Talk:1900 (film)

1900 is not Legend of 1900
This movie, "1900" was shot in Italian, and is not the same movie as Legend of 1900, which was shot in English. About a year ago I got them confused and bought one for the other by mistake. Anyway, the Legend of 1900 deals with a young man who grows up on board an oceanliner playing a piano. But this one deals with two people in Italy, both born in the year 1900, one into the upperclass and the other into the lowerclass. These are two entirely different films. Although the names are similar, confusion should be guarded against.


 * This movie (1900 aka Novecento) was not shot in italian only. Some part are in italian, but the major part of this film is in english. DeNiro, Sterling Hayden and other didn't speak italian. After, it has been dubbed, completely in english for US audience and completely in italian for italians. Elias2 14:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

What about the Nine Million Dollar Budget?
The main article suggests an equivalent budget of nine million dollars, in Italian lire. Who were the producers of this film? Was there any funding at all by the Italian government to get this off the ground, or if it went overbudget, hem it in and wrap it up?

What is the original running time?
There appears to be significant differences in the reported running times. Under the film information, it is listed as 318 minutes, but under the trivia section, it is listed as 311.
 * Indeed. On top of that, Enzo Ungari's book "Scene madri di Bernardo Bertolucci" stated that its original running time was around 375 minutes (a version that was never released). Also, it seems that the longest European version released was 325 minutes. But the two parts may have been shown with or without credits at end (part 1) or beginning (part 2), and so this 325 minutes version may be the 318 minutes version with double credits. Who knows. Maybe an idea that people in the know edit the article instead of people who believe it's ok to assume. Wurdnurd (talk) 22:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Pedophile theme?
Can someone explain where pedophilia is depicted in this movie? Haiduc 11:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * In the first part, two young boys are examining each other's penises (one of them is erect). And later in the movie, a boy is raped (and killed) by a fascist. Code-Binaire 22:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The first example is not pedophilia: the boys are within five years of each other, and there is no contact or (overt) attraction between them&mdash;this sort of thing is common practice among young boys. The second might not be considered pedophilia, as the &ldquo;fascist&rdquo; was not necessarily attracted to children, but possibly domination (manifested in this case upon a child).  It is, however, undeniably child abuse (and serves as justification for the &ldquo;child abuse&rdquo;

I would agree with the above statementpedophilia may be a stretch. The character (Attila) whom raped/killed the boy was not targeting the boy to have sex with him but it was rather domination/retaliation issue. Films like The Boys Of St.Vincent and Voor een verloren soldaat (For a Lost Soldier) are prime examples of pedophilia subject matter as the character(s) are grooming/targeting children for sexual gratification towards their lust. witch is not the case in this film. Perhaps the child abuse would be a better label then the "Pedophilia and child sexual abuse" tag. Just my thoughts


 * You guys are right - there is no pedophilia but definiety is child sexual abuse. The article covers either or both. Tony 17:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)Tony

Why has nobody mentioned the scene in the first part where the landowner (Alfredo´s grandfather) takes a young girl away from the other peasants and asks her to sexually please him? Nothing really happens afterwards because the girl makes off with a witty comment about not being able to milk a bull and the old man seems to have some problems getting an erection (and soon after suicides), but I´d say this qualifies as pedophily. 79.4.187.17 (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

in that certain rural society, the girl, which isn't actually 7 or 8, was almost considered a woman, besides an initiation was not uncommon in that world.

Spoilers in the introduction
I think the introduction is too precise in its summary. The fact that the friends are separated by the fascist/communist conflict becomes apparent very late in the film (part II).

Now I've moved that section down to "plot summary", but the page is still in need of serious editing.

Italian motto
Does someone know the Italian motto on Berlinghieri's farm, it says something like "E laralto che traccia, ma e spada che defende", I didn't get it completely... What does it mean in English? 惑乱 分からん 00:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

"È l'aratro che traccia il solco ma è la spada che lo difende" Under Mussolini, the Fascists were fond of such slogans as "a plough makes a furrow but a sword defends it."

Look to: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Asso,_scritta_fascista.JPG

Animal Cruelty
Someone should address the fact that this movie, by contemporary standards, is in some segments as low as animal snuff filming for the purpose of cruelty and savagery alone. Numerous pigs and birds were slaughtered, on film, in this movie, in very cruel manners which are by contemporary and even current standards and laws at the time of filming illegal under the prevention of cruelty to animals acts. 211.30.71.59 01:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Killing a pig to eat it, this is not animal cruelty.--81.48.206.42 (talk) 19:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Novecento.jpg
Image:Novecento.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

One Man's "Trivia"
There is a simple solution to the challenge to the section entitled "Trivia"--rename the section. I agree with the anti-trivia feeling of Wik., but one man's trivia can be another woman's insight [note politically correct balance there, guys :)]. The detail about the oddly dressed character and his utterance about Verdi is, on some level, probably significant to the interpretation of the film, on a parallel with the gent killed by the discharge of a cannon in "Light in the Piazza."  If you told me that Nicole Kidman had a run in her stocking when filming the 17th scene of this movie--that would be trivia.

I also think it would benefit the guiding gurus of Wikipedia to sit down together and engage each other in a nice Socratic dialog regarding exactly what the dreaded "original research" is supposed to be and how it differs from unoriginal research. How does one do the latter, short of merely cutting and pasting? I'm a historian; I've done "research" all my life, and I honestly don't think this supposed distinction has really been exhaustively thought out. But I don't s'ppose this page is the best place to pursue that one.

Il Dom Quattrotildeni Terry J. Carter (talk) 18:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Without going into a large discussion about trivia sections in general, WP states that WP is for generally accepted truths, not for what a minority deems a better truth. Now the trivia section of _this_ article seems written by an individual with an opinion and one certain interpretation of the scene. I have a hard time accepting that anything in the film ever confirms that the boys were born in 1900. I think it's rather clear that people who have seen the film under its misleading title '1900', can tend to believe that the year 1900 was the start of the boys' lives and the story. I think several different interpretations of the scene are possible, and quickly pull just a few out my hat: 1) The jester has heard a rumour and thinks (maybe during 1900) that Verdi is dead. 2) Verdi is indeed dead, and the guy just recently heard about it. 3) The guy is rather drunk, and says words he remembers from half a year before... 4) It's January and Verdi is dead. The jester falls asleep. Camera moves and pans to house, in a filmatic way fast forwarding to mid summer that same year (or even another year). No clear aspects about the scene specifically confirm the harvest time. At any rate, the trivia section of the article seems premature. Wurdnurd (talk) 22:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've removed the section and written one that tries to describe the two interpretations I've encountered. Wurdnurd (talk) 10:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

propaganda?
I haven't seen this film yet, but seriously, what is the following [completely unsourced] paragraph doing in the article? (under "Plot", no less!)

Historically, apparently, in Sicily, the socialists (i.e. the peasants who for centuries had been systematically deprived of practically everything) came close to achieving political dominance through elections by the sheer force of their numbers; however these efforts were subverted by the usual techniques of murder, intimidation, economic extortion, and bribery – by "mafioso" (peasants turned thugs who accumulated wealth by serving the interests of the landowners). Mafioso who had been captured and imprisoned by the socialist for their crimes against the peasants, were released and given high level government positions – by the American occupation force, who were told that these imprisoned criminals were patriots serving democracy. "socialists" were branded as evil communists. Sicily was thus returned to its former system of dominance by elite landowners (and their mafioso enforcers).

Seems to me someone trying to shove their own ideological / political agenda down our throats. And why the hell drag the US into this, anyway? I can't even spot any characters listed that strike me as potentially American (and I will gladly be corrected). All the Americans involved seem to play Italians. Can someone explain to me why the above belongs in an encyclopædic article about this film? – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 19:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Olmo/Ulmo.
Are they interchangeable??? I thought the character's name was Ulmo??? Ulmo is the Italian word for "elm".User:JCHeverly 03:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC) No, The Italian word for elm is "Olmo". "Ulmus" is the Latin word for elm. Mariarosasi (talk) 11:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Flashback
The version I watched started with Liberation day and the peasants chasing Attila and Regina, and then jumps to the day of Olmo's and Alfredo's birth. However the plot section follows a linear order. Is the flashback not present in every version? --Error (talk) 23:42, 2 October 2013 (UTC)