682 Investigation of a Citizen Above Suspicion

[TMDaines]

This is one of my most anticipated releases in years. Even though there's an Italian Blu-ray, Criterion have gone further with their extras and look to have delivered a sterling package. I always wait for price drops, but as with Arrow's Il conformista, I might just make an exception here.

[manicsounds]

dvdbeaver

[Hail_Cesar]

I can't wait to buy it. This is one of the finest Italian film I've seen in my life and its definitely Kafkaesque ; inspired by the very subtle political aspect of Kafka's literature as well as kafkaeske on the aspect of the derive of Italian surveillance policies in the 70's. I hope everyone buys it so Criterion would be willing to release more films of this genius whose only work on DVD in R1 right now is his weakest film (The 10th victim). Apart from his most important work, they should also release the great "I giorni contati" which not very well know but totally worth watching...

[Jack Phillips]

This is one of the finest Italian film I've seen in my life and its definitely Kafkaesque ; inspired by the very subtle political aspect of Kafka's literature as well as kafkaeske on the aspect of the derive of Italian surveillance policies in the 70's.

In Kafka, particularly in The Trial and The Castle, protagonists are crushed by a system (actually a cosmology), one they cannot comprehend and are powerless to escape. Everything is seen from the victim's perspective. There is nothing in Kafka remotely like the character in Citizen played by Volonte, no one who games the system for his own ends. Is merely treating the subject of an intrusive police state sufficient warrant to label the whole thing "Kafkaesque"?

Is 1984 "Kafkaesque"? That novel deals with a totalitarian police state where privacy has been abolished. Yet no one ever calls Orwell's work "Kafkaesque." In fact, we have an adjective "Orwellian". Why is such a term necessary if Kafka has preceded Orwell? Obviously, it is necessary because there are differences between Kafka's conception and Orwell's, and distinctions need to be observed. What are those distinctions? One, at least, is this: in Orwell, it is possible for the erring individual to be brought to book by the state and rehabilitated (ironically, by eliminating his individuality). In Kafka, however, no reconciliation with the power structure--even an ironic reconciliation--is possible. His victimization is changeless, eternal; it is the very ground of his existence.

There is something of an analog for the Volonte character in 1984: O'Brien. By victimizing others he is capable of maintaining a certain amount of his individuality (he can, for example, turn off his telescreen). O'Brien does not have the amount of freedom that Volonte's character has, of course. But if someone were to say that Petri's film is Orwellian I would not object. But "Kafkaesque"? I don't see that at all.

[Hail_Cesar]

In Kafka, particularly in The Trial and The Castle, protagonists are crushed by a system (actually a cosmology), one they cannot comprehend and are powerless to escape. Everything is seen from the victim's perspective. There is nothing in Kafka remotely like the character in Citizen played by Volonte, no one who games the system for his own ends. Is merely treating the subject of an intrusive police state sufficient warrant to label the whole thing "Kafkaesque"?

Well Volonte is a sort of victim as he can't get the redemption he wants as the system goes in the other way (i.e. the Kafka quotes at the end). He is witness of the ''Law'' gaming against the system but he never games it for his own ends like you say. Petri uses Kafka's trial's guardian character to impersonate a man alienated by his status and victim of the thing he represent : The law. DEFINITELY Kafkaesque and a genius use of The Trial!

[knives]

That's not a description of Kafka really though Kafkaesque seems to have as much to do with him as nihilism does Nietzsche.

[rohmerin]

in a Catholic country like mine or Italy you can ask for the address of a former synagogue or J heritage (I have lived this) and remain perplex of listening: oh is there any, was any in the past? Is a synagogue like a church ?

Are there Jewish in Italy? Petri in two films gave me an answer. Florinda Bolkan's home is just in front of the (beautiful) Roma synagogue, but more important is Buone notizie, last and only bad Petri's film where there's a Jewish couple (Aurore Clement and Paolo Bonacelli) and even we can watch a Jewish burial.

Except Maravillas (1980) I can not remember any Spanish film with Jewish, so Italy wins with two (WWII and 1492 expulsion don't count).

[FerdinandGriffon]

Visconti's Sandra also centers on an Italian Jewish family and features a Jewish burial.

[rohmerin]

Yeah, but in Sandra the father was a victim of WWII, and as I said: WWII doesn't count (Lizzani made L'oro di Roma; De Sica and Montaldo adapted Giorgio Basani Ferrara novels - the beautiful The Gold Rimmed Glasses with -dubbed- Rupert Everett ).

[FerdinandGriffon]

Hmm, strange criterion for exclusion, especially as Sandra is not just about Jews dying, but about Jews who must continue to live in post-war Italy. But I guess I see what you mean.

[rohmerin]

The only Jew, and he was denounced in the war, was the father (WWII offscreen). I think the children and mother are catholic, but nothing is said.

[FerdinandGriffon]

Both Sandra and her brother wear Star of David necklaces throughout, so I thought they might have converted or been raised Jewish. But Visconti doesn't get more explicit than that, as far as I remember.

[adavis53]

I don't know if this will pass your non-WWII criteria but La finestra di fronti (2003) has a Jewish character (although his Jewishness is related back to the war). Its more focused on sexuality than it is religion though.

[rohmerin]

I've got a gold david star for my chain and I am not jewish (lol, may be we were before 1492, I wish so). But thank's I have to re watch Sandra. You're right, she wears the David star.
Anyway, sorry for the off topic, but Petri in two films, here in Citizen we can see "normal" (not WWII) Jewish going to or entering into the synagogue, and their presence in Le buone notizie is important.

Adavis53, under my criterion no, the Jew in Ozpetek's film (played by the former gorgeous Massimo Girotti) is totally marked - destroyed by WWII (there are flashbacks to 1943) so it's not valid for me.




I haven't found any pic with Jean Sorel wearing the star (oh my god, he was so hot, and J in this film, so it's double erotic and exotic for me)

http://rohmerin.blogspot.com.es/2012/02/jean-sorel.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[rohmerin]

Judaism in Petri's Investigation proofs in my blog + more Florinda Bolkan pictures. It's curious how this bisexual woman (her lesbian love story with the Countess in my blog) makes me straight. Watching Sorrentino's The Great Beauty I also noticed how beautiful Sabrina Farinelli is, so I've got a very serious trouble with black long haired women.

http://rohmerin.blogspot.com.es/2013/11 ... ation.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I made two pictures of the DVD with my gold David star special for FerdinandGriffon.
May be you are right and C.C and Jean Sorel are Jewish, but if I go to a J event or to a synaghoghe or whatever, in respect I wear a kippa and if I've got the golden star (I do), I'd wear. I don't know, this J and Non J marriages are strange: famous and super rich Spanish Koplowitcz sisters are Jewish on fridays in Madrid and catholics (and marquises) the rest of the week; as the female Rothchild were in the past century according to their biography.

Curious, C.C played a Jew in Roman 1860's Nell'anno del signore, the mots succesful film that year in Italy.



http://www.benitomovieposter.com/catalo ... 124372.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[warren oates]

This is one of the recent Criterion Collection films I've been looking forward to the most, so I suppose it's inevitable that I would be somewhat disappointed. Still I guess that I'm surprised myself about how much better and different I wished this had been.

I had imagined that the protagonist's crime would be more boldly existential and arbitrary -- like a bad cop twist on The Stranger -- but it turns out

SpoilerShow

his revealed motivation for a rather impulsive murder is pretty common and tawdry -- sexual jealousy and a vaguely insulted manhood.

Likewise with his ambivalence about being caught. While he mostly exasperatingly dares his colleagues to catch him, he does also end up destroying a key piece of evidence he'd previously planted. I suppose I wanted a purer, more abstract and more ballsy take on this kind of tale. And maybe one that was more devoutly thrillery too. Say, Hitchcock by way of Haneke. Or something strong enough to really earn that much-debated Kafka quotation at the end.

In any case, the flashbacks are also less interesting than they seem like they will be at first, ultimately not offering us much that's new about the chief or his lover. And even their first shared moment of testing his impunity comes up short.

SpoilerShow

Really? So your big initial flirtation with transgression is to run a red light in Rome, (city of otherwise scrupulously law-abiding drivers)?

Which wouldn't be such a big problem if there were something of a transgression progression in the flashbacks, but he kind of jumps right from that to murder.

Ditto the political context. I feel like I've seen more interesting depictions of student radicals vs. the established order in dozens of other films from and about the same period. And the film doesn't help itself by trumpeting its big themes in on-the-nose speeches whenever it can. It's also 15-20 minutes too long and suffers from a wonky period score that, Morricone or not, it could probably do without. Certainly a gorgeous transfer of an interesting film, but perhaps not the forgotten masterpiece I felt like it was going to be. I probably won't be seeing this again.

[cdnchris]

I had imagined that the protagonist's crime would be more boldly existential and arbitrary -- like a bad cop twist on The Stranger -- but it turns out

SpoilerShow

his revealed motivation for a rather impulsive murder is pretty common and tawdry -- sexual jealousy and a vaguely insulted manhood.

SpoilerShow

I think it was a little more complicated than that, though admittedly not that much: I felt it was more that she disrespected the power that he perceived he had by moving onto the young subversive, which would be the ultimate insult to him. She also called him "average", and didn't fully mean that in a sexual way, but that he was just an average, normal Italian. Killing her, making it obvious, and then getting away with it would then prove (to her in his own mind I would guess, and himself) he was powerful and a "citizen above suspicion."

But yes, manhood and sexual jealousy would play into that as well, but I don't think that's all it was.

While he mostly exasperatingly dares his colleagues to catch him, he does also end up destroying a key piece of evidence he'd previously planted.

I'll have to watch again but I figured he was actually doubting his own perceived "power" and feared they may actually catch up to him.

I was actually blown away by this film and am stunned I had never seen it before (and admittedly never heard of it until rumours starting to flow around Criterion was releasing it.) I think I was viewing it differently than you, though, expecting a character study of a power mad narcissist, so maybe expectations were different, and I got what I was expecting. My only disappointment

SpoilerShow

is the ending, or the second ending to be more precise. I think for the film to have truly worked he would have had to explicitly got away with it, despite his guilt and best efforts to turn himself in. Adding on the more "open ended" ending--which does lean heavily towards him being caught--sort of destroys everything it was building up to. That first ending also suited the more ridiculous aspects of the film, which I found very surreal at times, and I was loving it... until it was revealed it was a dream and I did feel a crushing disappointment.

Of course, as the supplements and booklet stated, they had to add that last piece on or else the film would have more than likely been banned since it would have been a full on indictment of the police.

[warren oates]

The two strongest scenes in the film for me -- the chief's ironic office confrontation with the eyewitness plumber/tinsmith* and the chief's withering interrogation of the student radical near the end -- deal directly with the kind of power imbalance that you've mentioned. But the film itself never makes any kind of convincing or coherent case for how the protagonist himself views his own hold on or exercise of power. There's never a moment in the forward moving story or the flashbacks where it becomes clear why he's suddenly arrived at such a high concept pivot on his initial and quite ordinary act of murder. Both his short and long-term motivations for the crime and the cover up/frame up remain variously muddled and underdeveloped both psychologically and thematically. Aside from some minor speechifying about the heavy white elephant meaning to greater Italian society, it's not clear what he himself believes he has to lose by either getting caught or not getting caught. Even the idea of being "a citizen above suspicion" and what it might mean to him seems less viable the longer the film lives with it. So I suppose I'm arguing that it's hard for me to see this film as a character study, since the film itself seems to regard its main character as something of a cipher, a tool and a thematic statement mouthpiece.

If we had seen a Don Draper antihero version of the chief, the sort of hollow man hail fellow who can almost half believe the bullshit speech he's giving about the linkage of political activism and violent crime to an assembly colleagues (at least just enough while he's selling it)... Or somebody more like the protagonist of the The Lives of Others, a head-down bureaucrat to whom it never once previously occurred that he himself might be evil simply by playing his small part as a cog in an evil machine... Or if he'd been truly, demonstrably ambivalent all along, maybe left a few clues somewhat sloppily, framing himself subconsciously... If his detective colleagues had been both better at their jobs and less cartoonishly deferrential, more formidable antagonists... Or if the entire thing had been a pitch black comedy instead.

At one point, it does become clear that at least one of the investigating homicide detectives is pursuing the chief with the necessary rigor. But most of that happens off screen and pretty late in the run time. And the procedures for investigating a police official suspected of this kind of crime are never clarified. Is the point that there ought to be an Internal Affairs department and there isn't one? Or that there are such structures in place but no one dares to implement them?

The whole broader political angle never quite comes together for me either. Even a tiny tweak would have nudged it closer to some kind of integrity:

SpoilerShow

If the chief and the radical student leader were going to share a woman, why make her the blandly decadent apolitical hottie hausfrau that she is when you could easily have given her a much bigger local activist role, complicating things exponentially for the chief both before and after her death.

The film just kind of assumes a large part of its thematic premise, taking it for granted that the authorities are unquestionably corrupt, that anyone in power can get away with anything and forgetting that it is the job of a good storyteller to show us all that in the action of the story itself. And I can't help wondering what other political thriller directors like Pakula, Costa-Gavras, Petzold or even Greengrass would do with a similar premise.

*(If feel like I'm missing the Italian nuance of the verbal distinction between a "plumber" and a "tinsmith" in this scene if anyone can help)

[cdnchris]

I apologize as I completely missed your response initially. I feel I need to watch the film again but here goes:

But the film itself never makes any kind of convincing or coherent case for how the protagonist himself views his own hold on or exercise of power. There's never a moment in the forward moving story or the flashbacks where it becomes clear why he's suddenly arrived at such a high concept pivot on his initial and quite ordinary act of murder. So I suppose I'm arguing that it's hard for me to see this film as a character study, since the film itself seems to regard its main character as something of a cipher, a tool and a thematic statement mouthpiece.

I'm at a loss how this wasn't obvious since I thought the film spelled it out rather clearly. A lot of it comes through Volente's performance and the film relies heavily on visuals, I assume to keep the story going and not have to stop and explain things. It's his manner, his expressions, how he holds himself, a level of smugness, proudness of his (well deserved to him) promotion, etc., but there's also his conversations with Augusta where he brags about how he's a powerful person, and his recorded "confession" clearly states this as well, and that he committed the murder to prove he's untouchable and therefore someone of power (the person "above suspicion" like that one neighbor of Augusta's.) And this isn't something he's just arrived at. He's always believed he's a person of power. As to how he developed this perception I don't think it really matters. But the murder was, as he clearly stated, a way for him to prove his power to himself because if they don't catch him, despite the clues he's left, it's because they're afraid to catch him.

If we had seen a Don Draper antihero version of the chief, the sort of hollow man hail fellow who can almost half believe the bullshit speech he's giving about the linkage of political activism and violent crime to an assembly colleagues (at least just enough while he's selling it)... Or somebody more like the protagonist of the The Lives of Others, a head-down bureaucrat to whom it never once previously occurred that he himself might be evil simply by playing his small part as a cog in an evil machine... Or if he'd been truly, demonstrably ambivalent all along, maybe left a few clues somewhat sloppily, framing himself subconsciously... If his detective colleagues had been both better at their jobs and less cartoonishly deferrential, more formidable antagonists... Or if the entire thing had been a pitch black comedy instead.

It wasn't? I'm honestly not sure how to respond to this because I feel like we watched two completely different films. This movie was funny, absurd, and none of those characters would have fit it. It's a satirical film and it's not grounded in reality in any way. That scene where they're comparing the different types of graffiti and their stats: that was absurd and funny. The politics can be simplified or too on-the-nose (like his big speech) and those around him may be cartoony, but it fits the film's absurd tone and its absurd central character. That's why the ending didn't work for me because that "first" ending fit the tone of the film perfectly, at least the tone I was feeling, where the "second" ending brings the film crashing to Earth, and felt incredibly out of place from everything else that happened before. Nothing in this film is grounded in reality and its tone is very satirical--except that ending.

At one point, it does become clear that at least one of the investigating homicide detectives is pursuing the chief with the necessary rigor. But most of that happens off screen and pretty late in the run time. And the procedures for investigating a police official suspected of this kind of crime are never clarified. Is the point that there ought to be an Internal Affairs department and there isn't one? Or that there are such structures in place but no one dares to implement them?

Again I think we're watching two different films. Why would this matter? Someone's on to him, that's about it. I don't think the film cares and I don't think it should. Plus veering off of the main character (who is the film's central focus and is rarely not in any scene) to another would grind the film to a halt.

The whole broader political angle never quite comes together for me either. Even a tiny tweak would have nudged it closer to some kind of integrity:

SpoilerShow

If the chief and the radical student leader were going to share a woman, why make her the blandly decadent apolitical hottie hausfrau that she is when you could easily have given her a much bigger local activist role, complicating things exponentially for the chief both before and after her death.

SpoilerShow

Why would she need a bigger local activist role? Are you saying she should have been more of a leftist than she already was? I'm not even sure how that would have helped. I think the fact she's a fairly ordinary citizen, pretty centered compared to everyone else, made it more insulting to him when she called him an "average" person. It would be expected that an activist wouldn't see him as a powerful person, but for someone pretty center to say that about him would have been beyond insulting to him. This is someone that should see him as someone with authority and she doesn't.

The film just kind of assumes a large part of its thematic premise, taking it for granted that the authorities are unquestionably corrupt, that anyone in power can get away with anything and forgetting that it is the job of a good storyteller to show us all that in the action of the story itself. And I can't help wondering what other political thriller directors like Pakula, Costa-Gavras, Petzold or even Greengrass would do with a similar premise.

And I think this is why we were watching two different films. Admittedly I'm not familiar with Petzold's work, and I'm assuming you mean Paul Greengrass, but it seems you were looking for a grounded portrayal and analysis of the system and this film wasn't that. It's more satirical and ramps up the absurdity, where the protagonist nicely fits. And though I do like their films (again, haven't seen one by Petzold) they probably wouldn't have made it as entertaining.

[warren oates]

It's a satirical film and it's not grounded in reality in any way.

It's not that I don't see what you are saying about the film's satirical intent or that I didn't feel like the film was trying to do at least some of that while I was watching it. Just that I guess I found it tonally, thematically and narratively insufficient to the task. And that it's easier to agree with "It's a satrical film..." then with "...and it's not grounded in reality in any way."

Because, for me, the second part of that statement -- about the relative grounding this film intends to have in the reality of its world (of the politics, the bureaucracy, the police procedure and the protagonist's psychology) -- speaks to just about everything I'm finding problematic. You're right that I was expecting both more of a grounded political thriller and more of a psychologically minded existential art film, but it's not like the film itself doesn't create those expectations. Nor would clarifying most of the aspects I'm struggling with necessarily sacrifice any prospective satirical barbs. I guess I'd even go so far as to say that it would probably improve their accuracy.

But the murder was, as he clearly stated, a way for him to prove his power to himself because if they don't catch him, despite the clues he's left, it's because they're afraid to catch him.

In the abstract, this sounds like the film I wanted to see. But when it comes to the actual film, I suppose there's too much ambivalence on the chief's part and a little too much ambiguity as to exactly what clues should prove to be enough or at exactly what moment he will know they are sufficiently on to him that they should have arrested him or, most crucially of all, what any of this would mean to the protagonist or about his world. Because even once he starts thinking about it, he realizes that it's not enough to send an innocent man to jail in his place. Or to just have the strong whiff of suspicion about him. He wants them to know without a doubt that he did it and still get away with it. Except he kind of doesn't seem to want to get away with it by the end. And, wait a minute, why does he concoct this plan again, in the afterglow of his impulsive murder? Only because his victim has verbally challenged his status and has grown tired of his lovemaking? Not because he himself has any strong prior questions or qualms about his job or the entire establishment system? Certainly not because we see him abusing his power in any meaningful way or feeling conflicted about it before the moment of the murder. And that just makes it all feel rather lame to me.

I suppose I just feel like the film, on the level of storytelling, is rather sloppy. I'm talking basic cause and effect linkages between scenes or within characters' arcs. And that lack of precision is driving what doesn't work on every level. The lead actor is quite committed, but, especially in such a plotty film with so many moving parts, you can't just claim that a great actor is creating a psychology for his character out of whole cloth that the script itself has failed to imagine. Volonte can only invest so much in each pained expression. I get that he's suffering. But not so much why. At a certain point the "it's absurd" defense starts to sound like "because reasons."

The politics can be simplified or too on-the-nose (like his big speech) and those around him may be cartoony, but it fits the film's absurd tone and its absurd central character.

Not just the politics but the procedure, the details of the world and, unfortunately, the dramatic stakes and the protagonist's psychology.

I just rewatched Serpico again last night. And that film establishes its protagonist's character, his values, the stakes and the reality of the corruption of its world with remarkable economy in just a few scenes. I felt like I was forever waiting for those scenes in this film and that's a large part of what I mean when I accuse it of just presuming/assuming its premise. I get it, I get it -- police chief = powerful. And in the abstract I get that this probably also equals corrupt. But what I don't get is what, beyond a simplistic ego trip, it all means to the specific chief in question -- both before and after the central events of the film -- and especially with regard to his inciting choice to do a murder and then frame his own guilty self for it.

I don't think it's impossible to do all the things you're saying this film does and do them well. Just look at Dr. Strangelove: a broad satire with almost nonstop laugh-out-loud comedy bits, and yet at one and the same time an almost equally chilling and realistically procedural Cold War thriller. Now, granted, that's a very high bar. But I suppose that part of what I'm arguing is that, given the degree of difficulty inherent in balancing all of the elements at play in Investigation of a Citizen Above Suspicion, the filmmakers either didn't rise to the challenge or didn't have the wisdom to see that this was beyond their grasp and settle for a better version of something that's perhaps a little less complex or ambitious but at least more coherent.

[criterion10]

I watched this about a week ago and absolutely loved it. Really great film that I hope is re-discovered with the Criterion release.

I followed up my viewing with the 80-minute documentary about Elio Petri, which I found rather interesting. I plan to check out some of his other films, starting with The 10th Victim and A Quiet Place in the Country, both of which are easily available. Yet, it seems as though his other films are rather difficult to find (The Assassin, Todo Modo, etc.). Anyone know of any ways to get a hold of these? It seems as though there's a Blu-Ray of The Assassin in France from Carlotta, but I'm not sure if it has English subtitles...

[ellipsis7]

Many of the films are available from Amazon.it, but only La Classe Operaia Va In Paradiso from Minerva/Raro has Eng subs...

[feihong]

There's German Elio Petri set that includes We Still Kill the Old Way, The Working Class Goes to Heaven/Lulu the Tool and Quiet Place in the Country. Amazon.it customer reviews note that only Lulu has no english subtitles.

Basically any Petri dvd you get though, there are english subtitles available somewhere on the net. There are even subs for Todo Modo floating out there.

I really like We Still Kill the Old Way. It's based on a Leonardo Sciascia novel, and it has some of the charge of reading Sciascia, carried over to the film.

[vertovfan]

Did anyone else notice a strange visual effect during the beach sequence? It almost looks like there's some kind of gauze or stocking material stretched over the camera lens - sometimes out-of-focus and barely visible, other times quite clear. It reminded me of the much-discussed effect on the blu-ray release of Marnie, though in this case it's clearly inherent in the original elements. At one point, the faintly visible grid actually rotates in time with the camera as it pans to follow Volonte, as if it's attached to the focus ring.

[swo17]

Yes, and the same thing with Babette's Feast. I believe it was actually shot that way, with a netting over the lens.