I simply do not understand this film, nor its appeal. Explanation?

[deleted]

I agree with you bananacharlie. I found this film horribly boring. The invasion, war, and election are all really just sojourns, and while they are important to understand the history of Sicily, when it comes to this film I believe the scenes did nothing to add to the story line other than to provide background.

That brings us to the last 45 minutes of the film, the party. Big whoop. Aside from the costumes, I think this ballroom scene is horribly boring and ruins anything I liked about the film prior. Lancster provides us with long silent looks (while we are supposed to read his mind) instead of dialogue.

I wanted to like this film, I really did, especially since it is about Sicily. I support what this film was attempting to convey and achieve, but I believe it fell short of the goal and the story should have been told altogether differently. 5/10

Why do you expect anyone else to explain why YOU were bored by this movie?

Only you can answer that question. Everybody is bored by different things.

The reasons why people may find this film boring are the very same reasons Prince Salina is so depressed. There are so many layers and subtleties that this film has successfully addressed and expressed. A lesser filmmaker wouldn't be able to pull this off, and this shows what a consummate master Visconti was.

As a modern audience, I too found this film boring at times, because it is because of the typical Visconti pacing which Hollywood action-minded modern audiences unfortunately find too slow. But after reading more about The Leopard and its history, I found it very interesting.

Towards the end of the film, I came to care about the characters because it's a world that no longer exists.

Back to why Prince Salina is so pensive and depressed/forlorn. He knows he belongs to a historical world and generation that will be forgotten and ultimately misunderstood as quaint antiquity. His concerns, observations, and way of life, which Visconti beautifully documents, will no longer continue. It is a lost dream. Modern audiences are unable to relate to this film precisely of the fact that it is about a world that is long gone, exactly what Prince Salina was lamenting.

Add that to Visconti's traditional film-making style of steady pacing and rhythm - that is, a record of moods and impressions rather than plot and action.

I posted this in another thread:

In fact, Tancredi was right in his cynical assessment.

He joined Garibaldi, the subversive antithesis of his class and tradition, making a name for himself. He participated in the making of a new united Italy. This unification and modernization of Italy was inevitable, something he understood. Thus, he joined the times, seemingly cutting his ties from his past. Joining the revolution made him seem like a revolutionary, what the idealism of that time required. By becoming something of a hero, he becomes the "elite" of the era, as well as the "elite" of the past. Doing so made him seem progressive and less threatening to the masses. As soon as it was unfashionable, or rather, politically uninteresting to be a Garibaldi Red Shirt, he joined the Royal Forces of the New Italy which then became more accepted and trusted. Although it was hypocritical to again work for the elite/nobility/royalty, the political climate favored it. Tancredi's political allegiances always reflected the spirit of the times rather than his convictions. By following the spirit of the times he always maintained the upper hand. Towards the end of the film, he once again proved his assessment to work in his favor, as Tancredi was going to run for elections. Since the eligible voters were probably going to vote for him anyway (this was addressed in the film where the masses followed Prince Salina's electoral choices), it is safe to say that Tancredi will probably become the new era's prominent politician. This proves that a leopard may change his spots but is still a leopard. A prince can always remain a prince on top if he knows how to play the game. Prince Salina mourns this fact, as he is nostalgic and wishes for the world he treasured to be forever preserved. However, he is full of sadness that people like Tancredi are going to change the very world they miss in order to stay in power.

You watched this film and didn't see its cinematographic innovations? What's here to explain anymore?

I can certainly understand why people (and perhaps especially film critics) would find The Leopard appealing and, sure, there´s stuff that appeals to me, too. What´s not to like about the lush, gorgeous cinematography or Lancaster´s commanding leading performance that´s up there with his best work alongside his roles in Birdman Of Alcatraz or Sweet Smell Of Success. On the whole though I found the experience rather problematic - mainly, the production is so overbearingly grand and lavish that it often comes across as more concerned with its art design and coreographing its large, crowded set pieces than what it actually wants to say. The concluding ball sequence which lasts more or less an hour, being of course the most glaring example of that - the wordless twirling of impeccably period-costumed upper class folk just goes on and on and ultimately reduces the poignant potency of Lancaster´s pensive stroll in the surrounding empty rooms and interactions that are supposed to be the meat of it all. Plus, it all gets pretty dull occasionally. Moreso, for instance, than the first-act wedding scene in Cimino´s The Deer Hunter (which is said to be strongly influenced by this same Visconti´s ball here) which seems to handle its rhythms better and manages to eventually build up to a greater, more acute emotional impact than this particular sequence.

Additionally, I got the feeling that the film wasn´t perhaps as accurate in hitting the nerve of the revolutionary times it depicts - despite the early battle scenes, the political earthquakes remain more of a vague and distant rumble and the reality of the times feels quite muted and not very urgent as it gets diluted in lengthy passages of socialite interactions around the palace(s) and countryside. For such a very generous length, the film seems kind of underdramatized... or, perhaps more accurately, the goings-on are often quite lax and don´t have the proper dramatic tension. And, last and maybe indeed the least, Nino Rota´s score for me at least didn´t quite reach the heights one would perhaps have expected; at any rate, it does not strike me as a very memorable one.

All of the above may make it seem like I really hated the picture, but this isn´t the case; there´s always this tendency, when confronted with a very highly acclaimed film such as this, to make elephants out lesser-sized(perceived) flaws. I think ´mostly´ the film does manage to successfully communicate what´s on its mind, even if I couldn´t quite bring myself to relate to the sadness felt by a Sicilian prince over being a relic of the bygone era in the face of a major changing of the guards. Also, the ambivalent, chameleon-like qualities of the folks that newly find themselves on top of things and in a position of power, is keenly and accurately observed (although Alain Delon´s performance as the reprentative figure of fickle allegiances, is somewhat one-note). And of course, there are some truly powerful scenes such as the concluding one although my favourite probably remains - a bit obviously, perhaps - Lancaster´s speech at dawn to the departing senator about leopards and lions and hyenas (and then there´s this exquisite edit when the sight of working peasants overlaps with the sounds of a party occasion in the palace, subtly hinting at the mingling of the classes going on). Overall, a good film although it never really struck a chord with me. 7-7,5/10.





"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

I have no idea what the characters are thinking at any point throughout the film.

I am constantly amazed these days by the inability of so many moviegoers to watch movies with an intelligent eye and ear. Most people I know get restless almost immediately after a film starts : a cousin of mine recently was watching the wonderful Coen Bros. remake of "True Grit" on TV and announced 10 minutes into the film, "Well, it's not great yet!" (He hated it, by the way, no surprise there). What is interesting regarding reading this particular post on "The Leopard" is that the very ignorant posts are followed by very intelligent comments attempting to explain to the clueless individuals what it is they're missing : movie Do Not have to "explain" everything to the viewer ; but the explanation is there, in the direction, the editing, the writing and the acting. "The Leopard" is a magnificent piece of work and I'm encouraged to read so many intelligent comments on this post. There ARE people out there who really love movies!