User reviews

Much of "Martin Eden" is quite good, but I simply got tired of this movie by the time it was over. Luca Marinelli is excellent but exhausting as the title character, a struggling writer who champions freedom of the individual in a country (Italy) whose working class population advocates for socialism. His ideas make him unpopular with just about everybody -- he's not socialist enough for the working class, but he's too critical of the wealthy to be accepted by the rich family of the woman he loves. He becomes a hugely successful writer, but a mess of a person.

"Martin Eden" doesn't take place in any specific time period, or rather it takes place across all time periods, a nod I suppose to the fact that the conflict between those who are wealthy and those who are not has been and will be with us forever. It also examines the role art and artists play in shaping cultural and political thought. It's an artful movie, but it overstays its welcome. Martin Eden is an intense character and not an especially pleasant one to spend time with, and good as Marinelli is, he can't save the last third or so of the movie from being a bit of a slog.

Grade: B

Adapted from the 1909 Jack London novel, and stylized so that it resembles one of the transgenerational epics of the Taviani brothers (My Father My Master comes to mind), the chronologically vague Martin Eden is an intriguing movie that serves as a good ambassador for the main idea behind the book (the self-made protagonist strives to promote individualism against socialism and liberalism, only to turn into another cog in the machine by the time he becomes a successful writer).

IN BRIEF: A pretentious artistic approach undercuts a strong story.

JIM'S REVIEW: (MILDLY RECOMMENDED) Martin Eden is an artistic muddle of style over substance. Loosely based on Jack London's semi-autobiographical novel, Martin Eden told the story of working class struggles and oppression set in the early 1900's. Director Pietro Marcello has taken that novel and transported that story in place and time: The title character now lives in Italy, although the time frame is purposely confusing. It seems to take place somewhere in the mid-20th century, although the anachronistic fashions and technological devices collide frequently to raise some doubt.

Plot details remain the same as Mr. Marcello follows the same basis premise of the book. A working class man searches for a better life. Doing menial jobs, he yearns for a better education and wants to become a published writer. Martin's ultimate goal is important to him, as he has fallen in love with a rich and pampered upper-class girl from a strictly bourgeois family. Martin meets other figures that spur him into action during his class struggle for success, with tirades against socio-economical injustice and protests about socialism, democracy, unions, and the rights of individuals being freely bantered about throughout the film.

We follow Martin's journey with high interest and remain captivated by the film despite constant cross-cutting of archival footage that adds atmosphere and further confusion. The handling of these jarring images is innovative yet infuriating as it addles the moviegoing audience. Mr. Marcello's vision upends the essential storytelling and overcomplicates his movie with these flourishes. (At one point, I wondered if these cinematic intrusions were a political statement of society's ills, Martin's actual written stories brought to life, or just heavy-handled historical documentations from that century...I still don't know. What I do know is that the overall effect remains jarring and undercuts the narrative.)

Through 2/3 of the film, this reviewer was intrigued with Mr. Marcello's bold approach to the material despite the aforementioned major flaws in his execution. But the last third of the film makes absolutely no sense. Leaps of logic are everywhere. Once the ship literally sinks (and it does), the story bounces ahead to an entirely different Martin, one with dyed blonde shoulder-length hair and rotting front teeth who is cynical about life but still rants against the inequities of wealth and power. The final shot negates everything before it. (Again I wondered if I skipped a reel or two due to the lack of continuity.)

The cast is uniformly strong, especially Luca Marinelli in the title role. His 50's matinee idol good looks create a likable hero and the actor is excellent in his well-defined role. Jessica Cressey makes an attractive love interest, although their relationship is predictable in its conclusion. Adding fine support in their supporting roles are Carmen Pommella and Carlo Cecchi.

All in all, Martin Eden is too artsy for its own good. It forgets its own working class roots. Less artistic license would have delivered a stronger film. Ostentatiousness reigns. When style overrides the story, one questions its real purpose. The film puts on airs that only the bourgeois could love. Martin would have railed against it. (GRADE: C+)

I admired my Italian ancestors' cornering the neorealism market with such classics as Vittorio De Sica's The Bicycle Thief (1948). Now going nose to nose with those masters is director Pietro Marcello's neo-neorealist Martin Eden, frame for frame a joy in brilliant cinematography that combines color and black and white, but most importantly tells of a mid-twentieth century lusty young Italian sailor, Martin (Luca Marinelli, handsomer than all of us) with aspirations to write.

Marcello and screenwriter Maurizio Braucci have adapted Jack London's 1909 story in his robust, populist way to show the proletariat's struggles with the privileged to become educated and accomplished. Placing ambitious Martin in mid-twentieth century allows him to rant against the weaknesses of socialism and collectivism to favor evolutionary individualism.

As in the case of struggling artists everywhere with no formal education and a populace demeaning rugged individualism, Martin's journey to becoming a famous writer begins with patronage of the very class he rails against in his stories. Ironically, the education he lacks can be offered by his lover, Elena (Jessica Cressy), from the upper class. She demands he be a provider and get thoroughly educated. Easy for her to say.

The strength of this story is Martin's belief in his talent and persistence in the face of prejudice against his impoverished background. That Martin becomes more famous for his belief in the individualism of Herbert Spencer's social Darwinism is another block to attaining the respect as a writer he believes he's due.

Martin Eden is luscious with contentious social history and struggles of an artist who rises above his limitations not without the pain and loss that accompany ambition and art. The acting is as realistic as neorealism can allow when actors, not amateurs, play the parts. Actor Marinelli is up to the challenge: While remaining matinee idol in looks, he translates the burden of artistry in troubled times, or any time actually. Martin Eden is a classy European, neorealist experience. Learn about artistry, history, and human dignity.

It was a good, interesting film throughout. But it kind of lost me in the last half hour. I can't give it a wholehearted recommendation.

Not interesting and has little value as a separate work. I don't blame the actors, but the director and the script.

Finished only because had read the book and the movie has its name on it.

I left the cinema with a strong emotional bond with the protagonist. The story seems to surface from a documentary, with several reference to post-ww2 Italy: music, people, strip of homemade tapes. But the pace, the rhythm, the editing, is not a documentary one, it sometime remembers a music-clip. The more you sip form the environment, the more its flavour changes, because the situation changes, and so does the main actor. It is really easy to bend to its arch, and little by little you find yourself absorbed into his prospective, his vision, his twists.

... in which we are born and moulded without recourse or consultation - as we get older, others may influence and change our direction, sow new seeds, broaden horizons, gouge new scars. We may even become better for it but occasionally we may not and more often than not, we won't even know how we got here.

Pros: Great photography, successful original mix of new and old footage, entertaining.

Cons: Everything goes well, until halfway the film gets to the essence of things. That is when the contradiction starts, disappointing superficial (childish) arguments empty of essence, and the poor viewer who identified with the main character, feels betrayed up until the pointless unoriginal ending of the movie.

In short, it's a self-contradicting film based on the flawed approach of the original author of the novel (Jack London) who even admitted "I must have bungled it", and was made worse by the filmmaker. The writers (the director Pietro Marcello along with Maurizio Braucci ) even added a known politically misleading cliche-phrase as-a-fact, -that doesn't exist on the book, and is worth mentioning here since the movie has a pseudo-political narrative: "Philosophy was born because the Ancient Greeks were able to avoid physical labor thanks to their slaves who allowed them to devote themselves exclusively to thought."

-Why then philosophy wasn't born somewhere else, where slavery was flourishing in the whole known world for centuries? -Why philosophy that set man on its center for the first time in history, was born after democracy was invented and established for the first (and only) time and shifted all power to the people? -Why philosophy was born on a state that gave the slaves more privileges than the privileges of the citizens of the rest of the world, and conversion of a citizen to slave was prohibited by law (and all slaves were foreigners brought from abroad and had equal rights with every citizen except voting)? So, was philosophy born due to the slaves in Ancient Athens, or due to the fact that democracy freed thought for the first time, logic and rhetoric was born, schools of thought, that attracted all wise men from around the world to see, learn and contribute to the "miracle"?

So, please try not to parrot false, misleading cliche, especially the ones about history, it's neither good for you, or your viewers.

"Martin Eden" is a Drama - Romance movie in which we watch a young man trying to find his place in the world with a job that he will love and a better future. When he meets a young woman of upper class he changes his mind about education and starts his self-education.

I enjoyed this movie because it had a nice plot and contained many important subjects that were presented with a clever way. It also presented the situation of a country in a certain period of time and how it was affected by some external factors. The interpretations of both Luca Marinelli who played as Martin Eden and Jessica Cressy who played as Elena Orsini were very good and the difference on their characters created a nice gap between them on how they see the world along with their perspective about some subjects. Finally, I have to say that "Martin Eden" is a nice drama movie and I recommend you to watch it because I am sure you will learn something from it.

I am at a disadvantage not having read Jack London's book. Therefore, I do not know if the credit for the end sequence should be attributed to London or to the film's co-scriptwriters--Maurizio Braucci and director Pietro Marcello. Because that end-sequence is absolutely well developed and unforgettable. The choice of music (Bach and Debussy) and the performances of two male actors--Luca Marinelli and Carlo Cecchi--are the mainstay of this film. The Venice (Best Actor), Toronto (Platform Prize), Ghent (Best Direction), Faro Island (Best Adapted Screenplay Award) international film festivals have spotted the golden veins of the film.

Seen exclusively for study purposes, therefore, I start with the assumption that it was not my intention to view it for my pure will. However, at the end of the work, therefore of the vision, this thought of mine particularly presses me towards the work in question.

GREAT!

Marcello, director of the opera, at least for an exclusively personal opinion, was, as expected from his documentary works, an excellent mentor for an entire crew who had to teleport to another era.

The exceptional work was done, above all, in the editing room, where I managed to create what were the entire frames of the work entirely engaging with as many of their original repertoire of the time.

Unfortunately, I have not read the novel for which they were inspired, so I cannot judge the treatment of this with the work, but I am sorry to say that, despite the spectacular interpretation of Luca Marinelli and Jessica Cressy, it falls a lot under the point of view of plot.

Overall, a film that gave me a lot, especially the desire to read and deepen what the story of Eden was.

Thank you <3

-Antonio

Adaptation from the book has nothing to do with the book. I am glad to read that the movie of a book I read was so mediocre, the link to the work is zero, even the names of the characters have been changed. It is not easy to make such a simple movie from such a master book (!) Thanks to everyone who contributed to the production, in the publication ... (!!!) Disgrace ...

I loved this and couldn't really ask for much more, which is why 10 stars, though I'll admit to a flaw further down. But in stark contrast to most of what's coming out on the art-house circuit, it's able to do it all - look good, hang together, matter and intellectually stimulate - and it does all four with amazing aplomb.

Feels, really, like some great work I'd somehow missed from the sixties, though it's better even than some of those classics: beautifully shot, formally inventive, veering Brechtianly from realism to transparent artifice and taking on big political and philosophical questions with smarts and wit. In several passages from the protagonist's writings, it even manages the trick of using literary language well in film and makes it look easy, which it isn't.

I guess I'm sort of saying it feels like sixties Godard, except that it allows itself a lyrical, even classical beauty Godard would have routinely rejected. It's more like Bertolucci after he sloughed off Godard's influence, maybe, or Visconti.

But the Godardian trace remains in that the poetry of the imagery is mockingly undercut both by the artifice, especially the found historical footage used for scene setting, and by the protagonist's various incarnations. Initially an uneducated ship's crewman landed among the wealthy, he does the standard job of fictional characters in such situations, bringing a little earth and humour to the brittle Brahmins. Then, self-educated at a superhuman rate, he becomes the flawed and misdirected avatar of the film's epic note, aggressively propounding neo-Darwinian radical individualism, Nietzschian 'blond beasts' and all, alienating the rich liberals who had taken him in. Finally, in his sort of third age, having flicked off the fascism this might have seemed to be leading to like a fly, he returns to earth and is effectively buried by it, sickened by everything and, in particular it seems, by the gruesome logic used to maintain class inequality.

Standard line seems to be that the third section drags or is otherwise weak. Seems fair. I think it's that the narrative thread gets lost. The first two parts are about Eden discovering culture and then struggling to achieve success in it and be able to marry his sweetheart. It's engrossing and carries us along. The third section jumps ahead to his world-weary later years and loses the cause-and-effect connective tissue: we never really get to see how the disillusionment sets in or why.

So, yeah, that's the flaw, but personally I don't care; there's still tons to enjoy in the third section and the whole is still a masterpiece standing head, shoulders, knees and toes above the usual rubbish. It also really makes me want to read the Jack London original and even Herbert Spencer, problematic though his writings are shown to be here.

"Betraying his documentarian background, Marcello interlaces vintage footage into the era and altogether, they sustain a holistically consistent visual fidelity (to a point you can very difficult to tell whether those shots are from archives or faithfully recreated). As astonishing as the film looks and as melodiously as it sounds, the kingpin here is Marinelli's central performance. Winning Venice's Best Actor honor, once a vicious whippersnapper in Gabriele Mainetti's THEY CALL ME JEEG (2015), he now can proudly proclaim himself as one of the most prominent leading man in the Italian cinema (new live-action DIABOLIK movie is already in the can), meanwhile we shouldn't forget his bash into Hollywood production as the tender gay immortal warrior in Gina Prince-Bythewood's THE OLD GUARD (2020), currently a sequel is in the pipeline."

read my full review on my blog: Cinema Omnivore, thanks.

This is a very well executed film, with excellent performances and good direction. Some scenes reminded me of Vittorio de Sica's movies and I am not sure whether the were on purpose or not. The story is typically the same old drama of Latin soap operas, "the poor wants the rich girl but society does not allow it then the poor struggles and succeed in life"

This plays like Rocky only, substitute writing for wrestling, and Italy for Philadelphia. I enjoyed it up to the 3rd act, where things got a bit confusing. Did he imagine his future, or did he actually win acclaim as a writer?

Watched this after so many "art touts" on Kino Lorber about how good this film is. I avoided it because I thought it was going to be another pedestrian romance. I was wrong.

Like Rocky, the protagonist rose from poverty, followed his dream, and apparently cashed in appropriately. Good enough entertainment for the efforts.

Complete with lovely location shots, interesting characters and faces, and an affable protagonist.

Luca Marinelli gives his all in this performance as the titular character, this I believe. I've always loved Italian cinema, and had such high hopes for this film. Alas, I was deeply disappointed. No fault of Marinelli's, I struggled to find the lead protagonist, Martin, likable or relatable. Had this been strictly a love story, I think it would have made a far more appealing and resonating film. Sadly, though, the movie is bogged down by sociopolitically-fueled angry ranting that ultimately weaken the love story and every other appealing aspect of the film. While the world is still in the midst of a relentless, ravishing pandemic, this is not the time for a dark, depressing, tragic, bleak, self-pitying narrative. Beloved favorites like Cinema Paradiso, this is not...doesn't come anywhere close. Unfortunately, I was just left to sigh and to wish that I had my $12 back.

I've read the Book. A fantastic book and... What is this??? In Napoli instead California??? I see only 8 Minutes. Too much. I will remember only the Book. If you are read the Book,please dont see this Film