All language subtitles for Interview - Luchino Visconti (1970)

CURATED BY ALBERTO LUNA

WITH THE COLLABORATION
OF ORESTE DEL BUONO

A film by Visconti,

even when controversial,

always makes
for a significant cultural event.

His latest film, The Damned,

has received, and continues to receive,
widespread acclaim

from the audience and the critics,
both in Italy and abroad.

In particular, in America,
right at this moment.

Luchino Visconti is here with us
this evening

specifically to discuss his latest work.

Our guests also include
the journalist and writer Giorgio Bocca,

who is also the author

of a recently published history of Italy
during the Fascist war.

This latest book of his
offers the framework

for the first question in our debate.

Bocca, do you believe
it would have been possible

to set Visconti's film in Italy
instead of Germany,

using an Italian family as protagonists
instead of a German one?

I think that, on a tragic level,
this was not possible for Visconti's film,

because no Italian family
could have played that type of role.

However, I think this kind of question

can be answered far better by Visconti,
who knows Italian families very well.

Indeed, when I was exiting the theater
in Milan where I watched his film,

I heard his brother say,

"The guy banging on the table three times
was either our grandfather or our uncle."

That's more than possible.

I agree with Bocca.

Indeed, I don't think an Italian family

could be as representative
as the family I invented.

Let's be clear. The family in the film
didn't actually exist.

It's a family that was reinvented
on the basis of existing models.

Therefore, it's not the Krupp family.
Nor is it the Thyssen family.

Nor is it another family
of large steel industrialists.

It is obviously an archetypal family
of large steel industrialists.

We know that in German history -
and not just that of Nazi Germany -

steelworks almost always played
a decisive role.

Because, alas, the production of cannons
in the history of unified Germany

started far earlier
than the advent of Nazism in Germany.

The main responsibility

can be traced back to these families
of cannon producers.

- Let's speak plainly.
- Yes.

Let's tell the truth.

Cannons always served the German State,

and when National Socialism rose to power,

they served Hitler and his ideologies.

There is another consideration to make,
a question I already answered

during the presentation of the film
in America, in the Bahamas.

I think it was a German journalist
who asked me

why I had set this story during Nazism
and not during Fascism in Italy.

I told him that, in my opinion,
such a tragic story

could only be set in Nazi Germany,
because Nazism was a terrible tragedy

while Fascism
was occasionally also a comedy.

Let's take some questions
from the audience.

Yes, I am very interested
in any questions from the audience.

My name is Corazziali. I am
an assistant at the University of Rome.

You were saying that a drama
such as that depicted in your film

could only be set in Nazi Germany

given its rawness and cruelty.

However, this link to Nazi Germany
causes many points to be overlooked.

If, dramatically speaking,
the film achieves its desired effect

in this clash for power,

in this interest of the state
towards this family of steel producers -

and vice versa -

the film misses, on the other hand,
the whole economic and social context

represented by Germany at that time.

While I watched the film in the theater,
I happened to overhear

people asking why the factory
wasn't simply nationalized.

This would have been an absurd question
for the time in which the film is set.

Yet these aspects aren't clear today,
so my criticism - if we can call it that -

doesn't concern
the dramatic nature of the film,

but its potential instructive purposes

or those relating to the divulgation
or propagation of an idea.

Yes, I admit your criticism
is very probably correct

and absolutely relevant.

However, in a cinematic work,

one must choose what to say
and what to omit.

Because a cinematic work is limited
in time, in duration and in length,

many inquiries
that would possibly be interesting

or would doubtlessly be enthralling

must be left aside.

One has to attempt to narrate a story

by following a specific initial guideline
and scheme.

The question about the nationalization
of that type of factory is also correct.

This did occur, but later on.

It was already a possibility
that was in the air.

At the time, Hitler certainly
couldn't have pulled it off.

But he may have done it
if he had won the war

and had been allowed to continue
to govern Germany.

- Fortunately, that didn't happen.
- Excuse me, Visconti.

But we could address the same topic
by saying that, for the entire film,

you avoid a direct relationship
between the family and the Nazis.

The character of the cousin
always acts as an intermediary.

- It's true.
- What is his function?

I will have to reveal a secret.

The character of Aschenbach,

the cousin who's already a Nazi higher-up,
while the others are not -

as they are still fumbling
in so-called ideological darkness

and have yet to take a clear position -

is, in a certain sense,
the actual source of inspiration.

If we want to find a specific example
that everyone is familiar with,

he represents the witches in Macbeth -

those who can almost foresee the future,
what is to come and destiny.

In a certain sense,
I wanted Aschenbach to be this element.

I wanted him
to somewhat foretell events,

whether political
or family-related, private ones.

For example,
he knows that the Reichstag will be burnt.

Today, we know
that he could easily have known this,

but, at the time, everyone believed
that it was a Communist conspiracy

involving a Dutch scapegoat.

Today, we know
that it was all set up by Göring.

Aschenbach knows.

At the very start of the film,

he signals to... Friedrich

the opportunities that will arise for him
during that peculiar night.

This is because Aschenbach's role is that
of Nazism in the midst of the family.

It would have been very hard to depict
wider and more complete relations

or to go more in depth on this topic.

I didn't want to make a political film.

I wanted to depict the story of a family,

the story of political responsibility.

Visconti, by focusing
on Aschenbach's role -

the cousin in the midst of the family -

has offered us a new key
to understanding the film.

Let us now listen to further opinions.

My name is Marchal. I am the director
of the cultural institute of Germany.

I would like to ask
a historically-orientated question.

The film starts with the birthday dinner
to celebrate the elderly Essenbeck

which coincides with the Reichstag fire.

Another pivotal moment is the massacre
of the SA forces in Bad Wiessee.

These are two very specific points
in the horrendous history of those years.

I was wondering why
the vast documentation we have -

in the form of history books -

is not used to greater effect
in narrating this story?

For example,
this massacre of the SA forces

did not actually occur in Bad Wiessee.

If I am not mistaken,
only two people were shot there -

Mr. Heines, leader of the Silesian SA,
and a friend of his.

Hitler went there in person
to collect Röhm

who, along with almost all
the other leaders of the SA,

was shot in Stadelheim in Munich.

Others were shot, assassinated, in Berlin

where Himmler and Göring -

as we can read in the books
by Shirer, Römer or Fest -

had already plotted the whole situation.

I seem to remember that we see
a sign for Bad Wiessee in the film,

plus we see the SA,
Röhm's face and the SS.

So I am wondering why the history of evil

shouldn't also require
the application of its own philology?

Yes, I understand.

Look, I can tell you - Naturally,
you may be better informed than I am,

but you're perfectly aware
that the well-known Bad Wiessee massacre...

If you go to Bad Wiessee now -

and I don't know when you last went
to the real Bad Wiessee,

as my Bad Wiessee is a reconstruction
made in Austria and isn't the real place -

you can't even go anywhere near the hotel,

the well-known Hanselbauer

which is now called Königin Elizabeth
or something similar.

It changed its name. It changed its face.

You can't even go anywhere near it
with photographers

because this complex is still alive -

in the owners and also in the citizens.

Indeed, I tried to photograph the hotel,

but I ended up looking
for a similar-looking hotel elsewhere.

This is because the well-known massacre
did occur in Bad Wiessee.

You know that Hitler announced
in the Reichstag,

or rather in the new Reichstag,

the massacre of 106 victims or so,
I recall.

Yes, excuse me. It's true.

Today, it is proven
that there were 1, 100 victims.

But not in Bad Wiessee.

Most of the victims
were killed in Bad Wiessee.

Many of the leaders were taken to Munich,
as you correctly noted,

and were killed the next day
or the next morning.

- Or a couple of days later.
- All the leaders.

But many of the forces
were killed in the hotel itself.

They were killed in those very rooms.

You may say that I exaggerated
and depicted a slaughter.

I did only the minimum I could,

because, at a certain point,
I did indeed intend to depict a slaughter.

In the end, I had to make a film.

I had to narrate certain facts
with my images

and transmit certain impressions.

At that moment, I needed to transmit
a somewhat shocking impression -

that one group of Germans
could kill other Germans in that way.

Excuse me, there is one certain fact.

Röhm himself was shot
in the prison of Stadelheim...

- He was taken away. Of course.
- ... at 6:00 p.m. on July 1, 1934.

But I never show -
When did I show him dead?

Did you see Röhm dead in my film? No.

We don't see him dead.
But we see his face, so in the massacre...

- We see it upon arrival.
- ... we can presume -

We can presume anything .They may have
caught him, killed him, taken him away.

I don't show what happened to him.

I was interested
in the killing of Konstantin

during the Night of the Long Knives.

I follow my own story. Do you understand?

The Night of the Long Knives is a pretext
for the insertion of my own story

into the history of Germany
at that period.

Do you understand what I mean?

If I had continued the film,
I would have had Martin fight the war.

What can I say? I would have placed one
of my characters in the midst of the war

if this could serve my narrative purpose.

- Do you understand?
- Yes, of course.

My name is Marotti. I teach
theater history at the University of Rome.

If I'm not mistaken,
a television or cinema critic -

who is not very bright
but is highly fashionable -

said that your film could have been made

by any director adapting a novel
for a TV series.

Behind this hardly valuable boutade,

I think we can find some element of truth.

The film has the structure of great novels
from the 19th century.

In my opinion, it has a structure
that we could call "popular."

Instead of TV adaptations of novels,

I think we should be talking about
the great novels of the 19th century

or even great popular theater
such as Shakespeare.

- You spoke of the witches from Macbeth.
- Sure. Elizabethan theater.

It also contains
the demons from Dostoyevsky.

- Or Balzac. Why not?
- Or Balzac.

If you mention him, I'm happy.
I certainly won't take offense.

No, of course. In my opinion, that was -

Between Balzac and Bolchi,
I'd choose the former.

Although I admire Bolchi.

So I think we can identify this truth -

that your film has the popular structure

of a great novel.

Naturally, I think this is
a conscious decision on your part.

Absolutely.

However, in my opinion, this downplays

the strictly historical
and political meaning of the film.

You rightly said you didn't want
to make a political film.

I think you made a tragedy.

Do you agree with this juxtaposition

between tragedy, tout court,
and political film?

We could call it a political tragedy
and choose to agree.

I refer to tragedies
in the sense of popular tragedies.

But I see Shakespeare's tragedies
as political too.

Their sense is now perceived
as less political.

Yes. I can't really see the difference
you are trying to highlight.

I can't really grasp

the difference between tragedy
and political tragedy.

I don't really understand.

All in all, if we exchanged the swastikas
for some other symbol

and modified a few external elements,

the tragedy would remain unaltered.

You depict Germany,
but it could have been Macbeth's Scotland.

It could have been ancient Rome
during any specific historical period.

In my opinion, the reference
to that particular historical period

is more intrinsic than extrinsic
in relation to the dramatic subject.

That's possible.

Was it a conscious decision?

No, it wasn't, since I'm noticing it
only now as you tell me.

It wasn't a conscious decision.

Let's hear some more questions
from the audience

or from some of the Cinema 70 writers
who are here in the studio.

In my opinion, an excessive insistence
on certain aspects -

on certain links between Nazism
and sexual perversion,

between Nazism and inevitable fate -

and a loss of focus on the connections
between Nazism

and the social and economic background

led to a depiction
of the German reality at the time

that could be somewhat misleading.

I think the film fails to focus enough
on the relationships and complicities

that existed between Nazism
and big business.

Krupp was not a victim of Adolf Hitler.
He was one of his accomplices.

- Of course.
- He was actually an instigator.

Yes. But I think
this comes across in the film.

Because even if there are
internal power struggles in the family,

there is also a complete commitment
to Nazi ideologies

through the aforementioned cousin,
who is the one concocting everything.

The meaning of the film is that,
at a certain point, this family -

which gives itself totally to Nazism
and becomes fully associated with it -

is completely swallowed up by Nazism.

It no longer exists as personal power
like it did before the advent of Hitler.

Before the advent of Hitler,
the major industrial families

from Essen and the surrounding area

were truly a power in themselves

and could even aim to reach
compromises with the state.

However, after Nazism,
they no longer reached any compromise.

They were fully swallowed up by Nazism.

We know this
thanks to the book by Manchester,

- which I read after making the film.
- Excuse me, Visconti -

For example, Alfred's story is clear.

Is the choice to never show
a factory worker in the film intentional?

They only appear in one moment
during the toast scene,

in front of the new machine gun.

But you often depict
the casting of the steel -

Those scenes also feature some workers
but almost shown as shadows.

Yes, it's an intentional choice.

What does it mean?

It means I only wanted to observe
and analyze that strata.

It's as if you want to cure a disease.

You only cure the sick part of the body.

The rest doesn't matter at that moment.

I wanted to observe that cancer in depth.

My name is Oreste Del Buono.
I'm part of the movie's audience.

In my opinion, we have so far
only spoken of the content of the film,

but we should also consider
another very important aspect.

The film has enjoyed
exceptional success with the public.

In other words, the film struck a chord
with the audience.

We have perhaps been discussing history
more than necessary.

- We were counting the number of victims.
- Yes, you're right.

But I think it would be interesting
to analyze the relationship

between this film
and your previous two works,

Sandra and The Stranger,

which were less successful
at the box office.

- Much less successful.
- Yes.

This film enjoyed a different relationship
with the audience,

and I'd like to know
what you think of this.

I am very pleased about the success
this film is enjoying with the public,

because I also had many doubts
while I was making it.

I asked myself whether a younger
generation would be totally indifferent

towards this problem
which mostly concerned our generation,

or at least mine.

I wondered if a younger audience would
feel completely detached and indifferent.

This wasn't the case.

I observed that younger people
received the message in full

and actually comprised
the most interested part of the public.

Naturally, I already had a certain amount
of information on this topic,

but I also observed
that the younger audience

manifested a particular interest
in that historical period.

I would never
have expected this to happen.

This is a source
of great satisfaction for me.

Excuse me for intervening. I think
we can also address another meaning.

A maestro must have the courage
to be himself.

With this film, you are returning
to your true form of expression.

Yes, I agree.

Trying to be two different things in life
is useless.

We must be what we are,
and this is your true narrative form.

My name is Gianna Radiconcini.

Returning to what Oreste Del Buono said,

this film was a major success
with the public,

and this is quite thought-provoking.

Because it was released at a time -
during at least the last couple of years -

characterized by films by young directors
who tried, at least in their intentions,

to present a new form of cinema -
films that were new in some ways.

In making a film like this now
rather than ten years ago -

a pure Visconti film
depicting the story of a family

engulfed in a major drama -

were you not perhaps taking
a polemical stand?

If there is any polemical stand,
it's not on my part

but on the part of the audience.

It's clearly on the part of the audience.

If the audience deserts the theaters
showing this new cinema -

or the tentative new cinema
you mentioned a few moments ago -

and instead floods the theaters
showing my film

or Fellini's latest film, for example,

this means the audience is polemical
towards young directors.

Perhaps younger directors have failed
to transmit what the audience

expects from young directors

as well as what I too expect
of young directors.

I must admit I am often disappointed

in receiving so little
from young directors.

We were once young too.
We weren't born old.

We were once young too,
and we too made avant garde cinema.

For example, we created neorealism.

That was not at all appreciated
by the Italian audience of the time.

The Italian public didn't come to watch
La terra trema,

Bicycle Thieves or Rome, Open City.

Maybe, Rome, Open City
attracted the audience for other reasons.

But the audience
didn't come to watch our films,

which were nonconformist
and new at that time.

Today, the audience doesn't watch
films by younger directors,

but, alas, neither do I.

This is a serious problem,
as I should be able to understand them.

Today, if young directors
were to narrate new things,

touch on arguments which concern them
and interest my generation too,

I would go to watch their films.

Instead, when I watch their films,
I am heavily disappointed.

Because formal acrobatics are not enough,

nor is a sort of reinvention

of the cinematic technique -
which cannot truly be reinvented -

given that cinema is always a reinvention.

Simply by using the camera,
one is inventing a form of writing.

You always say that we should name names.

Who are these young directors?

Okay, I will say their names.

- You mean the ones who are disappointing?
- Yes.

Yes, of course.

I'm referring above all to those
who had a strong debut film

and then disappointed
with their second and third.

We too started with a strong debut,

but then we made
an even better second one

or a third film
that was better than the second one.

On the other hand, alas -

Let's say their names:
Samperi, Bellocchio, Faenza and so on.

These are the young directors
who should be making

the most avant garde cinema in Italy.

But after a series of first attempts
that certainly had some quality to them,

they have failed miserably.

Why?

And why does the audience
not want to watch their films

and prefers to watch films by us oldies?

Of course, I am much older than Federico.

In the end, the public needs to watch
something, to participate in something.

It needs to be confronted with issues.

It wants to be called to address
and solve certain issues.

I ask the younger generation of directors,

of movie-makers both Italian and foreign,

to not limit themselves
to making a poor copy of Godard,

given that such a great artist
can only be copied poorly.

They should invent new styles instead
and, above all, have some ideas.

They should offer us content
that we are interested in

and that touches us, given that the issues
facing younger people are huge.

Never have the problems
of younger generations

been as fascinating as they are today.

My name is Alina Mita. I'm a filmgoer.

If you are so talented and capable,
why don't you reach out to younger people

with some sort of production
that involves them and their problems?

You see, madam, my task is to do
what I am capable of doing -

that which I can do and concerns me.

We just noted how I have made a film
that could have been made ten years ago,

and yet the audience comes to watch it,
and that includes younger moviegoers.

In the future, I could address a topic
that impacts younger people directly.

But would I do a good job? I don't know.

It should be young people
who address their own issues.

When I was young, I addressed my issues -
the issues of my generation,

which were very different from those
that young people face today.

Today, I would like to see young directors
addressing your issues.

I'd be the first to try to understand them
and become interested in them.

However, I don't think I am capable
of making something

that addresses today's younger people.

I could try,
but maybe it would be a mistake.

My name is Cristiano Violani.
I'm a student.

I wanted to reply to you.

With a certain complacency, you said,

"I didn't think that young people
would come to watch this film,

but they were actually interested,
although it's not a film for the young ."

I think there is a very specific reason

to be found in the more direct
and immediate topic of the film.

I mean Nazism.

We don't have a merely historical interest
in Nazism and Fascism.

It's an immediate interest,

as we are constantly confronted
and threatened by these ideologies.

Not by the old Fascists. Let's be clear.

When we demonstrate
and march alongside the working class,

attempting to establish
a working class-student front,

we are constantly reminded of 1920, 1922 -

Fascist gangs, Nazism and so on.

We are interested because we are still
confronted by Fascism. It's a reaction.

I made this film
also in the hope that young people

would tell me
what you are telling me right now,

that they would understand
the present danger and menace.

Nazism is still always within us.

- No, I disagree.
- I mean the danger of Fascism.

No. Nazism is within big bourgeoisie,
within capital.

By "us," I mean everyone.

We could speak
about this film for a long time.

I disagree. If we make
a historical analysis of this kind,

it's untrue that Fascism and Nazism
only belong to the bourgeoisie.

They were total crises
of civilization and culture.

Of course, it's much more complex.

However, I was interested and pleased
by your analysis as a young person,

as it indicates that interest
in the content of the film is alive

and you younger people feel it,
which was my goal.

As I said on many occasions -
interviews and press conferences -

I made this film also for younger people,
or above all for them,

so that they would know
what occurred back then

and would always be alert.

We have one more question.

I wanted to say that this is exactly
the main shortcoming.

The film fails to move close
to a popular form of culture

and remains stuck
in its classical, bourgeois culture.

This is its true shortcoming.

Although I find the film
somewhat difficult, heavy and laborious,

it is still a highly enjoyable,
very immediate film,

a far more popular work
than any other currently in theaters.

We should sum up this debate,

which has been animated
by a wide variety of interventions,

including opposing opinions
from different participants.

We must thank Visconti

for participating
and answering every question

in the hope that the participants
in the debate were satisfied.

I would propose that Bocca
draw the conclusions

of our meeting with the audience.

I think we can conclude
by referring to the latest exchanges.

The truth is that Visconti's greatness
is his sincerity as an artist,

and a sincere artist can be
neither a historian nor a politician.

He has said this many times.

During creation, an artist
has no precise plot or political scheme.

At the same time, it is right
for people to identify an ambiguity.

This is extra proof of sincerity.

Because when accused
of representing bourgeois culture -

This is the culture that we know.
It's the culture of this century.

We assume a critical position
towards this culture,

and this is our function.

I believe this is Visconti's function.

I would like to say
that I was happy to attend this debate,

to pay him a long-overdue homage.

And I consider him
a great man of culture

- and a great director.
- Thank you.

This is Ruggero Orlando from New York.

It's more than a success.

It's something hugely different
than what we usually define

as a cinematic success.

I am speaking
about Luchino Visconti's film,

which in Italy is known
as La caduta degli dei

and was released here
under the English title The Damned.

All we need to do is read
the New York Times, the Times Magazine,

the show business periodical Cue,

the highly intellectual periodical
The Saturday Review,

the New York Post.

The advertisements
and, above all, the reviews

as well as the constant flux of spectators
going to see the film

reveal that New York has found
in the latest work by Luchino Visconti

an extraordinary spectacle
which some love and some despise,

but is capable of provoking discussion
as lively and violent

as the violence and huge historical events
that inspired the film itself.

The title, La caduta degli dei, which
was translated in some parts of Europe

as Götterdämmerung -
The Twilight of the Gods -

like the opera by Wagner,

was found to be absolutely coherent
with the spirit of this film

by American critics.

The Palme d'Or
of the 1963 International Film Festival

crowns the best feature film

and is awarded unanimously

to the film made by Mr. Luchino Visconti,

The Leopard.

The film from Italy! Play the trumpets!

Luchino Visconti, who comes
from a noble and ancient Milanese family,

first approached cinema in 1936
as assistant director for Jean Renoir-

Hey! Supplies!

His directorial debut took place in 1942
with Obsession,

a nonconformist film
for Italian cinema of the time-

Alternating theatrical
and cinematic activities,

in 1948, Visconti was inspired
by I Malavoglia by Verga

to make La terra trema,

among the most significant
and important films of neorealism-

All the stuff is good.

You say it's useless to pay less, right?

You can talk all you like.
You won't string me up by the neck.

Hello, everyone!

Lorenzo, I'm here with the truck.

-Whenever you want to load it up -
-You can leave with your truck.

There's no use in you waiting.
We won't agree on this stuff.

Bellissima in 1951, Senso in 1953
and White Nights in 1957

are further important landmarks
for Visconti's artistic career

and for Italian cinema.

In 1960, the director returned
to the great cinematic novel

with Rocco and His Brothers.

After directing an episode
of Boccaccio '70, entitled Il lavoro,

in 1962 Visconti chose to adapt
the novel by Tomasi di Lampedusa,

The Leopard.

Sandra in 1965,

The Stranger,
from the novel by Camus in 1967,

are the films preceding his latest work,
Götterdämmerung,

The Damned,

where the director depicts the dissolution
of a powerful German family

and addresses the topic of Nazism,
its destructive force and inhuman aspects-