374 Bicycle Thieves

Discuss releases by Criterion and the films on them. Threads may contain spoilers!
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
HerrSchreck
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am

374 Bicycle Thieves

#1 Post by HerrSchreck » Sun Apr 23, 2006 1:20 am

Bicycle Thieves

Image[img]http://criterion_production.s3.amazonaws.com/release_images/758/374_box_348x490_w100.jpg[/img]

Hailed around the world as one of the greatest movies ever made, Vittorio De Sica's Academy Award-winning Bicycle Thieves (Ladri di biciclette) defined an era in cinema. In postwar, poverty-stricken Rome, a man, hoping to support his desperate family with a new job, loses his bicycle, his main means of transportation for work. With his wide-eyed young son in tow, he sets off to track down the thief. Simple in construction and dazzlingly rich in human insight, Bicycle Thieves embodied all the greatest strengths of the neorealist film movement in Italy: emotional clarity, social righteousness, and brutal honesty.

SPECIAL EDITION DOUBLE-DISC SET FEATURES

- New, restored high-definition digital transfer
- Working with De Sica, a collection of new interviews with screenwriter Suso Cecchi D'Amico, actor Enzo Staiola (Bruno), and film scholar Callisto Cosulich
- Life as It Is, a new program on the history of Italian neorealism in cinema, with scholar Mark Shiel
- Documentary on screenwriter and longtime Vittorio De Sica collaborator Cesare Zavattini, directed by Carlo Lizzani
- Optional English dubbed soundtrack
- New and improved English subtitle translation

Criterionforum.org user rating averages

Feature currently disabled

User avatar
pzman84
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2004 4:05 pm

#2 Post by pzman84 » Sun Apr 23, 2006 2:36 am

HerrSchreck wrote:I think the Visconti thread has created a utility for this thread. I'd be interested to hear some folk's opinion of this film.

I know some have a problem with this film's tugging at the heartstrings, and naked pathos. I recall Antonioni's elucidation of the Problem Of The Bicycle.

The line the author walks in trying to move people, while at the same time trying to not be overly manipulative, is often a tight one. In fact all art is manipulation... the only question I often ask is, when an author is looking to Break A Heart, is he being realistic?. Is he being honest when he portrays the supposedly difficult plight of an opressed class/group/etc (this is ever the problem in political films i e Mike Moore or portrayals of the Palestinian question)? This goes equally when portraying a real life strife on the big screen by the use of fictional characters.

I think LADRI DI BICICLETTE is an absolute masterpiece, not at all "Spielbergian" in it's heartstring-pulling. I find it on a narrative plane along with, say Murnau's LAST LAUGH or DEATH OF A SALESMAN... i e slipping an extremely realistic song to MiddleClass Failure (i e how a bourgoise-aspirant can sink into the gutter just by means of the Facts Of Normal Life), and by extension, the Brokenhearted & Oppressed. I think it's magnificent to see such perfect expressions of human sadness getting slipped in there, miraculously, between the lines of escapist fantasy during periods of great economic strife when most folks went to the cinema to escape the grinding misery of their lives; one can only imagine the impoverished class' delight to discover, to their surprise, that the heart and mind of the film indistry's most fiercely talented individuals are sympathetic to their own plight, instead of with the psychology of their own milieu of cash, wine and bourgoise pleasure. I could never reproduce via the written word my shock, how completely & utterly astonished I was when I realised that DeSica was going to end the film where he did, on such a crushing note of disillusionment. I pounded my fist on the floor (was sitting on the floor when I was watching it) and yelled "YES!!", then shook my head repeatedly mouthing "I cant believe it... I cant believe it... I cant believe it..."

A perfect film. It is what it is-- not Bresson, Tarkovsky, does not operate in these nuanced zones. I return to it almost quarterly. Zavattini's humor almost always has me laughing out loud, the way everyone is always bitching at each other with that typical Italian wry fatigue, shaking thumb & index finger at the wrist at each other snorting these dry little snaps of annoyance. I love it.
Couldn't agree more. There is only one question: When is a decent R1 version of this masterpiece going to be available on DVD? And, the Image release is not a decent version.

User avatar
jesus the mexican boi
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 5:09 am
Location: South of the Capitol of Texas

#3 Post by jesus the mexican boi » Sun Apr 23, 2006 11:02 am

Totally agree as well, on every salient point. My favorite scene is probably the restaurant scene because it illustrates a fundamental element of human nature: When the chips are down, fuck it: let's eat. A similar note is struck in The 400 Blows when they go to the movies instead of punishing Antoine (a very Truffautian take on that notion, repeated in Mean Streets -- "20 dollars? Let's go movies!").

Where/what is Antonioni's elucidation of the bicycle? I hadn't heard or read that.

I'm also hoping for a Criterion treatment of this. With MIRACLE IN MILAN coming, one can always hope.

I've got the cheapie Catcom disc, and the transfer is probably similar to the Image disc. It's watchable (highly) but not what the film deserves. It is the unedited version, with Enzo pissing on the street. And for $6, who can argue?

User avatar
HerrSchreck
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am

#4 Post by HerrSchreck » Sun Apr 23, 2006 11:42 am

Pretty sure the "Problem of the Bicycle" thing was mentioned to some degree by Antonioni in one of the essays to L'AVVENTURA. It relates to his desire to break through what by 1960 had become in his opinion the stale conventions of neorealism, which he felt were difficult to break out of owing to the worship of LADRI, which of course was #1 on everyones list of BEST FILMS etc.

User avatar
jesus the mexican boi
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 5:09 am
Location: South of the Capitol of Texas

#5 Post by jesus the mexican boi » Sun Apr 23, 2006 3:45 pm

HerrSchreck wrote:Pretty sure the "Problem of the Bicycle" thing was mentioned to some degree by Antonioni in one of the essays to L'AVVENTURA. It relates to his desire to break through what by 1960 had become in his opinion the stale conventions of neorealism, which he felt were difficult to break out of owing to the worship of LADRI, which of course was #1 on everyones list of BEST FILMS etc.
Was it something from the Nicholson-read audio segments or in the booklet? I'll have to dig out the box and check it out. Anyway, any chance to revisit L'AVVENTURA and La Vitti is a good day. Thanks for the info.

User avatar
Anthony
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 1:38 pm
Location: Berkeley, CA

#6 Post by Anthony » Sun Apr 23, 2006 4:39 pm

This movie would make a nice addition to the Criterion Collection.

User avatar
ando
Bringing Out El Duende
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 6:53 pm
Location: New York City

#7 Post by ando » Thu Apr 27, 2006 5:26 pm

I enjoyed this film though it's not one I'd like to watch again, necessarily. I think Andrew Sarris, in review of this film, was right on when he carped that the film fails to work on multiple levels and ends up being a touching melodrama. He compared Visconti's work, for instance, to De Dica and found Di Sica's work lacking in depth. I think its a fair assessment (with regard to this film, anyway) though it is highly enjoyable.

User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

#8 Post by zedz » Thu Apr 27, 2006 9:17 pm

While the film is being discussed, we should at least correct the title of the thread to Bicycle Thieves. . .

User avatar
kinjitsu
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:39 pm
Location: Uffa!

#9 Post by kinjitsu » Thu Apr 27, 2006 9:52 pm

zedz wrote:While the film is being discussed, we should at least correct the title of the thread to Bicycle Thieves. . .
That's always bothered me too.

Il titolo corretto è Ladri di biciclette, e non Ladro di bicicletta!

User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

#10 Post by zedz » Thu Apr 27, 2006 10:19 pm

kinjitsu wrote: Il titolo corretto è Ladri di biciclette, e non Ladro di bicicletta!
Esattamente. As anybody who's seen the movie should realise!

User avatar
kinjitsu
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:39 pm
Location: Uffa!

#11 Post by kinjitsu » Thu Apr 27, 2006 10:22 pm

zedz wrote:
kinjitsu wrote: Il titolo corretto è Ladri di biciclette, e non Ladro di bicicletta!
Esattamente. As anybody who's seen the movie should realise!
D'accordo! :wink:

User avatar
kieslowski_67
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 5:39 pm
Location: Gaithersburg, Maryland

#12 Post by kieslowski_67 » Fri Apr 28, 2006 11:59 am

pzman84 wrote:Couldn't agree more. There is only one question: When is a decent R1 version of this masterpiece going to be available on DVD? And, the Image release is not a decent version.
It needs to be Criterionized ASAP.

User avatar
HerrSchreck
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am

#13 Post by HerrSchreck » Fri Apr 28, 2006 12:19 pm

Ayyya... bafangulua tutti nittapickinna motheddafucka. Why donna you raise dissa kinda beefo forra de bambinos dey say is fromma paradise insteada de dio... de bambinos izza fromma de Gods!

User avatar
kinjitsu
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:39 pm
Location: Uffa!

#14 Post by kinjitsu » Fri Apr 28, 2006 1:27 pm

HerrSchreck wrote:Ayyya... bafangulua tutti nittapickinna motheddafucka. Why donna you raise dissa kinda beefo forra de bambinos dey say is fromma paradise insteada de dio... de bambinos izza fromma de Gods!
Alupato!

Che cazzo stai dicendo? :wink:

User avatar
HerrSchreck
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am

#15 Post by HerrSchreck » Fri Apr 28, 2006 2:29 pm

non parlate la lingua di Fuckin Bronx Wiseguy?

I was talking about the problem with CHILDREN OF PARADISE being called what it is, rather than Gods. Another notorious problem is Grand Illusion, whereas the French Grande & English Grand have totally different meanings. There is no Grandness in the illusion that Renoir is talking about... It turns what's supposed to mean something like THE BIG LIE / HOODWINKING into something like "the Stately Illusion"

User avatar
kinjitsu
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:39 pm
Location: Uffa!

#16 Post by kinjitsu » Fri Apr 28, 2006 2:49 pm

HerrSchreck wrote:non parlate la lingua di Fuckin Bronx Wiseguy?

I was talking about the problem with CHILDREN OF PARADISE being called what it is, rather than Gods. Another notorious problem is Grand Illusion, whereas the French Grande & English Grand have totally different meanings. There is no Grandness in the illusion that Renoir is talking about... It turns what's supposed to mean something like THE BIG LIE / HOODWINKING into something like "the Stately Illusion"
That's too bad since you would have appreciated the alupato reference. Anyhow, I'm siciliano-americano from Bruculinu and don't speak la lingua di fucking Bronx.:wink:

Yes, yes, we understand, and the same can be said for Kurosawa's High and Low and countless others.

User avatar
HerrSchreck
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am

#17 Post by HerrSchreck » Sat Apr 29, 2006 2:18 pm

kinjitsu wrote:[That's too bad since you would have appreciated the alupato reference. Anyhow, I'm siciliano-americano from Bruculinu and don't speak la lingua di fucking Bronx.:wink:

Yes, yes, we understand, and the same can be said for Kurosawa's High and Low and countless others.
Just a light clarification paisan 8-) .. it was LA LINGUA DI FUCKIN BRONX-WISEGUY... not, LA LINGUA DI FUCKIN BRONX, wiseguy. The language of Bx wiseguys is like Spanglish (or "Puerto Rican", as my father's East Harlem generation would call it viz the "invaders" what terrified them into drawing gang lines at Madison Ave.

scotty
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 8:04 pm

#18 Post by scotty » Sun Apr 30, 2006 7:23 pm

I think Andrew Sarris, in review of this film, was right on when he carped that the film fails to work on multiple levels and ends up being a touching melodrama
.
Something wrong with a touching melodrama? Not if it earns its emotional fee. Too bad, Mr. Sarris. Just try to watch that moment when the son sees his father hit rock bottom, when he sees his father for a petty person just grubbing along in this world, when his last illusions are shattered. And then he shows his own strength by sticking with him. They meld into the crowd--just another story. Really, how is this not moving? And since when should some kind of false critical distance be maintained at a moment like that? I'm all for modernism, post-modernism, de da da (Derri)da, but seriously, to criticize this film for being a touching melodrama seems willfully obtuse.

And yes, the Image DVD was a severe disappointment after seeing it several times on the big screen. Criterion to the rescue?

User avatar
HerrSchreck
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am

#19 Post by HerrSchreck » Mon May 01, 2006 12:27 am

I actually pondered that translation several times as one must put himself in Zoret's shoes for a moment to try and penetrate the meaning of the statement, as there is so much distance (from the object of his affection, at least viz maturity as well as from the minds of his listeners who are most probably completely oblivious to the selfless sort of love he's talking about) between Zoret and most human beings in his insight here.

Not to quibble because I think almost every translation fails-- I think TOTAL love is along the lines. Its difficult because I almost feel another descriptor is necessary in english to bring out the rarity of Zoret's epiphany in that it is all his own, and therefore uncorruptable... his feelings for the erratic Mikael epitomizes the feelings of that other grand old (homosexual, of course) man Bill Burroughs when he says "there is no such thing as a bad boy."

User avatar
NABOB OF NOWHERE
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2005 12:30 pm
Location: Brandywine River

#20 Post by NABOB OF NOWHERE » Mon May 01, 2006 5:18 am

Another one that bugs me no end is the English translation of Zoret's deathbed words in Michael - Moc translates "ich habe eine grosse liebe gesehen" as "I have seen true love." Surely "great" is more direct, and to the point.[/quote]


I'd suggest that "grosse" here could equally mean 'grand' (as in the love of one's life) and so 'true' is possibly closer than a rather generic translation to great.

User avatar
ando
Bringing Out El Duende
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 6:53 pm
Location: New York City

#21 Post by ando » Mon May 01, 2006 5:29 pm

How is the criticism that this film is a touching melodrama willfully obtuse? What exactly did Sarris miss?

User avatar
HerrSchreck
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am

#22 Post by HerrSchreck » Mon May 01, 2006 11:43 pm

Because he's essentially claiming that a touching melodrama cannot be a masterpiece. Look, it's fine to express, especially during periods of transition or when change is badly needed, that older, endlessly repeated forms have grown stale. But this film is what it is-- saying stories like these, in and of themselves, are no good simply because of their direct form requires the critic to follow through on his aesthetic obligations and deep six most of Shakespeare, Kurosawa, Charles Dickens, Arthur Miller, and on and on and on... thereby turning himself into a critics-critic... that is, a real asshole.

Argonaut69
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 7:30 pm
Location: Pacific Northwest

#23 Post by Argonaut69 » Wed May 03, 2006 8:27 pm

HerrSchreck wrote:I know some have a problem with this film's tugging at the heartstrings, and naked pathos. I recall Antonioni's elucidation of the Problem Of The Bicycle.
I've never quite understood the terror that some critics hold for movies that evoke strong emotions in viewers. Perhaps the problem is that so many low-grade melodrama's have trafficked in the most obvious sorts of emotions that certain viewers are eternally wary of being sucked in by an unworthy work? Perhaps it's that critics would rather drift along on a sea of postmodern irony, frightened of being "had" by a moving, heartfelt work? I don't know, but the fact is that virtually all of my favorite films have some sort of emotional hold on me...whether Murnau's Sunrise, Vigo's L'Atalante, Kurosawa's Rashomon, Rossellini's Open City, Fellini's La Dolce Vita or De Sica's The Bicycle Thief. I'm not saying that a great film has to have strong emotional content (2001 and L'Avventura are both great films and pretty emotionally restrained too) but probably more have this quality than not.

As for Sarris, I have great respect for him as a critic and of course he has his place in film history for being the person primarily responsible for bringing the auter theory to the US. I also disagree with some of his assessments, most notably The Bicycle Thief and Brokeback Mountain, both films that have been mischaracterized as "weepies", as if any film evoking strong feelings of sadness are immediately suspect as art. The social criticism inherent in both of these films (not to mention the sheer cinematic skill on display) seems to be lost on people like Sarris.

User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

#24 Post by zedz » Wed May 03, 2006 9:29 pm

grczire wrote:
HerrSchreck wrote:I know some have a problem with this film's tugging at the heartstrings, and naked pathos. I recall Antonioni's elucidation of the Problem Of The Bicycle.
I've never quite understood the terror that some critics hold for movies that evoke strong emotions in viewers. Perhaps the problem is that so many low-grade melodrama's have trafficked in the most obvious sorts of emotions that certain viewers are eternally wary of being sucked in by an unworthy work? Perhaps it's that critics would rather drift along on a sea of postmodern irony, frightened of being "had" by a moving, heartfelt work? I don't know, but the fact is that virtually all of my favorite films have some sort of emotional hold on me...whether Murnau's Sunrise, Vigo's L'Atalante, Kurosawa's Rashomon, Rossellini's Open City, Fellini's La Dolce Vita or De Sica's The Bicycle Thief. I'm not saying that a great film has to have strong emotional content (2001 and L'Avventura are both great films and pretty emotionally restrained too) but probably more have this quality than not.
This is getting into a different (but interesting) topic. My distrust of "emotional" criteria for judging a work is that in so many cases the capacity to evoke emotion is automatically assumed by many people to connote great artistry. Hence the commonplace praise of "it made me cry," "it was so moving." The reaction against that uncritical position sometimes risks writing off films simply because of their emotional directness.

From my observations, and in my personal experience, evoking an emotional reaction in an audience is a simple (and often simplistic) trick. And often it works in Pavlovian fashion despite the trashiness or shallowness of the surroundings. To my mind, evoking that kind of response has nothing to do with artistry - it's how the response is evoked, and what else is evoked at the same time, that counts.

I agree with you completely that most of the greatest works of cinema also have a powerful emotional effect, In many cases this happens in a surprising and mysterious fashion (e.g. Mirror, La jetee), or is one element in an extremely rich complex of responses (e.g. Yi Yi, Seven Samurai), and it's the entirety of our response to a work of art that is significant. And, of course, there are great works of cinema art that eschew emotionalism all together.

I think what distinguishes Bicycle Thieves from many other 'classics' is that its emotional appeal is very direct, and happens along the same lines as the emotional appeals of some awfully mediocre films. For instance, the cheapest kneejerk emotional manipulations often involve the violation of childhood innocence, the brute workings of fate on blameless individuals, the mistreatment of animals, an inexorable death foreseen, or the reversals of fortune and crushing of expectations that come with passing time. These tropes can evoke emotional reactions in the sappiest disease-of-the-week movie or the crappiest reality TV show, but that's no reason why they cannot also be the province of genuine art. Bicycle Thieves deals with the first two; The Wrong Man the second; Au hasard Balthazar the third (and look how rich and mysterious an emotional experience that is); Ikiru the fourth; and Twenty-four Eyes the last.

If "naked pathos" is all those films had to offer, they'd warrant the charges of shallow melodrama, but each one is a richer experience and should be judged on the basis of all of their elements, not simply written off because, at one level, they share certain characteristics with much less sophisticated works. (Personally, though, I prefer my pathos better dressed, and a lot of my favourite films disdain even indirect emotional engagement.) In the case of all of the above-mentioned films, I think a critique that focusses primarily on their very real emotional directness misses much of their actual quality.

User avatar
HerrSchreck
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am

#25 Post by HerrSchreck » Thu May 04, 2006 12:50 am

Well said.. not to repeat myself but I sincerely believe that it is simply not possible not to be moved by any film at least in some fashion-- even if your response be that of rampant disgust causing you to spasm forward in your seat to puke popcorn bonking forehead on seatback in fronta you.

I myself do not typically gravitate to straight melodrama-- indirect or even bizarre approaches very much appeal to me. Melodrama usually winds up being a rental, whereas more unconventional or abstract approaches find a place in my collection. But I cannot in front of myself condemn the act of eliciting a direct emotional response-- it just cannot hold up logically unless one is some relentless purist of the most explosively radical work of abstract art where no clear emotion is discernable... but whose to say deliberate obfuscation is, in and of itself, not a byproduct of a singular discernable emotion ?

Some melodrama, more direct vehicles of artistic expression like DeSica's BICYLCLE, works by Kurosawa, Ozu, Shakespeare, great classicists like DaVinci & Carravagio & Michaelangelo & Rembrandt, etc, move me tremendously. It is the bedrock style that all art is founded upon: expressing one's self. Abstractions came later, often as a reaction to market glut, a need to distinguish one's self in a feild driven by market forces... as well as absolute dissatisfaction with artistic means unsatisfactory for the expression of deeper, more shattering, complex, or inexplicable states of mind. But initially, it was the act of creation itself that was the abstraction... creating a third-party object outside of the creator's head-- film reels, canvass, sheet-music, etc. Instead of saying "I feel exuberant," a troglodyte spit into ground-up plants & painted on a cave wall as an expression. So this in itself is an abstraction. Yet we have so much art in the world nowadays--so-called art, that we've grown spoiled, bored, endlessly importuned, cycnical-- that achievements can be taken for granted.

My question is: am I being manipulated to some ridiculous, disingenuous degree? I love jazz, I love classical... but I also love the blues, I love punk rock, 50's doo-wop emotional masterpieces like Righteous Bros or Temptations or even Phil Specteresque rolling storms of emotion like the Ronettes. These are nuclear-manipualtive snak-packs of pure emotion. When sincere, heartfelt, and done with fine artistry, however, they work quite well.

DeSica's film is not gratuitious in my view. He never, ever condescends to his audience-- never patronizes thru his characters by rendering them into puppets. For example he does not turn the first thief (w the German cap) into a monstrous villain... in fact, ultimately, without saying "this young man has been provoked by circumstance of relentless poverty," DeSica without editorializing causes us to see the young man in a new light by the end of the film, by turning the boy's father, essentially, into him.

He doesn't turn the employment agency guy-- or even government, or capitalism itself-- into villains. There is no editorializing in this direction whatsoever. The man in the beginning, in fact, who is handing out the job assignments is actually quite sympathetic to the worker's plight and is seen later on in the socialist-type meeting in the carvernous hall where the musical is being rehearsed. The men who hire the protagonist are just ordinary guys. One must make up one's own mind (in fact someone quite close to me walked away from that film saying that the boy's father had essentially gotten what he deserved as he'd illustrated an essential badness through his treatment of his kid & willingness to steal in front of him!... phew, the heated argument that followed).

Without this fantastic objectivity viz the narrative, we would never in a thousand years be discussing this film right now here on this board. Wordlessly gets us to say to ourselves "this man's story is just the tip of the iceberg, not so bad in fact considering the plight of others," by the end without his ever saying it. Never once says "men are set against their brothers daily by the demeaning struggle to earn their daily bread in a system that exploits them all," yet by presenting the simplest narrative he gets us to say that and so much more to ourselves.

This is what makes the film such a powerful masterpiece... it says so much without opening it's mouth. It actually surprises me in this day & age with hindsight... having passed the period inthe 60's where neorealism had gone stale whereby the Italians rightfully felt a bit tired and needed a change.. it surprises me that we still discuss this amazingly simple, restrained film bursting with so much implication as though it were a blatant blaringpiece of manipulation simply because it Portrays Sadness. I find an admirable restraint, masterful discipline of keeping out of the narrative via keeping the characters genuine & true (i e not allowing them to become pawns on the director's chessboard, each merely speaking in the directors voice running down his own litany of social complaints, as was the Soviet style in addressing social issues). It's just like LETZE MANN & DEATH OF A SALESMAN in this respect.

In it's portrayal of non-manipulative pathos, as well as getting out a message or idea without ever once addressing or speaking that message or idea.. instead relying on the little moment to moment minutiae & details, reminds me to some mild degree of association (though the film styles are vastly different) of Ozu. Ozu was a man who lived in melodrama, played on the feelings of the audience without hesitation-- but never once had to elucidate his subtext to get it across. Ozu will unashamedly make you cry, but the tears are never gratuitously elicited because the characters are so genuine, and the scenes are never manipulative or untrue. He will get his point across by avoiding the substance of that point altogether, focusing rather on the day-today moment-to-moment little meaninglesses which comprise the real real-world about which he wishes to make his larger point. He also will get one to say to himself "the world is XYZ" or "life is XYZ" without ever saying it himself or once drawing attention to any of his own opinions or himself as director. One never senses he is putting his own words in people's mouth, or creating unrealistic characters as a lazy shortcut to make a point... the typical Speilbergian device of Good & Evil. There is none of this 21st century good & evil manipulative claptrap in BICYCLE. It as as simple and unassailable as an Aesop or H. Christian Anderson fable

Post Reply