I have often wondered how I might have behaved had I lived in Germany or Italy during the rise of Nazism and Fascism. Since I’m the kind of person who often departs from the waves of public opinion, despises bigotry, and looks skeptically on irrational manifestations of patriotism, I am at least confident that I would have been some kind of dissident had I lived where the grip of Nazism and Fascism was taking hold. I don’t flatter myself, however, to assume that my dissidence would have found any heroic expression. I would likely have been a potential target for persecution and/or had friends subject to persecution. It seems to me that for those who despised Fascist philosophy, the options really came down to only three possibilities: 1) stay and become complicit in the horror by shutting one’s eyes and turning one’s back on the persecution of the innocent; 2) resist futilely and die with the persecuted; or 3) recognize the rising tide of stupidity soon enough to escape while escape was still possible (leaving behind friends, relatives, and others less able to peer into the future than yourself to their inevitable slaughter). None of these choices stands out as obviously preferable – morally or pragmatically – to the others.

I think that it is presumptuous for those of us who were not faced with these terrible choices to believe that those who stayed and perished were simply “too blind” or “in denial” or “unable to face the truth.” The difference between those that escaped and those that stayed until it was too late, in my opinion, had less to do with insight or intelligence than with the extent of each person’s attachments. For those who had few close friends or relatives and few assets or liquid assets, the choice to emigrate was a simple one. For the others, they simply chose to hope for the best instead of to assume the worst. We forget, sometimes, that the progressive loss of rights that culminated in outright genocide occurred incrementally. At each step in the sequence, one could hope that the most recent step was the last that would occur. And when the step occurred that was at last fully intolerable, it was usually too late to get out. Consider the situation in present day America. In the last couple of years, Arab-Americans have been detained without cause for prolonged periods of time without access to legal remedy. The so-called “Patriot Act” has cut into rights and protections that we once enjoyed. Yet very few of us are fleeing to other countries or assuming that these infringements on our rights are the first step in what will inevitably culminate in genocide or mass execution of dissidents.

Vittorio De Sica’s 1971 film Garden of the Finzi-Continis addresses these kinds of questions. Based on an autobiographical novel of the same name by Giorgio Bassani, this film examines the fate of Italian Jews under Mussolini’s fascism. De Sica stated that he made the film “out of conscience.” Though he was not a fascist, he lived during the period in question and felt the guilt that all humanity shares in not having prevented such horrors from occurring. De Sica was one of the great masters of Italian Neorealism, producing such critically acclaimed works as Shoeshine (1946), The Bicycle Thief (1948), and Umberto D. (1952), but De Sica’s loyalties were divided in two ways: he sometimes felt compelled to produce less aesthetically lofty films with greater commercial appeal (Two Women is one of the best of these) and he was in great demand as an actor, appearing in more than 160 films, including the noteworthy The Earrings of Madame . . . (1953).

The Story: Garden of the Finzi-Continis portrays anti-Semitism in Fascist Italy beginning in 1938. The story depicts a powerful wealthy and aristocratic family, the Finzi-Continis, who live a cloistered existence behind the high walls of their luxurious palatial estate. “The Finzi-Continis never leave their kingdom,” we learn. They are both Jewish and Italian, regally blond and handsome, and the leading family in the community of Ferrara, Italy. The young adult brother and sister, Alberto and Micol, have grown up with private tutors and servants, living life almost entirely within the privacy of their estate. It is an insular existence of high privilege. Alberto (Helmut Berger) is frail, reserved, intellectual, and homosexual. Micol (Dominique Sandra) is a complex mixture of vivacious exuberance and cool aloofness.

There are a small number of other Jewish families in Ferrara, including the upper middle class Bassani family. Mr. Bassani is an official of the Chamber of Commerce and a loyal member of the Fascist party, though obviously not supportive of the anti-Jewish laws. His son Giorgio Bassani (Lino Capolicchio) has been friendly with the Finzi-Continis since childhood, sharing especially childhood flirtations and affections with Micol. Now college students, they also share a deep love for literature. With maturity, Giorgio’s affection for Micol has grown into ardor, but Micol, on the other hand, views him only as a dear friend from childhood.

These two Jewish families remain hopeful that the extremes of Nazi persecution will not be repeated in Italy. Giorgio’s father hangs his hopes on the respect in which he is held in the community and his membership in the Fascist party. Micol, for her part, notes that “Papa’s a big donor to government charities.” Jews are already being discriminated against socially and early in the film new “Racial Laws” are published that make it illegal for Jews to marry non-Jews, attend public schools, have a phone listing, publish obituaries, join the armed forces, or hire Aryan servants.

Nevertheless, the Jewish community and their friends do their best to maintain a life of dignity despite the bigotry. They spend more time at home and choose to take their walks or do their errands when they will encounter as little hostility as possible. The Jews have also been expelled from the local tennis club. The Finzi-Continis respond to this slight by inviting their friends (some Jewish, some Aryan) for a tournament at their home on their private court. The affluent young college students arrive at the Finzi-Continis estate riding bicycles through the spectacular countryside and wearing bright tennis whites. They look like so many young gods and goddesses. Micol apologizes that the court “looks like an old potato field,” unaware that the very idea of a private tennis court is much more than most of the guests can imagine. It is a perfect day for a lawn party and the ugly political climate outside the walls seems less important than the romantic intrigues that will inevitably occupy a group of young people.

One of the guests is Bruno Malnate (Fabio Testi). He is an Aryan friend of both Alberto and Giorgio (and something of a young Sean Connery look-alike). The irrepressible Micol rebuffs his friendly but flirtatious overtures, describing him to his face as “too hairy,” but, in reality, her passion has been aroused by his brutish good looks, much to Giorgio’s chagrin.

As history reveals, the Jews are rounded up in the end. It is winter and their dark, winter clothing contrasts sharply with the cheery whites of the film’s opening. Even the Finzi-Continis are not exempt. The Jews are carted off to a crowded holding facility, with family groups heartlessly separated, in preparation to being sent off to Montanari. There are a few interesting developments in the ending that leave viewers a few small glimmers of relief and hope amidst an otherwise brutal exhibition of man’s inhumanity to man. I’ll leave the rest for viewers to discover on their own.

Themes: The political theme is the central one for this film. There is no garden large enough in which to hide when bigotry blows like weed spores on the wind. Neither wealth, nor position, nor education, nor merit, nor charitable deeds will provide adequate protection. By presenting this essentially political story in the context of engrossing personal lives, we feel the pain of our human failings all the more acutely. The idyllic lives of these appealing characters heightens the tragedy of their destruction – as they fall from one pinnacle to the other, from heaven-on-earth to hell-on-earth. Some reviewers complain that none of these characters are likable or that the film (in contrast to the book) keeps viewers at arms’ distance, preventing real involvement. I can’t agree. I found these characters (especially Micol, Bruno, and Giorgio) fully believable, complex, and likable, and the annihilation of one of them and her family profoundly tragic. Likability must be entirely in the eye of the beholder.

As for the romantic intrigues of the story, reviewers are mostly interested in psychoanalyzing Micol and I agree that she is the most interesting character in the film. The mostly male reviewers are not kind to her in the least. She is described variably as an “ice-goddess”, “coquettish”, “confounding Giorgio with her rejection”, and (most uncharitably) as a “cocktease.” These kinds of observations strike me as male vanity and ego way out of control. Micol has merely spurned Giorgio as a lover. They grew up together, she values him as a friend, he wants to parlay that friendship into love and sex, she doesn’t. Come on guys! Deal with it! In the midst of one of the tennis gatherings, a downpour erupts and Micol and Giorgio run off into the carriage house and climb into the carriage. Her breasts are partly visible through her drenched blouse. That’s due to getting caught in the rain, not some malicious design on her part. He is turned on and tries to make a move, but she douses his fire. This is nothing more than an incompatibility of desires (not a “come hither/I want to be alone contradiction”, as stated by one reviewer). She wants to continue to cherish him as a friend, but he wants romance instead. Honestly, I felt that Giorgio was reaching in the wrong direction. He just isn’t the kind of guy to elicit passion in a woman like Micol. One reviewer dips deeply into the Freudian well, suggesting that for Micol “to view him as a lover would require that she abandon the past for the future.” Maybe it’s simpler than that! She just isn’t turned on by the thought of Giorgio as a lover. As she explains to him, we are “alike like two drops of water; it would be like making love to a brother.” Micol is simply a confident, independent woman – true to her convictions and feelings – and not existing solely to please the passionate aspirations of Giorgio.

Production Values: One of the great strengths of this film is the stark and ironic contrast between the deceptive beauty of the filmmaking and the horror of the political subject matter. From the very opening, the cinematography (provided by Ennio Guarnieri) is gorgeous. The initial segment consists of richly colored pictures of nature (sunlight peeking between bright leaves) coming in and out of focus. We see idyllic settings in a picturesque Italian village. The texture is ethereal with a soft haze that gives the feeling that we are caught in a dream. When it later turns into a nightmare, the contrast is all the more poignant. The visual splendor is matched by lush musical strains. The musical score of Bill Conti and Manuel De Sica emphasizes light, dreamy, and romantic themes.

The lead performances are all strong. Dominique Sanda became an international sensation as a result of this film and another from the same year: Bernardo Bertolucci’s The Conformist (1970). She has appeared in almost fifty films or television productions since, including 1900 (1976), though without again recapturing her notoriety of 1970. Lino Capolicchio, who played Giorgio, has also had over thirty credits since 1970, but none in films that I recognize. Testi, who played Bruno, had previously appeared in the popular spaghetti western C’era una volta il West (1968) (“Once Upon a Time in the West”), but his fate after 1970 was similar to his co-stars – lots of credits but in mainly unrecognizable films. Fame can be fleeting!

Bottom-Line: Garden of the Finzi-Continis made quite a splash when it was released, becoming an international sensation. It won over two dozen awards, including the 1971 Academy Award for Best Foreign Film. It makes little difference that it is not the most devastating or wrenching Holocaust film ever made. This film depicts with stately authenticity a facet of a monumental historical event that swallowed up an unthinkable number of people. De Sica tackled an aspect that had been previously overlooked and provided Italy’s first confession, in effect, of its participation in the Holocaust. It is a spellbinding film and deserves to be discovered and rediscovered by viewers over and over again. At the risk of incurring the wrath of fellow reviewers, I’ll state flatly that I found this film altogether more compelling and brilliant in its effect than De Sica’s acclaimed masterpiece, The Bicycle Thief.

If you purchase this film, the Sony DVD release should be your preferred target. It provides a beautifully remastered version of the film with the monoaural soundtrack converted to Dolby stereo. Garden of the Finzi-Continis is in Italian with English subtitles and has a running time of 94 minutes.


*************************************************************************************************
You might want to check out these other excellent films from Italy:

Amarcord
L’Avventura
The Bicycle Thief
Christ Stopped at Eboli
Cinema Paradiso
The Conformist
Death in Venice
Divorce Italian Style
The Dreamers
Eclipse
8 ½
General della Rovere
The Last Emperor
The Leopard
Life is Beautiful
Malèna
Mamma Roma
Miracle in Milan
The Night of the Shooting Stars
Nights of Cabiria
La Notte
Padre Padrone
Il Postino
Rocco and His Brothers
Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom
Shoeshine
The Son’s Room
The Spider's Stratagem
Star Maker
Swept Away
Teorema
The Tree of Wooden Clogs
Umberto D.

Recommended:
Yes

Video Occasion: Fit for Friday Evening
Suitability For Children: Suitable for Children Age 13 and Older