There is some movies that have a special and well designed message. 'Piú bel Giorno della mia vita, il' is one of them. Maybe someone would think that the movie is a bit obvious and redundant. But the point is that this movie wants to tells us a common story, a story of a family (an Italian family, but maybe all the families in the world have the same problems)in search of love, companionship, tolerance and hope. In this angle, the movie made a good work. Its dialog are natural, simple minded but realistic and the characters are compassionate and not just cardboard figures. Some themes are treated with dignity, although not with profoundity. The gay relationship between Claudio and Luca, the solitude and vague sadness of the mother (played by Virna Lisi), the innocence and sadness of the little girl named Chiara. The movies made in Italy have a special place in the history of cinema. Just remember Fellini ('Amarcord') or Ettore Scola ('Famiglia, La'). In the last ten years, Italia was almost absent of the international scene of movies. The world discovered movies made in Spain by Almodóvar, Argentina, with directors like Juan José Campanella (Hijo de la Novia, El) or Brazil ('Central Station', by Walter Salles). This movie is almost a comeback. A good one, to be sure.
9 Reviews
a beautiful film
hulalew20 July 2004
I studied abroad in Italy; while there I took a film class in which we viewed this movie and discussed it in relation to contemporary Italian society. The director Cristina Comencini is from a famed Italian film making family, and I feel this movie is a wonderful exhibit of her directorial skill. It may be difficult for an American mind to understand the complexity of relationships and the value of family to the Italian culture, and that could account for its lackluster American reviews (it was generally quite well received in Italy). I do not believe this is an example of Italian film at its best - it is in no way comparable to the works of Rossellini or DeSica, but it is an entertaining and touching film that I would recommend.
Good, but nothing special
dadie7 September 2004
As you probably know it is a story of a group of brothers and their mother, it talks about different view of relationship, sex and so on. It has many points, the story goes on fluently, the atmosphere is cured, actors works really good, they export very well emotions and the entire movie as well. The only problem I found is quite basic: it is a normal, classical Italian movie! I'm not talking about Fellini & co.'s movies, but the last decade of movies from my country. They tell us the story of reletionship, familiar problem, real emotions and more. OK, sometimes it is not so bad, like this one indeed, but it seems every time the sequel of a previous movie of this typology. DADIE
Not a masterpiece, but enjoyable.
crusca238220 July 2013
I just finished watching this movie on TV and I must say I enjoyed it. Unlike some commentators here, I found it well acted, filmed and decently written. I am Italian and I liked the dialogues and the way in which they draw the identity and psychology of each character. They are dry and realistic. Silence and inability to fully talk are presented as important as they are in real life and, it seems to me, in many family dynamics. And for being a movie produced by RAI, of course it has some obvious auto-limitations in the way in which certain themes are represented – like homosexuality and the absence of a scene of sexual intercourse or even a kiss between two males – but still it does a decent job in rendering passions, emotions and the way in which sexuality shapes human relationship and understanding. So, not a masterpiece, but a good product.
The problem with some other reviews here has to do with the conception of cinema that some have and the ramifications that this has on the way they judge a movie. For many it seems that a film should necessarily be a piece of militant advocacy for the cause they see as fundamental. So any creation should stand for something: war criticism, homosexuality, fight against segregation, etc. And if the cause happens to be a centerpiece of today's political correctness, then the movie should scream that for one hundred minutes in the ears of the viewers. Well, this movie is not of that kind and does not want to say much about homosexuality. It tries to see human relations with eyes of a ten year old girl, not with the over-pouring judgment of, say, Almodovar. It takes some ability to be light, and Ms. Comencini has it.
The problem with some other reviews here has to do with the conception of cinema that some have and the ramifications that this has on the way they judge a movie. For many it seems that a film should necessarily be a piece of militant advocacy for the cause they see as fundamental. So any creation should stand for something: war criticism, homosexuality, fight against segregation, etc. And if the cause happens to be a centerpiece of today's political correctness, then the movie should scream that for one hundred minutes in the ears of the viewers. Well, this movie is not of that kind and does not want to say much about homosexuality. It tries to see human relations with eyes of a ten year old girl, not with the over-pouring judgment of, say, Almodovar. It takes some ability to be light, and Ms. Comencini has it.
could've been
alberto-venturi11 September 2004
A pity this film starred several major Italian actors and actresses, from Virna Lisi to Margherita Buy, and even today's seemingly brightest stars on the Italian movie scene, Luigi Lo Cascio and Sandra Ceccarelli. The problem with this piece of work is not the issues it discusses, these being quite simply some of the brightest and darkest sides of life. It is the fact that pretty much everything could have been done better here - the plot, the photography, the acting, the ending - none of which are anywhere near the level of "Luce dei miei occhi", a previous work (by another director) also starring Lo Cascio and Ceccarelli. The entrance of one manifestly dubbed foreign actor contributes in making the film more wobbly and less believable. But most of all, the way Ricky Tognazzi steps in, near the end of the story, exposes a major plot hole. After that final faux pas, the film is hardly salvageable.
A poetic film
agyanez16 October 2002
This really poetic film tells the story of an italian family. It is the story of a grandmother, Irene, her two daughters, Rita and Sara and her son, Claudio. Sara is a woman who is not able to trust of any man and she is always worry for her son. Rita, who has two daughters, is living the end of her marriage and is in love with a veterinary surgeon. Claudio is a gay and he doesn't try to manage this fact in a good way. At the beginning the relationship inside this family are very formal, everyone tries to hide his deep feelings but, little by little, the impossibility to live a daily life behind a mask determines a change in the behaviour of all protagonists. However this change is not without suffering. Irene herself, who at a first glance seems to be a woman without uncertainty and always tried to give serenity to all his family, suddendly realizes that her life was full of masks too and that suffering and uncertainty are elements of every life.
Concert of great acting
axolos-16 August 2005
The most beautiful day of my life is a great concert of the most distinguished acting I have seen in a long time.
The Italian family at its best: meeting every Sunday for a lunch at the house of the conservative and traditionalistic grandma. And while on the outside everybody is keeping their face, the relationships within and between the family members have their classic taboos which cannot be touched: the brother's homosexuality, the sister's affair, etc. The longing for love is so eminent, it almost scares. And while we have to wait for the catharsis to arrive, we learn that there is no right or wrong about love. And that the individual perspective about love is just the one there is... no absolute truths, no demons of the known... just the personal stories and their roots.
The director did a great job with unusual camera positions. They show the hidden, the undiscovered... Thanks!
The Italian family at its best: meeting every Sunday for a lunch at the house of the conservative and traditionalistic grandma. And while on the outside everybody is keeping their face, the relationships within and between the family members have their classic taboos which cannot be touched: the brother's homosexuality, the sister's affair, etc. The longing for love is so eminent, it almost scares. And while we have to wait for the catharsis to arrive, we learn that there is no right or wrong about love. And that the individual perspective about love is just the one there is... no absolute truths, no demons of the known... just the personal stories and their roots.
The director did a great job with unusual camera positions. They show the hidden, the undiscovered... Thanks!
No transformation
diand_14 July 2005
Although Il più bel giorno della mia vita is again a story from Italy about the breakdown of traditional family structure, the movie goes way beyond this theme. If you see this only as being on the first (kind of superior soap) level you will miss a lot. It is a movie that makes us viewers work hard. It is well constructed and uses three cinematic devices to get its message across.
First, there is heavy use of symbolism. The two most important are the dogs standing for loyalty and the cigarettes referring to desire and passion. When true love sets in the dog breaks something on the table. There's the whole stop-smoking club, the two members we know do not only stop quitting, they also have an affair. A boat figures as the obvious symbol. The church is used as a reference for traditional values, here mainly present in the art direction (e.g. church buildings and statues) but also in the young girl up for communion who is the center of the whole story. This movie is so dense that you have to watch it again to get every relation of the symbols in relation to the interaction of the characters.
Then there is the use of the 'fast character introduction'. The many characters are rapidly sketched in the beginning and all story lines are only touched upon, and because there are so many characters we need time and attention to connect the dots.
Once we are familiar with the characters and their connections and context, we jump two months ahead. So we do again have to pay attention to pick up on everything. There's other clever use of time (to show past and present in one scene by projecting images at the background, or by using fantasies of past and present).
There are roughly three parts: the setup of all relations, then the start of all love relations that change the landscape of the characters and it ends with the girl filming it all. That's the key here, because she's the only pure human in the movie. She's the only true religious also, so I find the main message a conservative and traditional one and I do not know if that's intended. (In the same way I do think of Apocalypse Now as a pro-war movie despite trying to be anti-war).
There's so much effort put into this, but in the end it did not work for me. In line with its main message it lacks emotion and sentiment and is very afraid to use them. That's congruent, but not very interesting basically. As viewers we are not transformed in the movie, although nearly all characters were. But movies are not dead things, they interact with the viewer and that process is what counts. Someone commenting here said this resembled La Famiglia from Scola. I think it's almost the opposite.
First, there is heavy use of symbolism. The two most important are the dogs standing for loyalty and the cigarettes referring to desire and passion. When true love sets in the dog breaks something on the table. There's the whole stop-smoking club, the two members we know do not only stop quitting, they also have an affair. A boat figures as the obvious symbol. The church is used as a reference for traditional values, here mainly present in the art direction (e.g. church buildings and statues) but also in the young girl up for communion who is the center of the whole story. This movie is so dense that you have to watch it again to get every relation of the symbols in relation to the interaction of the characters.
Then there is the use of the 'fast character introduction'. The many characters are rapidly sketched in the beginning and all story lines are only touched upon, and because there are so many characters we need time and attention to connect the dots.
Once we are familiar with the characters and their connections and context, we jump two months ahead. So we do again have to pay attention to pick up on everything. There's other clever use of time (to show past and present in one scene by projecting images at the background, or by using fantasies of past and present).
There are roughly three parts: the setup of all relations, then the start of all love relations that change the landscape of the characters and it ends with the girl filming it all. That's the key here, because she's the only pure human in the movie. She's the only true religious also, so I find the main message a conservative and traditional one and I do not know if that's intended. (In the same way I do think of Apocalypse Now as a pro-war movie despite trying to be anti-war).
There's so much effort put into this, but in the end it did not work for me. In line with its main message it lacks emotion and sentiment and is very afraid to use them. That's congruent, but not very interesting basically. As viewers we are not transformed in the movie, although nearly all characters were. But movies are not dead things, they interact with the viewer and that process is what counts. Someone commenting here said this resembled La Famiglia from Scola. I think it's almost the opposite.
Homosexual liberation: When? (For adult minds only, please)
davidtraversa-111 July 2008
I agree with most of the critics above. More yet, I was shocked by the presentation of the love scenes with the homosexual couple.
Why? because while they --the director, the producers?-- didn't have any compulsion whatsoever in presenting the different heterosexual couples in the most passionate embraces including nudity and super close-ups of French kissing and all sorts of nude contortions in bed, completely unnecessary in their length and in the story, when the moment came to show the same experiences with the homosexual couple, they only dare to go as far as an excruciatingly painful hug, almost among scholarly giggles, with two very nervous actors.
So, in reality, the makers of this film found homosexuality to be UNNATURAL, as one of the characters says in some scene.
What a difference with the Spanish cinema!!
I remember being at the projection of an Almodovar film in an Italian cinema in Rome, and being completely amazed at the total lack of reaction from the Italian audience, they were afraid to have a reaction!! when in Spain people would fall down from their seats laughing at all the risquè situations and fabulous Almodovar wit and flair.
Obviously in Italy there are dark forces in its history that impedes the free manifestation of some very normal and natural emotions.
Pity.
I must add that I was quite surprised to find that this same comment of mine was censured by another correspondent and I felt obliged to rewrite it.
It's very bad and dangerous when we cannot be allowed by the narrow-mindedness of others to express our opinions about certain matters (Homosexuality and the catholic church in this case).
What happened to the Freedom of Speech?
I don't know if that censor will approve of the changes I was forced to make in this review, and I hope he won't ever receive himself the same treatment to his ideas, because that intolerance shows a very sad state of bigotry and dark ignorance.
* * *
2012.
Several years have gone by since this film was made and I wrote a review (twice censured) to which now I'm adding this appendix due to the way the world is drastically changing its view about homosexuality.
Since 2002 several countries have made same sex marriage legal by law and in the case of Argentina in particular it includes adoption and this law covers the whole country.
Furthermore, there is a new law here that allows officially the change of sex without medical intervention and without eyewitnesses just by going to a registry office and changing one's name from the actual sex to the opposite one. Also tourist gay couples from other countries can be married within two hours in any registry office.
And to think that I was forced by an objector to my first comment that censured my review to write it twice! I wonder what that objector may be thinking about how the world is changing...
Why? because while they --the director, the producers?-- didn't have any compulsion whatsoever in presenting the different heterosexual couples in the most passionate embraces including nudity and super close-ups of French kissing and all sorts of nude contortions in bed, completely unnecessary in their length and in the story, when the moment came to show the same experiences with the homosexual couple, they only dare to go as far as an excruciatingly painful hug, almost among scholarly giggles, with two very nervous actors.
So, in reality, the makers of this film found homosexuality to be UNNATURAL, as one of the characters says in some scene.
What a difference with the Spanish cinema!!
I remember being at the projection of an Almodovar film in an Italian cinema in Rome, and being completely amazed at the total lack of reaction from the Italian audience, they were afraid to have a reaction!! when in Spain people would fall down from their seats laughing at all the risquè situations and fabulous Almodovar wit and flair.
Obviously in Italy there are dark forces in its history that impedes the free manifestation of some very normal and natural emotions.
Pity.
I must add that I was quite surprised to find that this same comment of mine was censured by another correspondent and I felt obliged to rewrite it.
It's very bad and dangerous when we cannot be allowed by the narrow-mindedness of others to express our opinions about certain matters (Homosexuality and the catholic church in this case).
What happened to the Freedom of Speech?
I don't know if that censor will approve of the changes I was forced to make in this review, and I hope he won't ever receive himself the same treatment to his ideas, because that intolerance shows a very sad state of bigotry and dark ignorance.
* * *
2012.
Several years have gone by since this film was made and I wrote a review (twice censured) to which now I'm adding this appendix due to the way the world is drastically changing its view about homosexuality.
Since 2002 several countries have made same sex marriage legal by law and in the case of Argentina in particular it includes adoption and this law covers the whole country.
Furthermore, there is a new law here that allows officially the change of sex without medical intervention and without eyewitnesses just by going to a registry office and changing one's name from the actual sex to the opposite one. Also tourist gay couples from other countries can be married within two hours in any registry office.
And to think that I was forced by an objector to my first comment that censured my review to write it twice! I wonder what that objector may be thinking about how the world is changing...
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
