It's always risky to write a critical review of a revered film that is over 50 years old (or, these days, over 5 years old!). But I do wonder about La Strada. On the face of it, a film that folds us into its inner content, of poverty and hope, but from this distance does it not all seem rather contrived? The two main protagonists are so opposites that they never come close- so how to deal with their relationship? As David Thomson (2008) says in his short essay on this film 'it's my hunch that not many people could endure La Strada today without some numbing potion'. The key character in the film seems to be the "fool" - a far more interesting person than either the Quinn or Masina characters. Gelsomina (Masina) is a simpleton and although we might love her to bits (mainly because of her innocence and her smile), she remains just that - a simpleton. Zampano is a simple male bully who needs no sympathy from us - not even at the end.
In the 1950s I can see that this was breaking new ground and, as such, is to be admired. But does it hold today? I doubt it given the extreme (and characterised) positions of the two chief protagonists.
In the 1950s I can see that this was breaking new ground and, as such, is to be admired. But does it hold today? I doubt it given the extreme (and characterised) positions of the two chief protagonists.