The list of miracles performed by Jesus Christ differs among the four evangelists. There is only one miracle mentioned in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John: the saturation of a multitude of people with five loaves. The same miracle is made by Toto – the main character of the film Vittorio de Siki “Miracle in Milan”.
Toto, found in cabbage by an elderly "mother" and sent to a shelter after her death; Toto, who found his new family in a colony of beggars and lives in an abandoned wasteland; Toto, who received a dove as a gift from his mother, helping him to work miracles, is a hero performed by Francesco Golisano (notably a non-professional actor) multifaceted and even contradictory. He is either a blessed saint who preaches the Christian postulate of the brotherhood of all people, or an urban fool who does not understand that reality is coarser and ugly than his idea of it.
Unlike the director’s other films, which tell about the fate of post-war Italy, “Miracle in Milan” looks surprisingly magical: neorealism is “covered” with fabulousness. Of course, the streets of dilapidated Milan and the crowds of beggars convey the atmosphere of the post-war country, but this is not the atmosphere of hopelessness, cruelty and doom that exists, for example, in “Bike Thieves” and “Chochar”. In “Miracle in Milan” there is a place for magic – Toto’s mother passes a dove from heaven to her son, who grants wishes.
Toto, a righteous and blameless young man, was chosen by the higher powers as the protector of the poor, but did he cope with this task? Probably not. Distraught by sudden wealth, the beggars demand more from Toto, and he cannot refuse them. Like Christ, Toto feeds the poor with food, but they are not prepared. But why then do these greedy, angry, greedy and selfish people get a pass to the wonderful “kingdom”? Because they are led by Toto - Italian blissful in worn clothes. The same type will later appear in Italian cinema: one recent example is the ageless Lazarus from the film “Happy Lazarus” by Aliche Rorvacher.
The story “Miracle in Milan” organically woven not only biblical allusions, but also references to European culture – this is the myth of Pygmalion and Galatea (a beggar who loved the statue of a ballerina), and “Gifts of the Magi” O. Henry (lovers who asked Toto to change the color of their skin to be together). All this expands the local Milanese history to the universal level.
The book of Genesis says that Noah released a dove from the ark to find the earth during the Flood, arranged by God for human sins. The same story, however, in a somewhat distorted form, is repeated in the film. It is as if the higher powers are really punishing people who have allowed war, poverty and humiliation of some people by others, and Toto Noi leads the poor to where the dove came from – “to a kingdom where “Good day!” really means good day.”
The film “Miracle in Milan” by Vittorio De Siki and Cesare Zawattini was released in 1951. He received the “Golden Palm” and was appreciated by the jury. Let’s see why this happened.
The film belongs to the post-war period of neorealism, and indeed, it contains its bright features: the main characters are representatives of the lower class, the film involves many non-professional actors. But something confuses us: it is unrealistic work, miracles and fairy tale.
The story begins with an extraordinary event: a child, as in some children's story (where do children come from?) is found in cabbage. And then everything is quite real – Toto’s “mother” dies, he gets into an orphanage and comes out of there unprepared for a cruel life. An angel boy who greets everyone in a row and gives his briefcase to a vagabond who doesn’t need it.
Among the poor and dissatisfied with the lives of people struggling for a “place in the sun”, the protagonist tries to create a world free of evil. He builds a small city with his own houses, streets, cinema and even his own charlatan, telling others for money that their lives will definitely improve.
At first, the viewer feels sorry for these beggars who do not have a roof over their heads, but now we only sarcastically grin at the kindness and naivety of the protagonist. When rich Mobby appears in the film, Toto says with a smile: “All people are the same, all have five fingers.” But between the rich and the poor there is another common feature for all people – greed.
The film tells us about social inequality, the opposition of the ideology of socialism (from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs) and capitalism (the rich one who knows how to earn money). The capitalist, as always, is shown to be cruel and inhuman, willing to do anything for money. However, the beggars behave the same way: they are ready to snatch the dove from the hands of the “holy” Toto to satisfy all his desires – a million million dollars, a fur coat, a closet, a sofa and other useless things that do not even fit into their “home”. For this, God punishes them, and we do not pity either Toto or the beggars, again abandoned to their fate. Human greed has no limits, regardless of the position in society: we learned this in The Tale of the Fisherman and the Fish. The gift that heaven gave to these people becomes their punishment, because it reveals the dirtiest traits in them.
Among this “dirty” ideal still remains the main character. Yes, he wants to help everyone, but he also torments the dove with thousands of desires, creates a struggle between the poor for these desires, and in a difficult situation again hopes for a miracle.
One thought haunts me after watching this movie: If you want to live well, expect a miracle. God will always help the poor. Fairy tale, no other way. And all this is mixed with harsh realism, when boiled chicken is a luxury item, and the poor man thinks of suicide in order to somehow escape from such a life. And for this, I think, the film received the “Golden Palm”: for a kind of oxymoron, a mixture of what can not be mixed.
What I liked about the film was the acting and non-acting. Everything looked so organic that I believed every poor man, and Francesco Golisano played the role of a good urban fool. Sometimes – exaggeration of emotions (when Toto punished the police for trying to expel the beggars), sometimes – pure satire (“traitor” among the beggars, who gave them to a rich man who tried to watch the sunset with his chair), and sometimes – a grin at the poor man who tore up boiled chicken.
Alessandro Cicognyni wrote the main musical theme that sounded throughout the film. And even here there was an irony: the poor, who were enough “a pair of shoes” were not enough.
The temporality of the film changed throughout time: at first, the action was slow, unclear, but by the end, everything began to happen much faster. This can be said by changing the length of the frame.
Overall, I liked the film, but it seemed too unrealistic (though what to expect from the fairy tale?). Perhaps at that time he could give people hope that everything would get better, but alas, this is not the case in life. A saint with a magic dove will not come down and fulfill all our desires – for life to change, you need to work hard on it and use the opportunities it gives correctly.
To create a miracle, de Sica returned to the origins of cinema - tricks and tricks. Their abundance and originality are amazing. This may even be suspected of an ideological sell-off of neorealism, because the spectacle takes precedence over a direct and serious view of the problem. There was a time when I thought neorealism was social magic. At that time, I had not seen a single film of this direction, but I connected it with the work of Federico Fellini, who turned out to be one of the main wizards of world cinema. If I had started with Miracle in Milan, I would have lived with this illusion for some time. De Sica does humorous tricks at every step, in some ways paying tribute to Chaplin and at the same time showing identity and infectious vitality. My crooked notion of neorealism was soon corrected by the strong hands of Zampano (Felini’s “Road”). Buñuel's "forgotten" drove me into despair. And even later, I felt the acute social and political potential of neorealism through films like Rome Open City and Earth Trembling. Now I was looking both ways and expecting heavy stories with disappointing endings.
The baby found in cabbage is not a hijacked bike or a poor child whose father is struggling to survive his family. The main character named Toto is a child of heaven, personifying angelic goodness. There seems to be an alliance between the moral utopia of Christianity (be like children, “for such is the kingdom of heaven”) and a utopia in the spirit of communism, where one cannot do one good. But if Toto is an agent of heaven, there is no left-winger in this ironic story. The bourgeoisie and the cunning capitalist are in their places. De Sica at one time probably listened to criticism that the film turned out too spectacular, and therefore convenient. Consequently, the director cast a fabulous spell on the intransigence of neorealism. In the end, the poor generally fly away on broomsticks in an incomprehensible direction. Is it possible to change the world in this way?
The land of abundance, the land of the poor
"Miracle in Milan" captured post-war Italy at the start of a new decade that spawned an economic miracle. De Sica could not have known for sure what a consumer society would look like, but he conveyed the sentiment precisely. A dove who can grant any wish. A fur coat, a sewing machine, a radio, a dress, a coat, a suit, a closet, shoes - this is the list of wishes and desires voiced by the poor in the film. This is a real catalog of goods, the first sprouts of normal life under capitalism. It is more likely that a queue will line up to the social ladder, commodity fetishism will grow stronger and solvency will grow, than someone will believe in fantastic communism. The poor build barricades shoulder to shoulder and give battle to the forces that have enslaved them, not knowing that they are not averse to enslaving someone. And here the poor dove gets - the poor and the disadvantaged exploit the miracle.
The caricature of poverty and wealth prevails over the controversy. The entrepreneurial ingenuity of the poor is ironic when they monetize the “session of the sun” by demanding one lira for the spectacle. In general, "place in the sun" occupies an important place in the film. For example, when the poor accumulate on one piece of wasteland, then on another, depending on where the sun shines. Or Giuseppe the Hundred Lire, an ordinary crook selling a glimpse of human dignity to every poor scoundrel ready to hear the delightful truth about himself. Now the poor man is warming the poor man. We see the same operational mechanisms, as if behind every joke and every gag there is a human failure. It's a funny admission that social injustice is a monstrous misunderstanding, but there's nothing we can do about it.
There is simple and unpretentious as a category. It is obligingly hidden from human views, storming the bastions of the complexities of a given life, and does not show itself, wanting the upright character to suddenly see and find a solution to his riddles.
If you try to describe it in everyday language, you get the word “miracle”.
It is difficult to rank the direction through which you can admire this tape. Or is it the miracle itself, infinitely naive, even to some extent stupid, accidentally appeared and unsupported by anything, absolutely simple. Whether this is another work of de Siki and Zawattini, who invested their soul primarily in the character and kindness of a person.
Imagine the same virtue as Toto, a smiling angel who was sent down for the sake of ordinary people, uniting them, giving them the direction of their step, and showing that any of their physical defects are not an exclusive property for the fall of the desire for life. It is likely that by burdening him with a heavy burden of a purely positive nature, there was a danger of “inflection” and changing the polarization of the relationship, but by providing this with a simple miracle – and now he can again justify himself. At the same time, he will never think about himself - he is a real magician, ready to listen to even the most greedy desires of the bottom.
To some extent, this film, as a representative of Italian neorealism, already in its final wave, using not only American technology, but also an American entertainment product, began to acquire fantasy features, as a new round of philosophy and softening the display of working class reality. Having stripped it and exposed it in its original origin, using real people as the basis of stage composition, neorealism only “demonstrated” and “failed”. “Miracle in Milan” began to “solve”, to give hope and to invite the lower classes to use cloudless faith, showing that only on their own you can solve all the crossroads of life. Even though difficult times, as usual, tormented the creators with their political convictions, the adventures of a kind grown-up child named Toto outside of time can give the audience a sense of miracle.
The film by Vittorio de Sica “Miracle in Naples”, based on the story by Cesare Zawattini “Good Toto”.
Not a fairy tale for adults, or a parable, about a poor but kind man, filmed in the best traditions of neorealism.
Vittorio de Sica, a famous Italian director, began with theatrical productions, a little later began to act in small roles in films, and a little later he began to make films himself. For a long time, Vittorio de Siki’s favorite actress was Sophia Loren, whose husband financed his films.
Cesare Zawattini is an Italian writer, screenwriter and director. For a long time working with Vittorio de Sica, and as well as Vittorio de Sica began his career with the theater, then published his literary magazines, was the director of the publishing house, wrote for cinema.
The film takes place immediately after World War II in the director’s hometown, Naples. As it should be in the fairy tale, an elderly woman of a child found on a cabbage bed. She named him Toto and soon died. And Toto was sent to an orphanage by the neighbors. There Toto grew up, and after leaving the orphanage he was in a colony of beggars.
And with the arrival of Toto (Francesco Golisano) in the colony, the way of life of the beggars changes a little for the better. Fun and kind by nature, he knows how to infect with a good mood everyone with whom his life brings. That's only when on the territory of the colony beggars find, / on their own head / deposits of oil, local fat sums begin to claim the territory. At a critical moment, the fairy gives Toto a magic pigeon that grants any desire. However, the magic does not last long, the pigeon is kidnapped by unknown people.
What's next? The same as always and everywhere. Money that makes money, and people who live by the laws of the market economy, and somewhere aside those who are superfluous on this holiday of life, whose presence on earth is undesirable. On a land rich in expensive minerals.
And really, what is a man when we talk about such high matter, millions. A living man.
Man is on this side of the distribution of life’s benefits. Being on the other side, of course, he would not be a mistake, but so (fate, as they say, did not liken). But we’re not going to judge that this time. Let’s learn to love, neorealism.
Toto tries to fulfill all the wishes of the poor, to make everyone happy. But what are the desires of the beggars, for example, an expensive crystal chandelier in a hut of cardboard, or an expensive evening dress in impenetrable mud, what is a colony of beggars without dirt, or a million and another million, so that it was more than the neighbor’s. Human happiness in everyone has its exceptional shape, either in the material or temporal plane. Eka screwed up, didn't he? I will say simply, to each his own, /a to whom, even strangers b not a little, for the fullness of happiness /.
It’s like going to the moon, just looking. Have you ever dreamed of going to the moon, too? And Toto dreams of a great and pure love, the one that no money can buy. You dreamed. Are you reading these lines about great and pure love? If you dream, then this is a film for you, and if you dream, then this is a film about you.
Sit down and have a nice look.
How accurate were de Sica and Zavantini (as well as several other co-writers) in writing the script. They essentially fully confirmed Sartre’s thinking about subjective existentialism by simply visualizing it. Against the background of a very simple story, we are shown a deep philosophical reflection on satisfaction, with all the social implications that beg. Adding the style of Capra to the usual routine of Italian neorealism, they got a completely unexpected extravaganza. Such an ordinary movie about the poor suddenly turned into a good fairy tale. Just imagine - the poor are evicted from their town, and here the fairy gives the main character - a magic pigeon. All the problems will now be solved. Any wish can be granted. Our hero is kind and happy to help all his friends. But pay attention to your wishes. Someone wants to become taller, someone richer, someone to change the color of the skin, someone boots. Systemically, despite the miraculous intervention, everyone remains poor. It would have ended with a tragic squirm, but it wasn't. The scene on Cathedral Square shows that in the literal sense of the word the poor are destined for the Kingdom of Heaven. What the scale of the plan, what the courage of the embodiment! The flight of a boy on a bicycle with an alien against the background of the moon from the famous Spielberg film will seem only a pathetic imitation. And what a nervous and spectacular run with a dove after a retreating hero. Illusionism, and only.
However, the conclusion here is one: a person is responsible for his own life and bears only the full responsibility for everything that happens in it. Otherwise, my dear ones, wait for the doves and the wonderful fairies. I think de Sica made a movie about that. And, by the way, it was probably very economical. One big final scene in downtown Milan is balanced by the dull landscapes of a poverty camp resembling a tent town. A wonderful film that makes you think about the most acute social problems of our time, as well as enjoy a sweet and direct fairy tale story. Bravo! By the way, the very first scene seemed to me incredibly touching and perfect: a smiling woman finds a baby in cabbage. There is something in the image of a smiling baby that relates us to the values of the Sermon on the Mount.
9 out of 10