Evolution of Neorealism

     One of the primary things that connects Bicycle Thieves (1948) and Killer of Sheep (1978) is the concept of capturing life in a pure form. Bicycle Thieves and Killer of Sheep both feature pretty loose narratives. The structure and the story arc is very unimportant in the grand scheme of both of these films. Both filmmakers are much more focused on depicting a realistic view of life in these environments and time periods. Killer of Sheep is obviously even less focused on story and more focused on individual moments and incidents. I think it's noteworthy that both of these films feature many scenes that take place within more conventional pivotal scenes or conversations. There is a ton of movement in both of these films. Bicycle Thieves is practically entirely movement as we watch Antonio and Bruno walking, wandering, and running through the streets. Killer of Sheep features numerous scenes like this as well. We see everyone walking and traveling between scenes. One of the video essays we watched on the differences between Hollywood editing and Neorealist editing discussed these kind of moments, and how they would be considered irrelevant in a Hollywood film, but a Neorealist filmmaker would respond that these moments are the film. Incidental moments and images make up most of both of these pictures, creating more of a sense of space and feeling, than conveying a traditional story with a climax. They both feature characters and general plots, but they aren’t weighed down by any need to move quickly, with shots often just lingering on people and the environment. They take their time immersing us into these spaces and putting us next to the people shown. We therefore feel much more connected to them than in traditional cinematic efforts. The lingering shots and the naturalistic lighting also provide this feeling of being in a real space, of being in the real world with real people. In the Mark Cousins’ documentary, The Story of Film, a particular piece of an interview stood out, and continues to stick with me. The filmmaker Bill Forsyth describes: “Story doesn’t exist; we exist; story is how we explain the meanderings we take”. This is extremely relevant to Neorealism, as I think there’s a very heavy focus on these moments serving to depict life as it is, and life as it was in these very starkly different periods in time.

    In contrast, Moonlight (2016) feels much more surreal and dreamlike. There’s heavy use of lighting, often saturating the scenes in bright, neon color. It all feels a lot more polished. The shots and camera movement is fluid and adds to this dreamlike feel. There is still this heavy focus on individual incidents and an emphasis on emotion that was so prominent in the latter two films, but the moments shown carry so much more weight because we’re looking at them in the much larger context of someone’s whole life. Every event therefore feels much more profound. Bicycle Thieves and Killer of Sheep both take place in much smaller time frames, with Bicycle Thieves actually just focusing on a single day. This also adds to the feeling that we’re watching a narrative film, and not a documentary. It’s clear the budget is much higher than either of the other films, with more well known actors portraying the characters shown. Bicycle Thieves and Killer of Sheep employed a lot more non actors, as does Moonlight. But there are also still some more recognizable faces, such as Naomie Harris, Janelle Monae, and Mahershala Ali (definitely one of my favorite actors in the business today).

    I think the influence of the neorealist style of the 1940s is very apparent in both Killer of Sheep and Moonlight, as there is a clear focus on human emotion and interactions over the grand, touched up, fantasy of life that we see in so many other pictures. It’s not to say that other films don’t accurately capture the human experience as well, but films of this kind of style just let life exist and they breathe in a way that is pretty incomparable.