Stephen Campbell
May 15, 2019
9/10
Extraordinary film-making of the highest calibre contains spoilers
It's a story of pure horror with no possible hope or redemption for anybody. But we made the film as an act of love for this stolen, forgotten child. The child never had the experience of love, so we thought a love story would be the key to enter this story. Also, you can't change the destiny of the boy, but maybe the ghost of the boy could change the life of the main character, so for us, it was the only way possible to tell the story, from the point of the main character, the girl in love with him.
- Antonio Piazza; "How Sicilian Ghost Story's directors are transforming Italian cinema" (Jack Rear); Verdict (August 1, 2018)
the only way to tell the story was for us to create a collision between a level of reality and a level of fantasy. On the level of reality, a dark fable. On the level of fantasy, a romantic fable.This may seem distasteful to some, as the film posits that love is able to transcend violence, and, ultimately, give freedom to the soul, but the directors state,
at the end, another reality is revealed, one which surpasses dreams and nightmares, a reality in which ghosts reveal their true nature, their very solid and indestructible reality as souls.Obviously, this aspect of the story has no correlation with the horrific real-life events. However, Pizza and Grassadonia argue that they are essentially resurrecting the real Giuseppe, insofar as the story is not especially well known, even in Sicily itself – for example, all of the young cast are from Sicily, but none of them knew anything about Giuseppe. Speaking to verdict.co.uk, they argue that the film's narrative allows them to approach the facts of the case in a unique way; as Luna is
using a fantasy, her imagination, and dreams at night, to reimagine reality. A revolution against the facts, the way they are told. Sometimes facts become written in stone and become something that you have to destroy. Fantasy, for us, is a political act.In terms of the content, as I have already mentioned, the film exists on an emotional level rather than an intellectual one, and the audience will get the most from it if they allow themselves to engage with it on that same emotional level. Piazza and Grassadonia liken this to Romeo and Juliet, a dark, violent story in which children die horrible deaths, but which works because Shakespeare's verse allows readers an emotional distance from the events of the (not especially well-structured) plot; if one analyses the play on a purely intellectual level, it makes little sense. However, on an emotional level, it works perfectly. Sicilian Ghost Story operates in a similar way – the emotional is far more important than the intellectual. This is all tied into how Piazza and Grassadonia wanted to honour the real Giuseppe, but rather than presenting a fact-based intellectual film, they instead made an emotion-based fairy-tale. That the film operates on this emotional level is tied into its very DNA. As to my experience, I became aware I was watching something extraordinary in the opening scene. Inside a cave, the camera travels over dark rocks. A weak light emanates from the mouth of the cave, and reflects off the droplets of water on the rocks. As the camera moves, and the screen fills with a black background permeated by soft white spots, one could be looking at an expansive star field rather than being confined inside a cave, a shot which recalls the scene on the driving range in Michael Mann's The Insider (1999), which has a similarly disorientating effect (although used by the director for a very different end). As the film continued, it became increasingly obvious to me that the form and content are so intrinsically bound together, that it's difficult to tell which is generating which. For example, the music (which is non-diegetic, and therefore form) bleeds into the foley (which is diegetic, and therefore content). But does the foley give rise to the music or does the music give rise to the foley? The filmmakers also employ a litany of techniques to link, contrast, and compare various scenes. Animal imagery appears throughout; an owl in the opening shot is seen multiple times over the course of the rest of the film, and also highlighted are butterflies, a stout, a dog, spiders, and, especially, horses. There's even a reference to Pan (although, thankfully, no mention of having sex with goats or pederasty). On a more technical level, Pizza and Grassadonia's visual trickery is exceptionally accomplished, and they employ it perfectly, always justified by the content; fisheye lenses, Dutch angles, asymmetrical framing, chiaroscuro lighting, soft focus, forced perspective, etc. As I was musing on what I would talk about in this review, I realised that most of the reasons I loved the film so much will be the exact same reasons that a lot of people hate it – the narrative ambiguity, the only-ever-hinted-at possibility of something ethereal living in the forest, the slightly confusing achronological structure, the camera trickery, the slow pacing, the bleak morality, the non-diegetic light sources, the naturalistic acting, the symbolism and visual metaphors, the use of a real-life murder as the subject for an oneiric romance dealing with first love, the (at times) oppressive music, the tacit disregard for genre, the two scenes where the narrative progression simply stops completely and there are two four-or-five-minute sequences that don't advance the plot in any way, but which are achingly beautiful, and central to the film's overriding theme – that love can transcend all. If I was being forced to criticise, I suppose, the way the narrative folds back on itself without really alerting the audience that it's a flashback can be a little disorientating, but this is hardly a criticism, as disorientation is obviously the point, as the film attempts to place the audience in the same confused headspace as Giuseppe. It also starts a little slow and doesn't instantly pull you in. But that's it. I wouldn't say a single negative word about anything else. This is cinema as art. Point of fact, it's nothing less than a masterpiece.