SA #2 (Salvatore Giuliano)

1 HUM 321W The Humanities and Critical Thinking SA #2: Salvatore Giuliano General description For your second short analysis, you will interpret Francesco Rosi’s Salvatore Giuliano (1962). This truly revolutionary film is considered the first and most compelling expression of cine-inchiesta (or “investigative filmmaking”) as well as a major influence on later modes of and approaches to political filmmaking (crime films, police dramas, etc.) both in Italy and abroad. Rosi’s capolavoro (masterpiece) work also comes with some challenges. Because the film’s narrative is non-linear, I have posted to Canvas a “time sequence” that you can consult when you study the film. The film also presumes some level of viewer knowledge, so I have posted to Canvas a list of “film references” to define some terms that appear in the film. Finally, because the film presumes prior knowledge, it is essential that you do as much reading as possible and familiarize yourself with the general narrative about Italy – and Sicily – in the immediate postwar era. The aim of this second short analysis is not to write an essay, but something more limited: to give you some initial practice with the kinds of skills you need to write effective film analyses – both short and extended – later in the term: (1) an interpretive (and contextualized) thesis; (2) the selection and analysis of filmic evidence that supports the thesis; and (3) the close-reading of the film as an audio-visual humanistic text. Your SA #2 will consist of three component parts . For the sake of further practice and reinforcement, the first two parts look exactly like your SA #1 on In nome della legge . It should not exceed 1.5 single-spaced pages (one-inch margins on all sides) and be structured according to the guidelines below: First , at the top of the first page, articulate a clear, concise interpretive thesis statement (in no more than three single-spaced sentences) about your film’s meaning and significance – just as you were asked to do for Germi’s In nome della legge . Please do not write a full introductory paragraph (as if you were writing an essay). For now, focus only on the mechanics of articulating an overarching interpretive thesis statement that can subsequently be (1) supported with evidence from the film and (2) contextualized in a historically-minded way. Your interpretive thesis statement should apply directly the three “Ms” that I introduced in seminar: the essential foundation for formulating an interpretive thesis statement for each and every film. These include the following: (1) the mode (s) of filmmaking; (2) the director’s possible motive (s) – both strategies and objectives – for making the film that he did; and (3) the broader message (s) that Rosi might have been seeking to convey through his mafia tale. **For a fuller description of the three Ms, please refer to the Week 2 short-analysis assignment. Finally, for this section, I would like you to single out and identify from your interpretive thesis statement each of the three Ms – just as you did for last week’s assignment.

2 Here’s a reminder of to do it: just below your thesis statement, specify each of the “Ms” individually by cutting and pasting the relevant information directly from the thesis into a short list as follows: Mode(s) : Motive(s) : • Strategies (the ‘how’) • Objectives (the why’) Message(s) : If you cannot find the content in your thesis that addresses the “three Ms,” then try revising it until you can. Second , defend the interpretive thesis you’ve just articulated by analyzing four key pieces of evidence that can support your ideas. In each case, come up with analytical (not just descriptive) explanations. Each response should be one paragraph in length (and no more than two, if necessary). The evidence should be broken down as follows – and identified as such with proper headings in your submission: • Narrative structure & strategies : How does Rosi tell the story on screen? In the case of In nome della legge (linear, relatively fast-paced, several subplots, etc.), we have encountered a film whose narrative structure is relatively simple. Rosi’s film presents us with a very different kind of narrative. How does Rosi structure that narrative, and why would he choose to narrate the story of Giuliano, and immediate postwar Sicily more broadly, in the way that he does? And how do Rosi’s narrative strategies relate to your thesis and to the broader meaning/significance of the film? • Characterization : How does Rosi construct his characters, and why are those constructions important for understanding the film both historically and cinematically? Here, too, you can draw from our discussion In nome della legge (good vs. evil; stereotyped characters; recognizable, sympathetic figures designed to evoke an emotional response and inspire a call to action; local peasant as non-professional actors, etc.) to think about the importance of characterization in Salvatore Giuliano – especially since our film for this week approaches things in a very different way. Analyze Rosi’s approach to characterization as a whole, but you might also focus more specifically on one character or perhaps on a relationship between or among characters. There is more than one way to address characterization as evidence, so it is up to you to decide which approach works best – and in support of your thesis. Additional note: Rosi employs only two professional actors in the film. Pisciotta is interpreted by American actor Frank Wolff , and the trial judge is well-known Italian actor Salvo Randone , whom we will see again in a later film. A third, Carmelo Oliviero, became something of a professional actor after his minor role as Don Peppino (the bartender) in Germi’s Il nome della legge . In this film, he interprets the role of the mafioso Minasola. (And you’ll see him again in two more of our films.) All the other actors in Salvatore Giuliano are non-professionals; some actually play themselves because they were participants in or witnesses to the events that Rosi reconstructs on screen. • Sicily : The original title for this film was not, in fact, Salvatore Giuliano , but Sicily, 1943- 1960 . The original title choice would imply that Sicily itself is very much a protagonist in the