source: Conversation Piece

Burt Lancaster was 61 at this time and 11 years earlier he had been in The Leopard. Luchino Visconti after a stroke in 1972 he had to direct by sitting in a wheelchair. It is great that both should have been so good and interesting character's in such very difficult situations. The property is having the ceiling falling in, where an atmosphere of incest fear pervades of brothers with and sister, fight and sex with each others and their mother who seems impossible. Although Lancaster also loves the life and it seems that he had been all his time as every thing he can control and then wonders if it is more interesting.

The film, in a nutshell: in a very theatrical set, setting and manner, an ancient intellectual gets truly obnoxious tenants. Unsurprisingly, it ends in tragedy. Admittedly I am not a big fan of Visconti but this seems to me his worst work among those I've seen. The dialogues are horrendously stifled and the delivery is artificial; everything and everyone is pompous and replete with self-importance. At the beginning it's quite amusing to see the old protagonist squirm at the mores of his vulgar tenants, but soon you start to lose patience: with them because they are a bunch of narcissistic idiots. With him, because he can't summon the courage of kicking them out and locking the door. When the theme starts to steer towards the political, it does so with the agility and subtlety of someone walking in a full body plaster cast. The problem is that you're supposed to understand why the professor needs his tenants, even if they end up pulverising him like a breath of air in a sarcophagus; but for this to happen, they would have to have at least some redeeming quality. They have none. They aren't interesting nor smart, and the figure of the German gigolo, which is meant to be tragical, it's just farcical, possibly also because of the very modest ability of his actor. You feel sorry for the poor professor, whose loneliness is merciless exploited, but ultimately he's two-dimensional a character like all the others in this remarkably bad film.

On a second viewing after a 35 year gap, I am convinced this is indeed a lovely work and a major work of Visconti. This is is also one of those rare films that an actor--Burt Lancaster--helped a director to make a great film. (One recalls Kirk Douglas prevailing on Stanley Kubrick to change the ending of Paths of Glory, only to make it a major work of cinema). Here, Burt Lancaster, staked his own money to complete the film as producers backed out noticing the director was ill and could die before the film was completed. One major fact that I did not realize was the title did not relate to conversations in the movie but was a well known (in the world of paintings) title for a series of paintings. That makes you to reassess the entire film. The film is a study of Italy through the eyes of three generations and their varied values on social interactions, art, politics, architectural design, music, et al. Once you evaluate the film on the basis of the painter's decision to change the very trees and objects in his painting compared to the photograph taken of the same scene, the movie's stature itself changes. The opening credits that begin with a blast followed by the electrocardiogram graph roll streaming out unattended is a Visconti masterstroke. That the film was made by the director sitting on a wheel chair is impressive. Is it a film about acquiring possessions or about understanding people? Both. One realizes the importance of understanding human behaviour of strangers, as one educated professor was withdrawing into solitude surrounded by books, works of art and great music. And his life changes for the richer experience in his sunset years. A great film indeed with superb performances from Burt Lancaster and Silvana Mangano. The cameos of Claudia Cardinale and Dominique Sanda do not contribute much except in providing insights into the character of the professor. Highly recommended for serious viewers of good quality cinema.

When the end credits rolled up all I could think of was Visconti trying to recreate the emotion and beauty of the last shot of his best film "The Leopard". You see Lancaster, sad and disconsolate - yet this time it didn't make me feel all that bothered. Lancaster plays here a very similar role; a sophisticated, old-fashioned and ageing Professor. He lives in great luxury in an exquisite villa in Rome. Everything seems perfect and serene until he is coaxed into renting an apartment to a decadent family. They behave terribly. They destroy a noble and humble abode into something crass and awfully tasteless. Yet, that is no surprise; the family comprises a sexually promiscuous daughter and her boyfriend, and a older woman who panders to a toy-boy played by Berger. They swear, play loud music, have no apparent sense of decency or morality. There is obviously a clash of belief systems here. Lancaster, an intellectual, well-educated and dour old man is confronted by the amoral youth of the 60s and 70s. I would normally love films like this. The 60s and 70s are periods that fascinate me greatly. I love Visconti as well, but somehow I get the feeling he was drying up creatively as I viewed this. The script is so heavy-handed sometimes, just the constant cliché that Berger plays is so drawn out and predictable - the angry Communist who just hates life and society, then the older gentleman with good manners who cannot comprehend the change around him and really does not want to understand it and finally the airy, vacuous daughter who seems completely bereft of depth or emotional sincerity. It all seems a little rushed and lacking in subtlety and the very theatrical performances from the mother and the daughter do not help whatsoever. Visconti was nearing the end of his life when he made this film, and in a way it shows - in two ways. Firstly, it seems that his zest was depleted, the screenplay and whole film are lacking in coherence and a clear structure, and secondly it appears that he was now a filmmaker in a period, a society, a culture that he did not like or comprehend. The decadence, the flamboyance and the hedonism of that time seemed to be overwhelming him; and in a sense like the framework of this film, he saw everything crumbling around him. For this alone, I could say at least watch it for the pretty pictures and a brief insight into the mind of a director who just felt lost and confused - with this film, society and with life itself.

An intelectual professor, played by Burt Lancaster, has his retired life interrupted by a wealthy arrogant family who moves upstairs in his Roman apartment. A male hustler, who fascinates and controls all the characters, shows a dated display of the disintegration of an Italian aristocracy, which Visconti knew so well.

Luchino Visconti co-wrote and also directed this from a wheel chair, after his first heart attack. The movie reminds me of playwright Henrik Ibsens style. Indeed this is very much like a play. All the action taking place in a retired Professors (Burt Lancaster) plush house in Rome. When a brash young group of mis-fits rent a room upstairs ..the Professors sedate life changes completely. The subtext is vital here, and more than one viewing is recommended. The professor has long given up on communication between humans, and the clash of the old and the new makes him even more certain. Its a brilliant piece of work--although the sound track which was added later is sometimes annoying. Lancaster is great --indeed all of the main players do a wonderful job. Visconti is credited for ushering in the neo-realist cinema. Later he departed from this style and became more melodramatic--with intense character development. This movie is from his later style.

This is Luchino Visconti's first feature film after his almost fatal heart attack. He was in a wheel chair and his left side was completely paralyzed. Enrico Medioli's original story about a man who's facing the end of his life, whether consciously or unconsciously seemed very close to the knuckle. I've read a lot of material and talked to people connected to the production before actually seeing the movie. Nothing had prepared me for what the film presents to the audience and I wondered if the film that ended up on the screen was the film that Visconti intended. Starting from the cast: the first rumors that Visconti was ready to go back to work, announced the film with Laurence Olivier and Audrey Hepburn in the roles that went to Burt Lancaster and Silvana Mangano. Anne Marie Philipe and Martin Donovan (the director) in the roles that went to Claudia Marsani and Stefano Patrizi. For what I gather, Olivier was sick at the time and couldn't accept. Audrey Hepburn turned it down, Donovan and Philipe found themselves outside the co-production regulations where two Italian nationals were required for those roles. Helmut Berger was the one who survived all the changes and I'm tempted to say: unfortunately! His character is the one who doesn't ring true. Clearly, Lancaster's character would have seen through Berger's. There is nothing in his character that made me believe Lancaster would feel attracted and fall for. Berger is a prissy, emotionally flabby, pretty boy. He is also unbelievable as Silvana Mangano's lover. The film as a whole takes place in Lancaster's dark and elegant apartment. Against his better judgment he rents the upper floor to this new, rich, beautiful and vulgar family. His world is going to start to collapse under the weight of the young invaders without soul. Solemmn, sad and a bit static the film however has a masterful center that makes it compelling viewing. Two brief cameos by Dominique Sanda as the mother and Claudia Cardinale as the dead wife bring some unexpected oomph to the grim proceedings. Even if I sound a bit down on the film I'm actually recommending it.

From disrespect without size, from total inelegance, apart from the unreasonable aggression of the gigolo, drug addict and leftist, and the jet set fell on the floor, that renovation in a (centenary) property that was extremely unpleasant... However, what follows is exquisite, a beautiful ménage à trois, poetic even, in the final rites a debate that is valid for every film, social criticism, social inequalities, and politics, questioning Franco's tyranny, a melancholic and exquisite outcome, adorable... "The character of the teacher played by Burt Lancaster is openly inspired by the figure of Mario Praz." "The role of Marquise Bianca Brumonti was initially proposed by the director to Audrey Hepburn, who refused to declare that she did not want to link her name to a murky and immoral role like that." "People get married to form a family, and divorce to get rid of it. - And get married again. - No! To be free."

After about two thirds of the movie, Burt Lancaster declares to have captured the most terrible tenants imaginable. How right he is. The behavior of countess Brumonti and her companions is without doubt impertinent and I found it hard throughout the movie to show any sympathy for them, maybe except for the daughter, who can partly be excused for still being a teenager and one with a certain charm on top of it. Nonetheless, the retired apartment owner, who lives a solitary life in an elegant palazzo in Rome just underneath the let apartment, feels in a way attracted to the countess' young German lover Konrad Huebel, who is also interested in art but in a rather superficial manner. Maybe he sees in him a character to be rescued or even the son, he has never had, but I found it hard to share such feelings to someone, who can be only described as selfish, manipulative and boorish. Anyhow, this does not mean that the movie does not have its strong sides. The basic conflict between the unsociability of the old professor and the continuous excitement of the much younger tenants comes across quite realistically. Likewise, the fact, that the professor after a while feels grateful for someone breaking into his self-imposed isolation, is in a way comprehensible even though he is confronted with a for him disconcerting lifestyle that is also open to promiscuity. There is also interesting discussions about society, especially about the bourgeoisie defending its privileges against a self-assured working class. The countess Brumonti maybe sums it up best with the ironic and rhetorical question: 'A left wing entrepreneur, does this really exist?'. It is quite evident, that the activity of the Red Brigades in the Italy of the 1970s had a certain influence on Mr. Visconti when directing this movie. Last not least I would like to mention the good acting performances. Especially the portrayal of an arrogant and selfish young man by Helmut Berger excels, although I am not sure, whether this was really far off from Mr. Berger's true personality ...