Monsignor Davide Milani.
“Parthenope” by Paolo Sorrentino is a divisive film, there is no doubt about that. There are those who have exalted it as a sublime masterpiece of poetry, a metaphor for the time of youth “which nevertheless flees”, a painful song of freedom which has Naples as its backdrop, and those who have defined it as a flat, slow film, wrapped in places municipalities that have always surrounded this city of a thousand contradictions. Then there is that scabrous and grotesque scene which mocks the miracle of San Gennaro and which irritated many Neapolitans, not only among the parish priests and the faithful. So where should “Parthenope” stand? For Monsignor Davide Milani, from neither of the two. Milani is president of the Fondazione Ente dello Spettacolo, director of the Rivista del Cinematografo and secretary of the “Pontifical Foundation for Culture for Education” of the Culture for Education dicastery of the Holy See. «The film», he explains, «is in continuity with part of Sorrentino’s filmography and obviously refers, as an itinerary, to the Great Beauty. A work that went around the world and won an Oscar.”
Is the protagonist like Jep Gambardella played by Toni Servillo?
«I would say no. Here the gaze is no longer on the beauty of Rome but on the tragic magnificence of Naples (at least according to Sorrentino’s gaze). Compared to the Great Beauty, in my opinion Parthenope is different and also has different outcomes.”
And which ones?
«The director is perhaps excessively confident in his knowledge of Naples».
Celeste Dalla Porta (Parthenope).
Naples is the city where he was born and lived for a long time, before leaving…
«Perhaps precisely for this reason he is guilty of excessive confidence in seeing her, in talking about her and in addressing his reflections to her. Like the invective against the city that he puts into the mouth of a melancholy and faded woman (Sophia Loren?) on the deck of a ship, played by Luisa Ranieri. To make an invective like this against a city and its inhabitants you have to be sure you know it inside out. And also have the reasons. Goffredo Fofi also noted that, towards the Neapolitans, that scathing monologue is excessive. The growth of recent years, from all points of view, including social, of this wonderful city does not deserve these words.”
So what judgment can we make?
«What I notice is this self-confidence on the part of a master of cinematography which, even in the film, leads him to trust too much in aesthetics».
An excessively aesthetic film, therefore, perhaps too tied to the sensorial emotions arising from those images?
«It is a very aesthetic film in its entirety: from the view of the city to the many naturalistic postcards of the Gulf, to the stereotyped cross-sections of the people of Naples, up to obviously the aesthetics of the protagonist, with this seductive gaze aimed at the camera and therefore at the spectator. Seductive not only in a physical sense, but also as a model of a woman who aims to be free and therefore not possessed by anything or anyone, elusive from everything: boyfriends, suitors, family members, with the illusion of being superior to everything. At the end of his life, he receives a long round of applause.”
Paolo Sorrentino.
The applause at the University of Trento from colleagues and students, before retiring…
“Yes. That applause is ultimately a tribute, a celebration of a model.”
The “Parthenope” model?
“Yes. And in any case even in this case the approach is always aesthetic, whether we are talking about philosophy or anthropology. But the problem is that you never get to the bottom of anything. You can get to the bottom of things in a film, but here you don’t see this in-depth analysis…”.
Even though in a dialogue with the professor played by Orlando it is said that anthropology is “seeing things”?
«But even in this case we don’t delve into what it means to see things. In the film this never happens. It’s okay to be mysterious, but not ethereal. The only well-drawn and profound character is the university professor played by Silvio Orlando.”
Peppe Lanzetta (Cardinal Tesorone) and Celeste Dalla Porta.
What do you think of the now famous scabrous scene centered on the miracle of San Gennaro? The protagonist, dressed in the saint’s jewels, has intercourse with the bishop of Naples played by Peppe Lanzetta.
«Within this ethereal gaze and the limits of the film, the story of the figure of the cardinal and the miracle must be framed. We know how much Sorrentino likes to provoke. Let’s think about the series “The young Pope”. This film, after all, is also full of provocations. We think of the ghostly “water and salt” son, of the invective of an unlikely Loren, of episodes and characters from the history of Naples portrayed in a caustic manner, such as Achille Lauro. Within this love for provocation there is also the story of the cardinal and San Gennaro. But I don’t see a thought-out and premeditated attack on the Church.”
There are those who called it a sacrilegious scene.
«Let’s say that that scene is not a discount on Sorrentino and his concern to tell the characteristics of a city. It is part of these postcards that he sends us and assembles according to a design, which according to him is philosophical. But if we take the Christian martyr San Gennaro, patron saint of Naples, if we consider this mysterious aspect of the prodigy, removing it from its native context of faith and Tradition (with a capital T), then everything is worth it. Gennaro is a saint who gave cultural identity to such a profound city and who moved the faith of millions of people. If we remove it from this vital context, we make it become like pizza, the mandolin, Maradona, the songs of Salvatore Di Giacomo, Totò, the comedies of Eduardo: then it’s worth everything and it’s worth nothing.”
San Gennaro is therefore not considered what he is: a symbol of faith.
«Symbols ask to be recognized in order to be able to use them and enter into dialogue with the Absolute. San Gennaro represents the soul of the city. If the symbol is not recognized, it is destroyed.”
The choice of a female protagonist called Parthenope, who recalls the legendary mermaid, could allude to a mythological vision of the city. How do you see this overlap between myth and faith?
«I don’t see an overlap. Sorrentino explained that he decided to make the film by seeing a girl emerge from the sea like a mermaid. He does not contrast it with faith. San Gennaro is not opposed to Partenope, but is, as I explained, one of the characteristic aspects of the city.”
Silvio Orlando (Professor Marotta).
Sorrentino is known for his highly refined aesthetic style, at times almost baroque. Do you believe that this approach can communicate spiritual values or does it risk distracting from the underlying message?
«The film divided spectators. Those who liked it aroused great enthusiasm. I tried to understand why. Aesthetics are never harmless. The director convinces the spectator, seduces him and gives him the answers before asking him the questions. Aesthetics enter your senses before questions. One aspect is this sense of the beauty of the youth that we have lost. It comes to you right away. Ultimately we are all nostalgic even if we hadn’t asked ourselves those questions that seduce you.”
Luisa Ranieri (Greta Cool).
Does this mean that in “Parthenope” the answers come before the questions?
«Yes, it’s a bit like when you smell coffee and you want to drink it. The perfume seduces you, invites you to an emotion. In Partenope you are seduced by the model of freedom of this woman who never belongs to anyone. But this is not freedom; the figure of the protagonist is sad.”
And why? Why is she left alone?
«We don’t know where he spent his life after his move to Trento. As if being free meant never belonging to anyone, while true freedom means losing yourself within others, putting yourself on the line for someone: for an educational passion, for a love, for a mission, for a community, for a child. This is why the professor played by Silvio Orlando is a very positive character for me. While Parthenope makes me sad.”
