User reviews

"Uccellacci e Uccellini" is probably the best chance to get acquainted with Pasolini's political thoughts pre-1968 other than reading him. It's a candid, allegoric and provocative attempt to express his ideas about a very specific epoch in Italian history, after the death of left-wing political "father" Palmiro Togliatti in 1964 (whose funeral is one of the great scenes of "Uccellacci") and the "death" of Neo-Realism. It also reflects the intense differences between social classes, intellectual trends and political forces that would lead to the acts of "contestazione generale" in the late 1960s.

WIth "Uccellacci", we can learn some of Pasolini's thoughts on Marxism, Fascism, religion, the Catholic church, the role of intellectuals, the bourgeoisie, political parties, the dire conditions of the campesinato and the borgate (slums), poverty, greed, famine, cultural and social apartheid -- you name it. That's the main problem with this passionately personal and visually stunning walking-road-movie: too many targets, too little time to hit them all in the bull's eye.

A natural follow-up to his documentary "Comizi d'Amore" (1965) -- in which he traveled all over Italy interviewing people about their thoughts on love and sex -- Pasolini shows in "Uccellacci e Uccellini" the unofficial apartheid in Italy, a basically "unmelting" pot of dozens of different ethnic, linguistic and cultural backgrounds "artificially" unified in mid-19th century but still plagued by social/economical/cultural chasm. And he also denounces the sterility of the discourse of the "official-left" intelligentsia, which he clearly despised (and which heavily attacked him on many issues and occasions).

In the Italy of the 1960s, the Left was concerned with the struggle of workers, intellectuals and students against the establishment; the contadini (peasants) weren't even properly considered as a political force -- they were the symbol of archaic, pre-boom Italy. Pasolini was the main voice to take the side of the peasants; against famine, sophism falls flat, as the intellectual crow will shockingly discover at the end of "Uccellacci". The political discourse can no longer be theoretical; it has to be urgent, pragmatic, directed towards action. Godard, Bertolucci, Alea, Ruy Guerra, Resnais and others also approached the theme at the time; but, unlike the majority of intellectual-filmmakers of the 60s, Pasolini ACTUALLY had had a rural (though highly literate) background.

Wildly (in)famous at the time as poet/filmmaker/writer/anti-Vatican political activist (but, contrary to a false general belief, he was never a gay militant, though he certainly wasn't in the closet), Pasolini picks up the journey into the "Italia profonda" from Visconti's "Ossessione" and "La Terra Trema" to most of Rossellini and leaves his own distinctive signature in the very complex era of the economic boom.

Pasolini smartly uses the parable genre with much comic relief so he can talk about serious political issues in a "commercial" film, relying heavily on veteran champion Totò's immense talent, charisma and experience. In one of his last films, Totò is joined by 16 year-old newcomer Ninetto Davoli, here in a completely relaxed, natural performance; they make a perfect duo. The cinematography by master Tonino delli Colli features jaw- dropping locations and compositions. The music by Ennio Morricone is memorable, his very personal touch instantly recognizable; and there are funny sung (!) opening credits. There are two minor letdowns that prevent total audience adhesion: 1) it lacks a brighter tempo, the rhythm falters at times; 2) the episodes are rather loosely linked 3) there are episodes which might be shorter (the wonderful but overlong St. Francis story) and others might be longer (the visit to the rich landowner's house).

"Uccellacci e Uccellinni" is a very personal Pasolini ("my favorite" he said in a 1969 interview) and one of his few films not based on literature classics, mythology or the Bible. It's mandatory for all interested in Pasolini's work and/or the political issues of the 1960s, as well as for fans of the unforgettable, one and only Totò.

A picaresque approach by a master of the Italian cinema resulted in this personal and different film by Pier Paolo Pasolini. The director, who wrote and produced this picture, was in great form in this story that is more like a fable, deliciously acted by Toto and Ninetto Davoli, one of the best pairings in Pasolini's movies.

The film is, in many aspects, a road movie. From the beginning, we watch as Toto and Ninetto take to the road in their trip to nowhere, it seems, but a trip which permits Pasolini examine some of the things that obsessed him, mainly his dislike for organized religion, as he perceived it in his country, as it clashed with reality. He takes the life of Saint Francis and the story about his relationship with the birds as the main topic for the movie.

It's hard to add anything else to what already has been said by the valuable contributions to IMDb. This film is one of the most inspired by the director. In it, he doesn't pound on the viewer's head those things that were dear to him. In fact, the film has a whimsical touch as we follow the two travelers, Toto and Ninetto, through rural Italy as a raven keeps telling them stories.

Toto is perfect as the older man who is living in his own world and doesn't see the changes around him. Ninetto Davoli gives a great performance as the happy go lucky son. Their surname, is Innocenti, or Innocent, which in a way, fits their characters rather well.

The black and white cinematography by Mario Bernardo and Tonino Delli Colli works wonders for the film. Ennio Morricone's musical score also enhances all that one sees on the screen. This is a light Passolini, but one that delves deep into the subjects that were so dear to the director's heart.

One delightful saturday afternoon spent with this movie at the portuguese Cinema Museum. This picture can be identified as "another Pasolini movie" or as well as "another Toto movie", and both reasons are more than enough to make anyone curious to see it. Pasolini gives us a pleasant Toto comedie, filled with intelectual and political information, pretty well disguised as a fable about birds and priests. After this, I am convinced that a title with the name PASOLINI on it doesn't necessarily have to be a though, brutal, sexual, 3-hour-lengthed filmic exercise. It can be a simple weekend afternoon movie to watch with your parents or your kids. On the other hand, a simple comedy with one of its masters ("toto") doesnt necessarily have to be shallow and basic. This movie is worth a "jump like a sparrow" into a theatre, whenever you have a re-run around.

"Where goes humanity?" - "I don't know!" Maybe it's a comedy, but I don't think anyone is 100% sure what kind of a film this really is. It's not really comedic, because behind all those absurdities and silliness there lies a seriously political and religious concern, a bittersweet desire and infallible disappointment. Maybe we should take the film as what it is, as one-of-a-kind, a cinematic high jump which gives rise to all sorts of speculation and conjectures without knowing where to start and where it ends.

Not only the viewer is left unsure, the protagonists are, too. They embody the condition of the film's unsureness perfectly, as well as the nature of one of the most unique works of Italian cinema, which is also the most variant and formally abstract film project of Pasolini: A weird story, a picaresque tale which mixes metaphors and cinematic references (from Keaton's statics to Chaplin's poesy of the dusty road to Fellini's clowns to Rossellini's monks); a philosophic apology which depicts the end of ideologies, the crisis of Marxism on the background of the clash of rulers and subjects (hawks and sparrows) and the unfortunate encounter of those who have the blessing of knowledge (the wise raven) and those who outlive themselves without the awareness of being part of this world: Totò and Ninetto, father and son. Both are walking the eternal road of a universe which is merciless, discuss pretentious things and express themselves with the help of their basic instincts: physical needs, but also the hate towards inferiors and subservience to superiors. On their way, they encounter the mystery of life and death (birth of a child, a family that kills themselves with gas, a funeral), as well as the mortal fear of those who starve. Until the raven appears, decides to go along with them and overwhelms them with needless wisdoms.

It's great to see Totò in here, a masterful actor who often was criminally misused in abysmal Italian entertainment movies and shows here the wide range of his talent. The interaction with the young, intuitive Ninetto Davoli is probably the biggest joy in this film.

Pier Paolo Pasolini's 'The Hawks and the Sparrows' (the Italian title is 'Uccellacci e uccellini') is a film that is difficult to decipher. In 1966 the Italian director had not yet produced his most controversial works, but this film already shows him as a radical creator, both in terms of the load of ideas he tries to convey in less than the 90 minutes that the film lasts and by the metaphorical way in which he chooses to do it. We are dealing with a parabola allegory including many interesting and innovative cinematic elements, some of them quite funny, but it is not an entertainment film. The problem with this film as with others of Pasolini is that much of the ideological wars that the Italian director and intellectual waged in his time have since been either won or forgotten by history. The result is that looking at this film today, viewers judge it by its cinematic and entertaining qualities, ie exactly those components that for Pasolini were just tools to transmit ideas from the creator of films to his viewers.

The story takes place on an endless road. The road of life? The path that Charlie Chaplin takes at the end of his films? The two characters could actually be the Vagabond and the kid who accompanies Charlot, as seen many years later. Here they are father and son, and on their way they meet landscapes and people who belong to the immediate reality or to pure fantasy. Neo-realism mixes in the world of Pasolini's film with fantasy. People live their lives on the margins of society, women have nothing to put in the pot to feed their families, tenants are threatened with eviction from their homes because they have not paid their rents, prostitutes work in the cornfield. The two heroes, father and son, eternal vagabonds, meet a talking raven who declaims the ideology of the left and travel back in time seven centuries to convert to Catholicism the birds (the hawks and the sparrows in the title) at the urging of St. Francis. Their universe is cruel, an era is coming to an end (symbolised by the funeral of a communist leader), and hawks eat sparrows despite all the efforts of Catholicism. The world is incoherent and ideologies are dying.

The message of the film also translates into an unconventional demonstrative cinematic treatment, rejecting canons, narrative rules, or aesthetics. The film begins with a generic sung to the music of Ennio Morricone. The following scenes seem to be under the influence of neo-realism, even when a group of young people improvise a dance number that would also find its place in the films of Jacques Demy, Pasolini's French contemporary. What follows, however, belongs rather to surrealism combined with the absurd. The acting performances are extraordinary. The only professional actor is Totò, a famous comedian and clown, in one of the great roles of his career. The young Ninetto Davoli, a discovery of Pasolini, at his second film, was quite anonymous and uncorrupted by acting schools to fit perfectly into the style of the film. The rest of the cast is made up of non-professionals and they are the ones who give authenticity to this mixture of social and religious criticism imbued with a dreamlike nihilism that only Pasolini was capable of. 'The Hawks and the Sparrows' is an atypical film even for Pasolini's creation, unequal, but which offers many moments of cinematic pleasure.

How I love a film that taps into the absurd while staying true to the symbolism, and in the process mocking it and then creating symbolism again. It's a very tricky thing- Bunuel was one of the masters at it- and Pier Paolo Pasolini, in one of his rare outright comedies, does just that. The Hawks and the Sparrows is simple enough to explain, in its central conceit: an older man (Toto) and a younger man (Ninetto) are walking along on some not-totally-clear journey (Toto might have some debts to fix or something, and he has apparently eighteen children), and they meet a talking crow, who talks and talks a lot. Then they get into some strange happenings, all comical. But it's the kind of comedy then that Pasolini uses like some deranged poetic waxing on about silent comedy and theories on God and faith and love and politics and, uh, stomach cramps I guess. It's completely off the wall, at times like a roadrunner cartoon (or, for that matter, the best Buster Keaton), and it's told with a dedication to the comic situation. It's masterful.

At times it doesn't seem that way though. It could, in less concerted hands, be more scatter-shot, with some scenes working better than others, and with the one sure bet being the crow (voiced by a great Francesco Leonetti). But from the start, Paoslini is completely confident with the material, from the opening titles that are sung (heh), with the throw-away scene with the kids dancing at the restaurant (with an amazing Ennio Morricone rock song that pops in and out of the film), to the sudden inter-titles ala Monty Python ("the crow is a "left-wing intellectual"), and then onward with the little stories within the framework of the 'road movie'. The biggest chunk Pasolini shows us is the story of two monks- also played by Toto and Davoli- who are instructed by their head monk to talk to the hawks and sparrows and teach them about God. And they do, in bird speak (which is also subtitled in case it's needed), and then go through an allegorical tale of the ins and outs of faith.

It takes some wicked subversion to make these scenes work, but they work hilariously, to the point where I laughed almost every minute of the sequence (as well as with other ones, the exception being the archival clips late in the film of the protest marches). Pasolini once said he was "as unbeliever who has a nostalgia for belief", imbues the story of the monks with a sense of charm to it- you like Toto and Davoli in the parts, not even so much that they're good in the roles, which they are very much so, but because there's some bedrock that the satire can spring from so easily. He, via the exceptional Tonino Delli Colli, films the Hawks and the Sparrows as strong in sumptuous black and white as any of his other early-mid 60s films. But there's a lot more going on within the comedy; it's like he skims a line that he could make it as, like with some of his other work (unfortunately ala Teorema) pretentious and annoyingly trite in its intellectual points. But as he goes to lengths to put a spin on it, it turns into pitch-black comedy, revealing him as an even deeper artist because of it.

Take the birth scene, where the weird theater-type troupe who drive around in a car have to pause in their play on "How the Romans Ruined the Earth", and it suddenly becomes a sly farce unto itself. Something that should be sacred is given the air of playfulness, as though everyone is told "yes, it's alright to be in on the joke", where Toto covers Ninetto's eyes, other actors in the group pray, and then walla, there's a baby, clean as day. Morricone's score, I might add, brings a lot to this air of fun and playfulness, even when (and rightfully so) it goes to the more typical strings and orchestral sounds than the rockabilly, which sounds more like unused bits from Pulp Fiction. And finally, there's the crow itself, which unto itself- had Pasolini not made it mockable- would be funny anyway, as it's a frigging talking crow who for some reason follows the men anywhere they go. It's already allegorical of a sort of guide or voice of reason on their journey, which is fine. But including the ending especially, Pasolini allows for the joke to flip over itself.

With the Hawks and the Sparrows, we get the absurd and the surreal, placed wonderfully in social constructs, and it reveals a filmmaker who can, unlike but like his controversial reputation presents, open up a whole other perspective with a strange twist that mixes classic Italian film style and scathing subject matter. A+

I'm not normally a fan of Pasolini, but this not very well known film from 1966, a kind of bridge between his earlier realistic films (Accatone, Mamma Roma) and the later explorations into the realm of popular myth (the medieval Trilogy), is worth a look. It stars the legendary Italian comic Toto, and Ninetto Davoli, who was Pasolini's lover and would be featured in many of his films. The pair engages in a number of comic misadventures, both in the Italy of the mid 60s (where they walk through what seems to be a huge urban wasteland), and in medieval times, where they appear as disciples of Saint Francis of Assisi. The movie is shot in a free-form style, has a lot of off the cuff humor, and is a sort of an odd combination between the theater of the absurd, the slapstick comedy of the silent movie era and the political films of Jean Luc Godard. There are also many quotes for thinkers revered by the European left of the time, as well as a talking crow. The movie ends up showing the funeral of longtime Italian communist leader Palmiro Togliatti, though given Pasolini long time support of Italian communism is not clearly what this means.

"Uccellacci e uccellini" aka "The Hawks and the Sparrows" (1964) - directed by Pier Paolo Pasolini

This is a movie that begins like no other introducing the cast and the crew in the manner that is charming, original, melodious and promising of even better things to follow. The fun begins actually with its Italian title, "Uccellacci e uccellini". I don't know about you but the sound of the title simply makes me smile, it sounds like the birds themselves whispered or chirped it to the Pasolini's ear. It is possible to make a satirical philosophical fable concerned with the serious and even grave matters as religion, social and political systems and the order of things and at the same time highly enjoyable, often hilarious, sometimes sorrowful, always original, in one word -Pasolinesque. "Uccellacci e uccellini" talks about desires, death, the meaning of life, Christianity, and Marxism but first and foremost, it entertains. It is about a father (Italian clown Toto) and his young and naive son (Nino Davoli) whom Pasolini sends to the endless cyclical journey on the road of life where they soon will be joined by a talking crow, will be catapulted 750 years back in time and by the request of ST.Francis, they would become two saints (Toto with his clown's face makes a great saint) who would teach the birds (the hawks and the sparrows) the word of God, in the birds' language, of course. The birds seem to agree and accept the words of love but as we know the love comes and goes but everyone (including birds) has to eat and the hunger does not help to improve the understanding between the hawks and the sparrows and between the humans and the crows, even the talking crows. Some were born to kill and to eat the others and there is not much could be changed about it. Two men will be magically returned back to the present time, will go to funeral, will see the baby born, will meet a beautiful desirable girl named Luna who reminds them how divine the fresh hay smells and how much fun it is to make love in it... Their journey would end where it began and on and on and on they go around the world in circles turning. As for the talking crows, "Takers and fakers and talkers won't tell you. Teachers and preachers will just buy and sell you. When no one can tempt you with heaven or hell- You'll be a lucky man!"

'Hawks and Sparrows' is the most Buñuel of Pasolini's early films in both mischevious tone and religiously subversive subject matter. The film even hints at Surrealism as much as it does Marxism, featuring a talking raven (described as a 'left-wing intellectual'), which is clearly an avatar for Pasolini, and a quarrel of hungry pagan sparrows that are converted to Christianity by monks with the lure of food.

It is very light-hearted and comedic on the surface but this is dangerous, confrontational art when you understand the symbolism, the kind of filmmaking that made Pasolini many enemies. Both Italian film legend Totò and young Ninetto Davoli are excellent and have enjoyable chemistry together, the rest of the cast is mostly made up of neorealist non-actors.

This is a very good film, I think it's one of the best pasolini movies. It has three diferent parts, and there are lots of hidden things that have an important message. For example, in the beginning there are indications about how distant is Istanbul, or Cuba, and this is a message that the third world is distant, but not so much. The bird that goes with Totó and Ninneto Davoli (they act is excellent) means the racionalism, and they finaly eat it. But the most important thing is that is very funny, specially the part that explains how the two principal carachters have to convince all the birds that there's god and there's a need of peace.

To understand the genius Pier Paolo Pasolini we ought to see his past and your thoughts overall, his background is upon the Maxism's look of extreme left in an Italy still polarized in mid-sixties, his roots coming from middle class which he denies, politically speaking he always defends the lower worker class, in this early movie we can see this vision, then he introduces an older Totó and his alter ego Nineto Davoli as two travellers into countryside dully escorted by a speaking Crow, the odd bird tell a tale that remits them to 11th century with San Francis given to them an assignment, speaking with Hawks and birds, Pasolini made an allegory with strong hairsplitting of surrealism criticizing the church, but nothing make sense at all at first si8ght, he walking in a road to nowhere, such vision surely was one form to criticize the Italian society as a whole, as the woman that can't pay the rent of the small farmer all time saying to her crying and starving children that still the night, they must sleep, a minor work from the stigmatized and misunderstood Pasolini!!

Resume:

First watch: 2020 / How many: 1 / Source: DVD / Rating: 7

I never heard of 'Uccellacci e Uccellini' before, neither of its director (Pier Paolo Pasolini). I watched it now after, recently, this 64-year-old man who likes the film having recommended it. He gave the name of the film and the name of the director. He sort of explained what the story was, but he talks and talks and talks... one moment he is telling one thing, then he suddenly changes to something completely different. So I didn't understand very well what was the story about.

I think this is a silly movie. Sure, it is well filmed, with nice cinematography, a nice soundtrack by the mythical Ennio Morricone (in this case, with Domenico Modugno singing) and some clever humor. For example, the bird whistles were fun and I found it funny whenever the crow was following those two guys and, for some reason, the way it walked was hilarious. The idea of the crow telling stories of franciscan friars is kinda childish, nonetheless fun.

The stories themselves were not as fun as the talking crow itself, though. They have some fun at first, but then they become boring as hell, making the movie appear to be longer than its short 85 minutes. Plus, there were lots of moments when humor was clearly cheesy and much too silly for my tastes. The ending of the film would have been good if those two hadn't murdered and eaten the crow. Ugh, I can't stand animal cruelty!

Pasolini considered this film to be his favorite. On that I can't comment, as I don't have knowledge on his filmography.

There are very few things to say about life. There are a million ways to say it, but we come back to the same few items: living-loving to the fullest matters, with every force available in your body, being one with just this world, sensitive to it, alert. We have come up with a million ways to say it, because it's easier said than done. It is easier to think than do. And I think that anyone who is passionate about life and the art he makes has hit this limit, that when all is said and done, thought is like the buzz of a small mosquito, persistent but drowned in the swell of universal music.

You have to let go at some point, what the old mystics knew as ecstasy. This is of course near-impossible to accomplish in the grind of life, which is why in the old days, they set apart time for ritual and storytelling - not as distinguishable as they are now, these two. We do so with cinema. And I value, above all else, filmmakers who make more than films, who set apart time for ritual dance that disembodies the self, mends consciousness into the air. Antonioni - Parajanov - Iwai - Herzog - they have all done this at least once.

And even though I'm only getting to know Pasolini, I can tell that that he was a passionate man, a man of thought who wanted to go beyond thought, who wanted to be true to music as it rises from the earth and makes a mockery of our efforts to explain intellectually.

Here is his attempt at a disembodied narrative, characteristically Italian.

The story is that we follow two ordinary rascals on their round through the small world, father and son, both very Italian characters, rowdy, temperamental. In the neorealist mode of some fifteen years ago, there would be a single reality, one of hardship and human ruins, the journey would be one of simple, 'real' encounters, that used to be the conceit in those days, the unmediated presentation of life. Indeed, we start here from a 'realist' world and come back to it full-circle in the end with real footage from the funeral of a prominent member of the Italian Left, signifying the end of the postwar era of new hope.

Inbetween, however, we have something else. There is a second reality that we slowly shift to, one of naked dreams, of ritual and storytelling, song and dance.

Each individual performance is exhilarating. Each has its own air. The rock'n'roll dance - hip and youthful sashaying, 'tuning out'. The Franciscan story - earthy, good-humored religiosity. The lighting up of fireworks - evocative of spontaneous magic and roads. Being shot at from a barn - the silent comedies of Chaplin and Keaton. The scene of giving birth - Italian theater, circus, carnivals.

Our two lovable dunces are not dramatic characters, they do not change. Rather, they are on screen, so that in moving through the world, they will reveal different facets of contradictory existence, all of them exaggerated in the Italian manner. They are in turn victims and oppressors, fools and sages, beggars and hedonists, defiant and obeisant, shifting in and out of iconography and roles, booted from one stage to the next.

Their companion is a talking raven (Pasolini - disembodied from his narrative and made fun of), always spouting thoughts and opinions on religion and politics, which are promptly ignored; who would listen, when there's skirt to be chased?

Being characteristically Italian means that the different threads are not layered together, we simply move from one stage to the next. We get beautiful but scattershot imagination, but it is redeemed by a powerful center. Human nature as the moon that causes the waters to wash out on the shore everything from a deep sea - good or bad. It's a sublime notion.

And you just have to see this for the choreography in the Franciscan story; dissipating human landscape, to human buffoonery on the ground, to swarms of birds rolling in the sky. God as learning to walk in the language of birds. Wonderful.

You also need good writing and direction. Unfortunately, this movie had no direction. I'm not saying that the director didn't work hard to ensure that the movie had a lot of style. It definitely had a lot of style. Totò having a conversation with a talking crow can't help but have style. I'm saying that the movie didn't go anywhere. It literally had no direction. The actors, particularly Totò, were strong enough to know their craft without needing direction. Ninetto Davoli had style as well, but at times his acting was not very polished. There was a scene where he went from smiling to covering his eyes and going "boo-hoo". It's probably the worst acted crying that I've ever seen in a movie. Not that I mean to trash him. I thought his style was what was most important to the movie, and in that he succeeded well.

The movie didn't seem to know what it wanted to be or what it wanted to say. It had a number of sort of vignettes that, if they were trying to make a statement, they were lost on me. If your film is trying to make a statement and additional explanation is necessary, have you really succeeded? I have sought out additional explanation and have decided that at times Pasolini completely missed the mark from what he appeared to be shooting for. I have no desire to seek out any of his other films after seeing this one. There's a scene where a bunch of dancing boys miss the bus. That's quite a good allegory for the whole movie.

Ennio Morricone's music is, as always, sensational.

Watch this movie only if you like films with style but no substance, or if you're trying to watch all of Totò's films, like I am. Otherwise, don't waste your time.

In "Uccellacci and Uccellini" we have truth, naturalness and authenticity so well incorporated and structured that it is hard to believe in the possibility of comedy in the face of such harsh realities and of a world where people use the hardness of their lives as materiality for laughter . A particular work in his proposal and among many reasons, a rare work.

Written and directed in 1966 by Pier Paolo Pasolini, "Uccellacci and Uccellini" is one of those films that generate immediate division, there are no half terms. Particularly, I consider it as a special film, but that already shoots in ample start for my appreciation, for the respect and admiration that I feel for Italy, for its history in the cinema and by diverse actors, among them Totò Innocenti.

"Uccellacci e Uccellini" has all the key characteristics of the Neorealist style, and deals with Marxist concerns about poverty and class conflict, but without losing his humor, which, by the way, generates great power and importance of this work, Uniting political reflections, social construction and having as a midfield, humor, Pasolini achieves a comprehensive and active dialogue, places the viewer in a critical and reflective situation, delivers a work open to laughter, but not limited to that. To overcome the limits of a common or simplistic comedy, it was, but of what it necessary to count on the support of the Italian actor Totò Innocenti.

This was Totò Innocenti's last film. After the death of the actor, two other films were released, but in both productions, the filming took place long before "Uccellacci and Uccellini". Totò in 1966 was already more than a consecrated comedian, his figure was a mark and renowned of Italy, having the recognition of his work expanded to other countries and continents, it is not for nothing that he is part of a select group where the actors are present Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton. We can see in Uccellacci and Uccellini a more restrained Totò, which generates a certain strangeness for those who already know it of previous works, much of this half disengaged, sometimes even plastered originate from the direction of Pasolini, who limited the improvisations, The game and even the face masks of the actor, requests that denied the characteristics that made Totò a celebrated comedian. It is necessary to understand that the requests of Pasolini were not ways to cut or to diminish the work of Totò, on the contrary, knowing the artistic quality of the comedian, Pasolini sought to present a punctual work and that dialogued with the neorealistas proposal of the film, besides being a Great opportunity that Pasolini offers to the great Totò.

In "Uccellacci and Uccellini" we have truth, naturalness and authenticity so well incorporated and structured that it is hard to believe in the possibility of comedy in the face of such harsh realities and of a world where people use the hardness of their lives as materiality for laughter . A particular work in his proposal and among many reasons, a rare work. The allegory created by Pasolini, unifies aspects of Marxist philosophical fable.

As in all fairy tales, there is a definite story in this film: the narrative pretext is given by the philosophical (Marxist) considerations of an old raven that approaches two men, father (Totò) and his son (Davoli). The crow seems to convince the two men, using his wisdom and his words, but the moment the problem of hunger appears, the "reasonable" man reveals himself, and Totò ends up eating the wise crow. The allegory presented is clear and well performed.

Regarding the neo-realist considerations presented in the film, I can categorize them through André Bazin, a French cinema theorist and critic, arguing that neorealism portrays: truth, naturalness, authenticity and is a cinema of duration. The necessary characteristics of neo-realist cinema include: A defined social context; A sense of historical reality and immediacy; Political commitment to progressive social change; Authentic scenes and scenery with its location, as opposed to the artificial studio; A rejection of classic Hollywood styles; Extensive use of non-professional actors as much as possible; A documentary style of cinematography.

"Uccellacci and Uccellini" is reportedly the work that Pier Paolo Pasolini most loved, probably because it is the most complete synthesis of his artistic eclecticism. It is a work with great poetic power, from the beginning was the object of discussion and controversy. He got a special mention at the Cannes Film Festival and was awarded the silver prize.

"The hawks and the sparrows" is an outsider in the oeuvre of Pier Paolo Pasolini, but one he is proud of.

The film is about a talking crow reciting left wing philosophies all the time. At the end of the film his audience of two humans has become tired of him and eats him.

The philosophies of the crow are essentially the philosophes of Pasolini himself, so there is some self-mockery involved here.

The philosophies are a combination of Marxism (classless society) and Catholicism (charity).

In the middle section of the film a monk gets the assignment to christianize the birds. However he fails to explain the concept of charity to the birds of prey.

The above review can give the impression of a rather heavy and serious movie. This is however not the case. In some scenes we recognize the Pasolini who wrote scenarios for Fellini films. In the Middle Age section there arises a complete circus with meditating monks as the origin and centre point. In the contemporary section we meet a vaudeville company with car trouble.

Although I may not have had all of the "footnotes" required to fully understand this brilliant and complex work of satire, I was still able to both appreciate and enjoy it. While much of the film may rely on political metaphors and allegories, there is still plenty material within this zany comedy that the average viewer can appreciate. Almost every type of humor imaginable is utilized throughout-there's witty dialogue, bawdy encounters with a prostitute, allegorical political satire, goofy slapstick, pitch- black humor, lighthearted jokes, and so on and so on. It is a film not restricted to complex Italian history, although I will admit that I did not fully understand it; perhaps I should do a bit more research before fully appreciating the film, for that will give me some further understanding of Italian filmmaking master Pier Paolo Pasolini, who some claim was a genius, which is a belief that I stand by.

Pier Paolo Pasolini was going through some stuff when he made The Hawks and the Sparrows. This comedy, complete with a delightful score by Ennio Morricone, is obviously some form of self-therapy on Pasolini's part as he deals with the death of Palmiro Togliatti, the leader of the Italian Communist Party (an organization that kicked Pasolini out because of his homosexuality), and the seeming failure of Marxism to bring about a change in humanity required for the promised utopia on Earth. It's kind of obvious and not all that subtle in the telling of the film, either, and it's an interesting look into the mind of a man dealing with the failure of ideology, as he puts it, packaged as a road comedy.

Advertisements

REPORT THIS AD Toto (Toto) and his son Ninetto (Ninetto Davoli) are on a walk through the Italian countryside for an unspoken purpose. After stopping at a small town to witness a crowd waiting for the bodies of a married couple to be brought out of their house and into an ambulance, a delay that gives Ninetto an opportunity to steal a kiss from a pretty girl, they encounter a talking crow (Francesco Leonetti). The film has an eventual intertitle in between its two halves that make it explicit that the crow is a left-wing intellectual of the kind that roamed the earth before the death of Togliatti. Quite seriously, I had to look up who Togliatti was, having no clue who he could be. The film makes no effort to explain it (something I have an issue with) which makes the film feel more personal to Pasolini than any of his previous three films.

As previously stated, the film is presented in two halves. The first is primarily concerned with the crow's telling of the story of two religious brothers (played by Toto and Davoli as well) sent by Saint Francis of Assisi (Renato Montalbano) to convert the titular hawks and sparrows to belief in God. The two efforts are amusing in their own right with Brother Ciccillo kneeling in one spot for two separate years learning the languages of the two birds (the hawks do it vocally, the sparrows hop to communicate) with vines growing all over him while he kneels before the hawks and a festival to take advantage of his praying popping up around him for the sparrows. The tragedy is that despite the birds' conversion, they still retain their natural instincts, the hawks still hunting, killing, and eating the sparrows. Francis tells them to go off and continue to proselytize the birds until they change.

The second half shows the pecking order of Italian society with Toto being the middle class, demanding rents from his tenants while his own landlord demands payment from him, Toto offering similar excuses for being unable to pay as his own tenants had. These events the crow observes with witty detachment while also increasingly succumbing to the realization that nothing in human nature will change. There are also some events with a traveling circus, a birth, and a prostitute, Luna (Femi Benussi) that both father and son take into the fields before Toto has the idea, since they haven't eaten all day, of killing and eating the crow.

That ending, with the crow nothing but charred remains and dismembered feathers (in an image that looks like it exploded and wasn't eaten), especially after the newsreel footage of Togliatti's funeral (seriously, out of no where and I had to look it up), is obviously a reflection of some strain of thought Pasolini had in his head at the time. I think he saw himself in the crow, and the crow meeting this terrible ending while realizing that all of his words meant nothing because human nature continues is kind of depressing. Pasolini had some realization that his Marxist utopia was never going to come about because hawks will continue to eat sparrows no matter what. The powerful will always prey on the weak, and the death of Togliatti somehow was the trigger in his mind for how that was never going to change.

And yet, it's presented in this light comic form. A lot of the action is sped up, especially Toto's comic antics which make the comparisons to silent comics like Chaplin (Toto has a very similar walk to the Tramp) easier to make. The effervescent tone helps the quick film move from little event to little event, each one bearing some value upon the film's central point of a fallen world (like when Toto goes to defecate in a stranger's field, leading to an escalation of events that ends with them being shot at from the distant house as they jump around comically) that will never change.

So, it's lightly amusing. Toto gives an entertaining central performance while Ninetto Davoli has some fun physicality in his supporting role. The opening credits, sung, are actually quite funny. The parable of the hawks and the sparrows is fun. The ironic contrast between Toto's treatment of his tenants and his landowner's treatment of him is interesting. However, this is a deeply personal film for Pasolini, and he includes elements that seem designed to keep an audience at bay a bit. I would consider The Hawks and the Sparrows to be his least successful film so far, but it's still amusing and interesting at the same time.

This film is really interesting because it mixes religion, politics, philosophy, society with a blend of humor and seriousness. Pasolini was an enigmatic filmmaker and this film is hard to follow much of the time. I don't think it matters that I couldn't understand it because I was astounded by the cinematography, location, characters and especially the setting. I noticed a lot of Italian directors from this period made great use of these desolate locations. In this film I felt like I was transported to Biblical times. The contrast between the stern businessman and his happy-go-lucky son was very entertaining. The film seems to be dealing with the erosion of religious values. I believe, there's symbolism that Pasolini wants us to analyze. If you liked his earlier films, I don't doubt you will enjoy this one.

The movie would have been bearable if not for Ninetto Davoli's performance. As usual, Pasolini cast him in a lead role for no apparent reason other than that he was sharing his bed. All of Pasolini's films are ruined by this kid who couldn't act his way out of a paper bag. He's the type who is either so distracted by who is behind the camera or so clueless about acting that if he's supposed to cry in a scene, he will rub his eyes like a child and feign a sob like someone who is imitating a baby crying. If he's happy in a scene, he will laugh uncontrollably and dance around. All his choices as an actor are hammy and over the top which makes him very distracting.

As for Toto, he does better as the funny man. In this film, he played more of the straight man to Ninetto's buffoon. His wig was distracting because it made his head too square and too comical. He tried really hard though, but it was a tough sell when his scene partner was so terrible and gave him nothing.

This film is listed as a comedy, but I'm wondering if that's just hindsight. I'm not sure Pasolini meant it to be funny. There's a lot of heavy ideas about class consciousness and Marxist and Christian doctrine. The best thing the film has to offer are Morricone's score and the cinematography... in that order.

It's a damn shame that this director couldn't separate his home life from work. Or he just didn't trust his virile young stud to be at home alone. Or he had it so good with him that he couldn't bear to be away for long. Either way, Ninetto is neither good at acting nor nice to look at. His actor makeup cannot hide his very obvious acne which stands out in black and white on an HD screen. His skin appears very greasy and his teeth seem covered in plaque. These seem like unimportant details, but when you see how little his acting does for the film, you will also start searching for anything to recommend this guy who Pasolini cast in so many of his films. Nothing there.

How does one describe a film like this? Imagine a Bunuel film like THE MILKY WAY. A couple of men walking on an empty road. They're on a strange journey only their destination is the beginning of their journey (huh?) and the two men are as funny as the best cinema clowns in screen history. Somewhat Felliniesque, somewhat Chaplinesque, throw in a little De Sica and even a dash of Monty Python and you can begin to have some idea of what this incredible blend of absurd and hilarious satire is like. Unlike Bunuel's films, this film is joyous. It has heart, passion, and an imagination springing somewhere from the soul. The film takes its stabs at religion, academics, and government but it does it in a playful way that leaves one feeling rejuevenated instead of that sour feeling that one feels after watching most social satires. It's hard to believe that this is a Pasolini film. It's about as far on the spectrum from SALO that one can get, yet it's sad that in comparison this film is almost completely unknown.

This is definitley worth seeking out on video. I'm hoping that I can find a soundtrack recording for this. It is one of the best Ennio Morricone scores I've heard, which is saying a great deal!