"Bella addormentata" is a confused, long and boring film about euthanasia. There are two true events as the background of the story: the last days of an Italian woman called Eluana Englaro whose parents authorized euthanasia after seventeen years in a vegetative state and the voting of Italian politicians about the right of euthanasia during the government of Silvio Berlusconi. The acting is top-notch and the cinematography and camera work are excellent.However, the screenplay is a complete mess for those that do not know who Eluana Englaro is and what happened to her. There is no explanation about the big picture, forcing the viewer to stop the movie and research about her story. The entwined fictional stories are not engaging or romantic and there are only shallow discussions about the theme euthanasia or the fanaticism of religious people against this procedure. Based on the IMDb User Rating, maybe the viewers that have lived or followed the drama this woman might have enjoyed this film much more. My vote is four.Title (Brazil): "A Bela Que Dorme" ("The Beauty that Sleeps")

I saw this film at the Film Fest Ghent 2014, where it was part of the official Global Cinema selection. It presents several intertwined stories revolving around issues of live and death, and especially whether we are allowed to interfere. Each story zooms in on a different situation with a pending decision about the merits of continuing life when there is no hope for the future, be it an endless coma or endless addiction or endless pain. The three parallel story lines make the movie interesting, by highlighting various possible situations where this can be relevant. It allows different sides of the dilemma's to be brought forward. It is a pity that not all life-or-death choices get the same amount of focus around the final decision making, in particular we are not always in the clear how difficult it was to reach a decision, or do we know all the reasons why it was indefinitely postponed.A lot of attention was devoted to a member of parliament who was prepared to risk his career when deviating from the party line in defense for euthanasia under circumstances. He maintained his stance in spite of being pressured several times that he should not forget who (the party) gave him the position he had. Important for us to know is that he had his own experience with these issues. In the past he had ended the sickbed of his wife on her request. Actually, we saw him switching off the life support equipment. It's a pity that this scene was rather sketchy. We saw his wife asking for it, very possibly for the umpteenth time, but he may also have acted on impulse as far as we know. Thus we'll never know how long and how hard he struggled with the dilemma. His daughter supported an opposite opinion, and we see how it kept them on a distance for some time. Luckily, in the end of the movie she reads the speech he had prepared to explain his deviating vote in parliament. We observed a glimpse of mutual understanding. In other words, there is a chance that she will get a better feeling for his point of view. This was the final scene; a definite change of her mind is left open ended.Also a lot of attention was devoted to Eluano's family, a well known case that was heavily debated in Italy. The impact of her 17 years lasting coma, with all the public discussions around her, was showing on all members of the household. Especially her parents had opposite views on the matter, but both hesitated to take definitive action either way. We saw of lot of visitors insisting on praying for Eluano to keep her on life support, and we saw similar praying sessions elsewhere, all of these along the religious view lines on the matter, and particularly against any action to terminate her life. Such a continuous influence cannot fail to leave a lasting impression, even knowing that it is very easy for outsiders to take a formalistic stand in this, not seeing the daily struggle of the parents.A side note: We were lucky that we did not have to endure Berlusconi in action. We only saw him on TV a few times but for short moments. And he was mentioned several times. For instance, there was a lot of signage outside the hospital where his help was called upon to prevent Eluano from being "murdered" (not my words).All in all, though a commendable attempt to involve us in relevant discussions about the subject at hand, the movie failed halfway. This is mostly due to the scenario trying to entertain three parallel story lines while failing to maintain an even balance when showing the dilemma's and the decision making within the respective stories. Further, I was a bit confused at first, as it was not clear upfront who was who, what their connection was with the subject of euthanasia, and how they related to each other. After seeing this film, I cannot imagine that anyone has changed his of her mind. Nevertheless, it may serve as an opening for discussion in a group of people with an interest in the matter. I think that to be the primary merit of this movie. Everyone can easily recognize their own dilemma's, and thereby identify themselves with the central theme.

I liked Maurice Yacowar review and I agree mostly in what is saying, but for me is missing a jump in the analysis in order to see not only the factual elements but also the implicit meaning of the film. I think that the film is trying to show the sleeping Italy with Berlusconi and the beginning of the wake up. Although various review critic the political episode, for me it is clear the similarity of the actual way of doing politic with the Roman Empire, including the hot bath, the tunics. In the end, when Rosa the drugged woman opens the window and do not pull down, it is clear that life is gaining and Italy is waking and can live again.

Marco Bellocchio's new film is a circumspect anatomy of mercy killing. In the four cases he dramatizes there are different balances between the public and the private interest. One inference is that on this issue there are such pronounced differences that humanitarianism cannot be served by a single template of admissible conduct.The film begins with the most public case, based on the 2009 controversy in Italy when Beppe Englaro decided to take his comatose daughter Eluana off her life support system. (A similar scandal roiled the US at the time.) There were angry demonstrations for and against this intervention. Here the Italian parliament is about to debate the right-wing government's motion to prevent this euthanasia. The other cases lead from this public one to three more private ones.The title points us to several dormant or sleeping beauties here. Most obviously, they are the four comatose women. But perhaps there is an allegorical alternative: the beautiful love that sacrifices one's own righteousness and safety to bring the beloved relief, whether in taking or in saving a life. For more see www.yacowar.blogspot.com.