The film was an adaptation of Carlo Levi’s autobiographical novel about the years he spent in Eboli, a remote village in southern Italy. Levi was an anti-fascist intellectual who was exiled to Eboli because of his political activities during the 1930s.
Because of its detachment from Rome and other urban centers of Italy, Eboli was a perfect place to rehabilitate, silence, or punish subversive intellectuals. There the radicals wouldn’t be able to convert the backward peasants into enemies of the state. When our hero arrived in Eboli, two communist organizers and a disgraced priest were already living in the village.
The film depicted the everyday life of peasants in a poor village in Italy. Through Carlo’s eyes, we were able to see and judge the customs, beliefs, dreams, economic practices, and political education (or lack of it) of peasants in the far-flung southern Italian village.
Carlo attributed the poverty he witnessed to the inability of the state to improve the welfare of its citizens. He was right. But the same lack of empathy, the same unwillingness to study the conditions of peasants in Italy’s south, can be seen also among Rome’s urban-based middle class intellectuals. Carlo was one of these political creatures. He fashions himself as a renegade intellectual yet he was naively ignorant of peasant life. He may be a sincere anti-fascist activist but his activities were divorced from the daily lives of ordinary Italians.
He was proud that he possessed a scientific knowledge of the world. This intellectual superiority became visible when he mocked the superstitions of the natives. Notice his reliance on pills and modern medicines to cure the sick without studying the traditional medical practices in the community.
Carlo may have observed at first that his worldview was different from the villagers. During a solar eclipse, one of the villagers warned that it was a punishment from God. Carlo quietly interjected that it was perhaps a result of Italy’s gassing of Abyssinia (referring to the invasion of Ethiopia). He might have been disappointed to hear villagers talk about life in America than about politics in Rome. But later he might have detected the wisdom of native thinking. When one of the young boys of the village was drafted by the army, an elder complained: “Why go to Africa, if you have one here?”
The film’s political themes were symbolized by animals which inhabit the village. While discussing Mussolini, Carlo saw a large pig. After reaching the cemetery which marks the farthest place Carlo was allowed to wander, he saw a free bird flying in the air. While a goat was being butchered, a villager criticized the counterproductive Goat Law passed by politicians in Rome. Chickens and humans live together inside the dingy house of the priest. Carlo’s companion was an abandoned dog.
Carlo impressed everybody with his miraculous healing powers. But the villagers were unaware that it was they who gave Carlo the proper education in life. Witnessing at first hand the plight of peasants in the village, Carlo was able to understand the social and historical conditions of the oppressed in rural Italy. During his conversation with the town mayor, he was able to articulate the reasons why peasants join bandit groups (“They defended their civilization through banditry”).
The film highlighted the neglect suffered by Italian peasants. Carlo was a visitor in the Eboli village, but not a redeemer of peasants. When he wanted to paint a portrait of his housekeeper, the lady refused arguing that the painting might imprison her. Carlo couldn’t understand this primitive reasoning. But the housekeeper was correct. Carlo did “imprison” her and the rest of Eboli when he wrote a book about the poverty he saw in the village. He might have good intentions but the peasants didn’t need pity. They needed change.
So who will lead the crusade for reforms? Not Carlo, not the mayor, not the priest. Maybe the two exiled communists. Are we sure it was only spaghetti they were exchanging everyday?
The Bicycle Thief
Postwar Italy. The ravages of war are still visible. Unemployment is high. The film is about Italy, poverty, modern society, family relationships, humanity. It is a simple yet powerful and realistic film. A man needed a job. He got one but he needed a bike for the job. Unfortunately, his bike was stolen. Together with his son, he searched for his bike in the city.
The Bicycle Thief is not entertaining, it is enlightening. It is not subtle, it is direct. It is effective in revealing the painful essential truths of modern living. The film brilliantly captures the complexity of poverty and the contradictions it engenders in society.
Notice the Third World poverty spectacles which were shown on the film: an army of unemployed fighting over a few available jobs, water scarcity in the city, street vendors, black market for stolen goods, pawnshops, inadequate public transportation, prostitution, child labor, and unhelpful police. The film presented a different Italy. It is unnerving because these poverty images are still visible today in the world.
Observe how the film described inequality and hypocrisy in society. The working-class churchgoers need to be clean before being allowed to attend the mass. Food is distributed only after one has attended the church service. It is a clever way of blackmailing the hungry and dirty poor in the name of God. When father and son went to a fancy restaurant, the boy realized his situation in life when he noticed his difference to the rich boy on the other table.
Note how the poor spend their days and plan their future. Sports is a popular form of entertainment – perhaps to forget the troubles in life. The wisdom of an elder (seer) is sought to solve simple and difficult problems. Art, especially traditional art, struggles to survive during difficult times. Poverty drives people to affirm their faith.
Social institutions become more relevant in protecting individuals. Union organizing is a viable option. Families and neighbors stick together to defend each other from outsiders. The original bicycle thief was vigorously protected by his friends and relatives when he was confronted by our hero. It is a remarkable scene. It shows how the poor are always pitted against each other forgetting that the true enemy is the inequitable social structure. But the social structure has no face while the bicycle thief is recognizable. And so they fight for the crumbs while the monopoly guy enjoys his wealth.
The film teaches us that instead of simply ascribing a criminal personality to those who commit poverty-related crimes, it is better to understand the social conditions which drive desperate individuals to break the law. Sometimes (or often), crime stories we hear or read in the news have deeper meanings which we should try to find out.
The film can also be interpreted as the story of a child who learned that his father is a flawed hero. The child witnessed how his father bullied an old man inside the church just to find out the name and address of the bicycle thief; the child was slapped hard in the face by the angry father; and he witnessed at the end of the film how his father tried to steal a bike. The bicycle thief becomes the bicycle thieves in the end.
What was the father thinking during the closing scene? That he was a useless provider in the family? That he was a pathetic father? The he was a worthless individual? Or was he musing about the injustice of losing his bike?
The Bicycle Thief is a film about human frailty and the failure of modern society. It is unsettling to watch the film because the stories it depict are familiar to everyone who is exposed to the cruel realities of poverty.