
The film "Bicycle Thieve" by Vittorio De Sica from 1948 is about Antonio Ricci, who works as a day laborer in post-war Rome. He gets a permanent job as a bill-poster but needs a bicycle, which he has pawned. While putting up posters, he gets distracted, and his bicycle is stolen. Antonio tries to pursue the thief but is hindered by accomplices. He reports the theft to the police but without much hope. Together with his son, he searches for the stolen bicycle in vain. Eventually, they find the thief and follow him to his home but face resistance from neighbors and acquaintances. A possible mafioso appears. The situation almost escalates when the thief pretends to have a seizure. A policeman searches the room but finds nothing. Antonio finally withdraws. Frustrated and desperate, he becomes a thief himself but is stopped by a group of men. His son witnesses the incident. Antonio is taken to the owner of the stolen bicycle, who decides not to press charges. Antonio and his son leave the scene amidst insults.
What I liked about the film is that it doesn't feel like a product. (You can even watch it for free and legally on YouTube.) The actors don’t play roles but react as real people would. This is in stark contrast to Hollywood, where emotions are always shown in a more or less exaggerated way. Yet, the film remains accessible because the situation depicted is so relatable (for many people, including myself). Thus, it doesn’t feel like a distraction, which is important to me because the feeling of engaging in pure escapism and nothing else is the main reason I hardly watch films anymore, even though I used to watch one, sometimes two films every day. However, one must admit that it is not very entertaining. All visuals are used solely to serve the plot. There is no attempt to impress. This does not mean that it is poorly executed or lacks ideas. I liked the film even as a child, despite being more sheltered from reality then, because I already knew what was coming for me. I just didn't know how it would feel. Today, it is different.
In my research on the film, I discovered that it is associated with Italian Neorealism. Real locations are used, and the roles are played by non-professional actors without costumes. This explains to me how the film managed to achieve the mentioned effect.
What I miss is the educational aspect in this feeling:
It is merely described and shown, which might inspire but these are varying ideas in people’s minds, not a specific implanted one. With or without it, it is propaganda; only with education does one get closer to the utopia (of the author), without it, one merely speaks ill of the status quo. As a designer, it is my intention to contribute to this. It naturally seems repulsive when one realizes they are being lectured; one wants to let the consumer come to the same conclusions on their own. Thus, there is also a risk of tarnishing one’s own standpoint. If I were to make a film, I would add this educational component. To do this authentically in an Italian neorealistic manner, one would also have to create a real utopian setting. Before creating this place, one must first design it.
The utopia, or rather eutopia, for me is a place where everyone can be happy without cost to others. This naturally requires a unique, specific set of rules. Without a population, however, one has no legitimacy. To achieve this, I plan to make people part of this population through design — voluntarily, of course.
In my observation of others and myself, I have seen that everyone is addicted to something and I have yet to find something one cannot be addicted to. Too often, they only harm themselves. However, all great achievements of humanity are linked to this. Curiosity is also an addiction. What if people were only addicted to activities that benefit them? As a designer, I see it as my responsibility to provide this. I think one should start with the lower class, so that everyone can succeed.