Depending on where you look The Bicycle Thief is going to be called The Bicycle Thief, Bicycle Thieves or Ladri di biciclette. The proper English translation would be Bicycle Thieves, but it is primarily known in its singular form so I am going to run with that. Directed by Vittorio De Sica, this late-1940s Italian neorealism feature was nominated for a Best Writing Oscar and was given an honorary Oscar at a time when Best Foreign Language film was not an official category (first awarded in 1956). The film sits at #104 on the IMDb top 250 and Roger Ebert writes eloquently about it right here. The simplicity of one man’s necessity in post-World War II Italy feeds the film’s mystique. To discuss it gives it greater weight, and while it certainly is a film that will continue to inspire filmmakers and should teach them a lesson that less can indeed be more, the simple story didn’t really move me beyond its 90 minute running time.
Depending on which translation of the title you accept the difference between plural and singluar certainly plays a part in the overall theme of the story as times of desperation, poverty and defeat only feed further delinquency. Where this film loses its ability to move me is in the protanganist’s failure to do anything more than whine and cry over his loss when there are far more avenues available to him.
As you read on this article will spoil the film’s ending. If you plan on watching it you may want to bookmark the page and come back after you have seen it.
At the center of the story is Antonio Ricci (Lamberto Maggiorani), a man who waits on line for an available job in a time where jobs are scarce. An opportunity arises, but a bicycle is needed. Antonio says he has a bike even though he has recently pawned it for cash. He and his wife pawn their sheets to get the bike out of hock and we have our wheels.
His job, plastering cinema posters around the streets of Rome. The irony is obvious, yet legit to the point that it doesn’t seem patronizing. Within minutes of beginning his job his bike is stolen and his dreams of a better life seem dashed. He files a report with the police to no avail and then turns to friends for help. The next morning they set out to find the bike. Yeah, an impossible task, but considering this is a movie hope remains and the movie plays on that hope, a belief movies have fed.
Also along for the search is Antonio’s son Bruno, the true star of the film played by first time actor Enzo Staiola. Enzo’s acting ability is uncanny, especially his ability to act without dialogue. Most often he manages to impress more with what he doesn’t say rather than what he does.
Antonio and Bruno go around all of Rome. They bump into the thief a couple of times but are ultimately left empty handed and downtrodden. Finding it hard to accept the situation Antonio turns to stealing himself. He throws Bruno on a street car and sets off to nab a bike sitting alone on the sidewalk. It doesn’t turn out well. Bruno misses the street car and is witness to his father stealing a bike and shamed as he is caught and no charges are pressed. The movie ends on this note.
Poverty breeds poverty. Desperation causes people to do stupid things. Stealing is bad. The rich get richer while the poor get poorer. Everything is there and it is the cycle of Italian neorealism, which, among other things, is intended to give a sense of realism to the story. However, let’s look at this a little closer.
First off, in order for Antonio to get his bike out of the pawn shop he must pawn his sheets. The sheets bring in 7,500. He then goes to get his bike. It costs him 6,500. Assuming he had absolutely no money this means he now has a bike and 1,000. Later in the film we learn that his job was going to bring him 12,000 lire a month, plus 2,000 in overtime. On top of that he was going to get an 800/day family allowance. This tells me that after one month he was going to have 39,000 lire. There would be obvious expenses such as food and getting the sheets back, but they would certainly be on their way after only a month. After all, what was doing for money up until now? A necessary fact that is never brought up.
He obviously has friends that are willing to do nothing for an entire day and help him scour the streets of Rome for his bike. Looking around it seems everyone has a bike. Why doesn’t someone loan him one? He can give them some money for it, he has some. Also, is he given the 800 lire on a daily basis? How does this job pay? 1st and 15th? Bi-weekly? Weekly? Monthly? Let’s figure things out here. After all, we are looking at this realistically aren’t we? Speaking of realism, the following morning in this movie is one of the longest mornings of all-time. Isn’t his boss pissed he is missing the entire day? That is a subject that is never brought up.
The Bicycle Thief tackles some good themes and there is actual tension surrounding the decision making by Antonio, but when a film is lauded over its realism it opens itself up to some scrutiny and logic holes.
I always love taking a trip over to IMDb’s message boards to see what people are saying about these older “classics”. Oftentimes passion gets in the way of real opinion and people say some interesting things.
Here is one I pulled based on the neorealism aspect:
It’s supposed to be simple, and to an extent dull, because it’s neo-realism. If there were gunfights and explosions, it would be representative of fantasy, not reality.
Admitting a film is dull does not make it better in my opinion. However, I didn’t find the film dull, but I think that opinion certainly speaks to the film’s loving audience.
Check out these comments from people that love the film and actually offer up how they think people should evaluate films in general:
POSTER 1: Think of something other than yourself and what ‘interests’ you, or rather, make yourself be intested in other things.
POSTER 2: I have always felt that it doesn’t make any sense to judge a film or any art form based on your personal taste.
POSTER 3: Even if you didn’t like this film for whatever reason, you have to appreciate it for what it is.
Check that out. Don’t like a film based on your interests. You have to make yourself like something. Don’t judge a film on your personal taste. You have to appreciate this movie for what it is. WOW! I have never been in the presence of so much film snobbery. This is what happens when people let their love of a film cloud their vision. For some reason people think everyone thinks as they do and if they don’t they are either missing something or need to make themselves think like others.
Check this one out:
POSTER 1: If you thought it was dull, you obviously failed to connect to some of the most realistic characters in cinema. If you can’t connect with real people, then I don’t know what to say.
POSTER 2: So–there’s something wrong with me because I can’t identify with some people in post-war Italy who can barely survive?
While “Poster 2” takes it a little bit beyond connecting to a character, it is amazing to think someone wouldn’t be able to figure this movie out and say the only reason they didn’t get it is because they can’t connect with real people. Now that’s a snob slam for the ages.
I’ll tell you what, I can’t connect with Antonio. First off, I don’t know what it is like to live in post-war Italy, but beyond that, like I said above, I would have started thinking about other ways to get out of the jam. I know the film is only a quick look into the life of Antonio and his family over the course of what amounts to three days, but based on what I saw this guy hopes someone is going to figure out his problems for him and when faced with a problem he gives up if it can’t be solved in the easiest manner proposed. Nope, I don’t connect with that.
Obviously, The Bicycle Thief is a film many film fans love, but I can’t get beyond several aspects of it. There are several things to like, but as an overall package there is also a lot missing.
However, a side note, I recently watched Three Kings again and dug it. It got me thinking how few films we had based on the Gulf War compared to the business in Iraq this time around. Considering the first war fed the second you would think there would be more attention on that fact, but Oliver Stone’s W should change all that.
I also recently watched Clerks 2 for the first time. It was a’ight, but not at all worthy of being called a sequel to the first film. You didn’t need to even see the first film to find any additional enjoyment in the second film. The sequel didn’t expand on the first film it just used the same characters. Too bad.
