The genre of neorealism has always been considered to be somewhere between classical and modern cinema.
There is also a contentious issue about classical cinema: the dividing line between classical and modern cinema. I think there are two levels of analysis: the first is to discuss the relationship between image, narrative and representation from the film itself. Does the image have to pass through the narrative to reach the level of expression? If that's the case, then the movie is basically classical. If images, narratives, and representations form a relationship that triggers each other from different dimensions, for example, images do not pass through narrative, but sublime themselves to the representation of the film, or form a complex knot with the narrative to represent representations, which in a certain sense breaks through. The dimension of classical film enters the field of modern film.
Rome, the Undefended City cannot in principle be considered such a film, but it heralds the beginning of a new era in a stylistic way in terms of imagery.
What has Rossellini been saying about neorealism? The first point is to try to restore people to their original state, and the second point is to leave the rigid method of the studio and keep creating. He left the studio and studio, and found the structure of his work in interviews on the streets, but his work was very melodramatic when it was finished.
Someone once concluded that what neorealist films want to show is the existence itself that is constantly forming and continuing to form under various pressures. Specific to each director and filmmaker, there are many differences in cognition, and the Italian neorealism genre is splendid. We often describe history in a unified way, but the beauty of neorealist films is precisely that they are actually very complex.
View more about Rome, Open City reviews
