme talent as opera and movie director. At the time when Visconti was directing the production of Rossini’s operas in Milan’s “La Scalia”, people used to book tickets to these operatic performances 2-3 years ahead of time. Throughout his career as a director, Visconti would not settle for anything less then an absolute perfection, for as long as actors’ performances were concerned. His inborn sense of aristocratism and his sheer wealth allowed Visconti to do just about anything he wanted to with his own life and also with the lives of others. Just as Salvador Dali, who had proclaimed himself being Anarchic-Monarchist, without his fans considering it as an indication of Dali’s mental abnormality, Visconti used to refer to himself as Communist-Aristocrat, while it would never occur to Italian real Commies that their party’s most prominent member could not possibly be concerned about manual laborers’ petty problems.
Thus, only utterly naïve people may think that Visconti was a politically-minded individual. He was aristocrat, decadent and intellectual. Throughout his life, Visconti actively sought excitement, and the reason why he ended up among “lefties” is simple – in fifties and sixties, European “lefties” were mostly preoccupied with blowing up public buildings and hijacking passenger planes, rather then with imposing political correct censorship on just about anything they consider being “emotionally offensive”, as it is the case nowadays. And this is how Visconti will go down in history – an eccentric and utterly charismatic Italian idealist, who despite his taste for indulging in sexual perversions, had managed to contribute enormously to Italia’s opera and cinematography.
Bibliography
- Bertellini, Giorgio “A Battle d’Arrière-Garde: Notes on Decadence in Luchino Visconti’s “Death in Venice”. Film Quarterly 50. 4 (1997): 11-19.
- Ginsberg, Terri “Nazis and Drifters: The Containment of Radical (Sexual) Knowledge in Two Italian Neorealist Films”. Journal of the History of Sexuality 1.2 (1990): 241-261.
- Keating, Patrick “The Fictional Worlds of Neorealism”. Criticism 45.1 (2003):11-30.
- Korte, Walter “Marxism and Formalism in the Films of Luchino Visconti”. Cinema Journal 11.1 (1971): 2-12.
- Perilli, Plinio “Luchino Visconti: the Melodrama of Decadence”. L’Architettura 47. 543 (2001): 59-64.
- Vaget, Hans “The Case of Death in Venice: Luchino Visconti and Thomas Mann”. The German Quarterly 53. 2 (1980): 159-175.