Bernardo Bertolucci’s ‘The Conformist’ is a multi-faceted film. If the audience wants to make sense of the meaning of the film, they will likely find themselves among a number of possible interpretations, which may even be at odds with each other. Through the use of expressive poetic images and an elliptical narrative structure, Bertolucci and his co-workers have woven a brilliant film about the different dimensions that can impact an individual’s life. I think this attribute of ‘The Conformist’ is one of the most important elements of European art cinema in general – the refusal to give the film a single definitive meaning or answer. Many great films, not only those from
Through the film is obviously a critique of Fascism, I
believe Bertolucci has placed a significant focus on Marcello’s conformist
attitude, and the filmmaker was trying to explore the origin of this belief,
which even led to a character’s death. True, there are interpretations which
focus more on the political contexts of the 1930s, and there are also theories
that synthesize psychology with politics (say, the Frankfurt School
Marcello conformed to whatever the mainstream agenda of his
time was. In a sense, he had no personal beliefs of any sort, and all he wanted
was to hide inside his comfort zone, and to make his life easier. The irony
about the protagonist was that, while he possessed the intellectual capability
(ok, he has changed the title of his thesis but he has graduated anyway) to
think about the issues around him, he was most willing to conform to his
political surroundings so that he could have a sense of fitting in. He did not
ask questions, and that was not because he did not have the ability to. He refused
to ask questions due to his self-interest.
Yet, the complexity and brilliance from Bertolucci was that
the origins of Marcello’s personality could not be rationalized politically or
instrumentally alone. Bertolucci was just as interested in psychological as
much as social issues, and one could easily see a Freudian influence from many
of his films. Marcello did have his own taste of childhood trauma. Because he
was born in a relatively affluent family, he has often been picked on by the
other kids because his status and character was very different from those
around him. Finding a friendship from his chauffeur, the experience proved to
be traumatizing because the chauffeur was likely to be homosexual (and also
implied to ‘like children’ a bit too much), and the young Marcello went as far
to put a bullet through the chauffeur’s face after a severe conflict, and
wrongly assumed the chauffeur died from that. Marcello has been scarred by this
incident, making him sexually confused and he started to believe in the power
of violence and aggression. At the same time, he also learnt that he could not
afford to stand out from the crowd due to the psychological distress. The fact
that he had to fight his inner demons and the development from that was the factors
that have led to Marcello’s character when he grew up, and it was obvious it
has gone a perverse direction.
One of the most memorable and widely discussed sequences in
the film was of course when Marcello and Professor Quadri met in a room in Paris
A second viewpoint is that Plato seemed to imply that the
people in the cave was misled to believe that what they saw inside the cave was
the reality, and therefore they probably did not feel that was a need to verify
whether that was true or not. The case
bore resemblance to Marcello’s, because his childhood trauma led him to connect
the dots erroneously and believed that his conformist and normalizing tendency
were the consequence which originated from that, and eventually led him to more
evil deeds.
I can think of a third viewpoint. The presence of the shadow
reminds me of Carl Jung’s ideas, the fact that there is always a shadow behind
everyone’s psyche. The shadow on the wall represented what haunted Marcello –
his darkest urges and trauma. He has tried hard to escape from the clutches of
his shadow, the dark side inherent in every person. Yet, his character and
attitude meant that he could not be able to defeat that, and Quadri’s
additional lecture to Marcello also could not save himself, too.
Marcello and Quadri also discussed Marcello’s unfinished
doctoral thesis about Plato’s Cave. Quadri lamented that Marcello could not be
able to finish the thesis as he felt Marcello was a gifted student with
potential, yet Marcello pointed out that the reason why he did not finish it
was because Quadri left the school in the first place, leading to his
abandonment of the thesis. While this chick and egg scenario took a cyclic
irony, it also had Freudian implications because it represented the theme of
abandonment. Maybe both Quadri and Marcello served some responsibilities for
Marcello’s dark personality. If Quadri has been able to educate and inspire
Marcello better, he might have prevented Marcello from turning to the dark way,
and that would of course prevent his own demise at the end.
After Mussolini failed, Marcello and one of his comrades
gathered to think about what should be the next thing to do. The conformist
nature of Marcello meant that, when he saw the anti-Fascist movement was
rising, he went to change his opinions to an anti-Fascist stance in no time,
and criticized his comrade’s old belief. He could be seen as a chameleon in human
form – it was just his nature to fit into the big picture no matter the cost.
The flatness of this character was what made him a soulless individual, making
him easy to be manipulated by ideology.
When I watch ‘The Conformist’ and ‘Last Tango in Paris
Such aspects represent Bertolucci’s brand of cinematic
pathos.
-End-
(2/2)
by Ed Law
Film Analysis
