It is little known but Roberto Rossellini had an artistic life before "Rome, Open City ", one the pope of neo-realism was loath to brag about, since he had put his talent at the service of Mussolini. His first three feature films (gathered under the generic title of "The War Trilogy") were indeed made under the flag of fascism, "The White Ship" being the first of the three.
Filmed in 1941, using (to surprisingly good dramatic effect) filmed achives dating from 9-7-1940 (Battle of Punta Stilo) and 27-11-1940 (Battle of Cape Teulada), "The White Ship" is in no way a criticism of Mussolini's policies. How could it? If it had tried to be, it would never have existed! But can it be qualified as pure propaganda, in the manner of "Vecchia Guarda" (1934) or "Luciano Serra pilota" (1938)" for instance?
The answer to this tricky question is... yes and no!
Yes, on the one hand, because Rossellini is clearly on the Italian side : Mussolini's war is a just war. The opening is telltale in this respect: a mighty battleship is given to our admiration and the martial music that accompanies those glorious shots leaves no doubt about who the victors should be, who the victors will be. But shortly after this embarrassing introduction the tone changes significantly. And we are soon led to think that no, this not a propaganda work, at least that there is more to it than just political brainwashing. For what is Rossellini obviously interested in? Showing how mighty the Italian Navy is? The first Eisenstein-like shots already described naturally give this impression but as the film unfurls, what does the director show us ? A semi-victory won at the cost of many casualties and destructions. And does he present his characters in a heroic light, like so many American or Soviet films? Not at all, the sailors on board are ordinary young men with ordinary feelings: they long for home, think of the girl they left behind, try to raise each other's spirits during moments of relaxation... And when Rossellini's camera shows them in the throes of battle, it does not hide the fact that many get killed or severely burned. Not very effective in terms of propaganda, is it?
Another option that goes against the notion of successful agitprop is the director's obvious privileging the human factor over metaphor or allegory. The officers are little seen and are reduced to the status of men trying to carry out their task as competently as possible. While the sailors, as I have already said, are never shown acting heroically, they are John Does doing their duty, no GI Joes. The same is true for the second part of the story taking place on a hospital ship where the wounded main protagonist has been transferred : all we see is suffering patients and the medical staff at work. Nothing metaphoric about them, they are only themselves as part of a war machine beyond their control. An impression that gets reinforced by the fact that none of the actors are professionals. In "The White Ship", veracity matters more than the official ideology.
It all happens as if Rossellini was instilling the neo-realism to come into what was intended by the authorities as a sheer propaganda object, which saves the film and its maker from dishonor. Is "The White Ship" a masterpiece for all that? Not really ! For three reasons: first it is a hybrid product hesitating between documentary and fiction, between agitprop and realism. Secondly, it has a conventional love story, just worthy of a photo-novel. The third defect may be the worst: the characters lack psychological depth. They ring true but remain superficial all the time, preventing the viewer from identifying with them.
Nevertheless, "The White Ship" is not a film to be disdained. It has a rich historical value and manages to stick to the sailors' and officers' everyday lives rather than produce the pompous call to glory expected by Rossellini's fascist sponsors. Imperfect as it is, it is a valuable document as well as in its best moments, a precursor of neo-realism. Rome will soon be opened.
Filmed in 1941, using (to surprisingly good dramatic effect) filmed achives dating from 9-7-1940 (Battle of Punta Stilo) and 27-11-1940 (Battle of Cape Teulada), "The White Ship" is in no way a criticism of Mussolini's policies. How could it? If it had tried to be, it would never have existed! But can it be qualified as pure propaganda, in the manner of "Vecchia Guarda" (1934) or "Luciano Serra pilota" (1938)" for instance?
The answer to this tricky question is... yes and no!
Yes, on the one hand, because Rossellini is clearly on the Italian side : Mussolini's war is a just war. The opening is telltale in this respect: a mighty battleship is given to our admiration and the martial music that accompanies those glorious shots leaves no doubt about who the victors should be, who the victors will be. But shortly after this embarrassing introduction the tone changes significantly. And we are soon led to think that no, this not a propaganda work, at least that there is more to it than just political brainwashing. For what is Rossellini obviously interested in? Showing how mighty the Italian Navy is? The first Eisenstein-like shots already described naturally give this impression but as the film unfurls, what does the director show us ? A semi-victory won at the cost of many casualties and destructions. And does he present his characters in a heroic light, like so many American or Soviet films? Not at all, the sailors on board are ordinary young men with ordinary feelings: they long for home, think of the girl they left behind, try to raise each other's spirits during moments of relaxation... And when Rossellini's camera shows them in the throes of battle, it does not hide the fact that many get killed or severely burned. Not very effective in terms of propaganda, is it?
Another option that goes against the notion of successful agitprop is the director's obvious privileging the human factor over metaphor or allegory. The officers are little seen and are reduced to the status of men trying to carry out their task as competently as possible. While the sailors, as I have already said, are never shown acting heroically, they are John Does doing their duty, no GI Joes. The same is true for the second part of the story taking place on a hospital ship where the wounded main protagonist has been transferred : all we see is suffering patients and the medical staff at work. Nothing metaphoric about them, they are only themselves as part of a war machine beyond their control. An impression that gets reinforced by the fact that none of the actors are professionals. In "The White Ship", veracity matters more than the official ideology.
It all happens as if Rossellini was instilling the neo-realism to come into what was intended by the authorities as a sheer propaganda object, which saves the film and its maker from dishonor. Is "The White Ship" a masterpiece for all that? Not really ! For three reasons: first it is a hybrid product hesitating between documentary and fiction, between agitprop and realism. Secondly, it has a conventional love story, just worthy of a photo-novel. The third defect may be the worst: the characters lack psychological depth. They ring true but remain superficial all the time, preventing the viewer from identifying with them.
Nevertheless, "The White Ship" is not a film to be disdained. It has a rich historical value and manages to stick to the sailors' and officers' everyday lives rather than produce the pompous call to glory expected by Rossellini's fascist sponsors. Imperfect as it is, it is a valuable document as well as in its best moments, a precursor of neo-realism. Rome will soon be opened.
