Talk:Ossessione

I think there's a factual discrepancy in the summary that contains spoilers. This part: "In another scene, a man rushes into the inn where the tramp is seated at supper with the innkeeper and his wife. He informs them that another landowner has been shot from behind by a worker. Bregana fetches his gun and leaves. Shortly after his exit, as the adulterous lovers huddle close by the window, gunshots sound through the night" doesn't seem correct.

Having just seen the film, what actually happens is the husband, Bregana, leaves dinner for a few moments and goes outside. When he returns, he tells the wife and tramp that another landowner has been shot from behind by a worker. The wife complains about some cats outside making noise, and gets so stressed about it (the cats are in heat, mimicking her and the tramp's lust) that her husband, Bregana, goes out with the gun to shoot the cats.

However, this is from the English subtitled version I watched, so I'm not sure if the difference is between the original version and subtitles, or what. Anyone want to confirm? I don't want to edit until I know more. Clockster 08:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I have the DVD; shall take a look at it sometime soon. Viva-Verdi 14:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, here's another problem: "Despite arguments about how to define neorealist cinema, certainly one of Ossessione’s most poignant aspects is its stark realism."

As if defining "realism" were any easier than defining "neo-realism"! The whole reason that there is a "neo" there is because "realism" is a 19th century category, for the most part. Only historical definitions of the terms "realism" and "neorealism" (in terms of the critics who invented them and what they were referring to) can be accepted.

We should describe the qualities of the film that may or may not add up to "realism" or "neorealism" rather than letting these terms interfere with our description.

68.161.128.124 (talk) 03:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

"Factual discrepancy"

I was about to write about the same referred to in the Plot section, when I see that it was already discussed. But I start a new comment, since in the previous one there are other issues too. The scene in question: "In another scene, a man rushes into the inn where the tramp is seated at supper with the innkeeper and his wife. He informs them that another landowner has been shot from behind by a worker. Bregana fetches his gun and leaves" is definitely misleading. What actually happens is what the previous poster wrote. Actually there IS a fourth person that comes to tell that a man has been shot by an employee because of his wife. But, the thing is that Bergana stays indifferent, totally oblivious that it is exactly what could (and, eventually, would) happen to him. A few minutes later he grabs the gun -rather upset- because his wife complains about the cats. I think that part needs a rephrasing. And, to be sure, that is what happens; nothing is "lost in the translation" here. Nazroon (talk) 05:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)