Some thoughts on the neo-realist film movement as relates to the question of whether The film "Umberto d" is life affirming or dispeptic in its message

A brief synopsis I pulled off line for background.....

Frequently mentioned on lists of masterpieces of modern cinema, Vittorio De Sica's Umberto D. transforms a simple character study into a painfully poignant drama. Umberto is an aging former civil servant, now retired on his scant government pension. He spends his time in his tiny room in Rome, with only his longtime pet dog for companionship. His lonely life only grows worse when his limited income forces him to fall behind on his rent, leading his landlady to threaten him with eviction. He makes a desperate attempt to raise the needed money and protest the unfair treatment of senior citizens to the government, but he receives little response. His one chance at human contact, through brief conversations with a pregnant servant, proves sadly disappointing. Indeed, Umberto slowly becomes convinced that the situation may be hopeless, and he ultimately considers committing suicide. Considered one of the high points of Italian neo-realist cinema, Umberto D. provides the ultimate example of the movement's unadorned, observational style, which emphasizes the reality of events without calling attention to their emotional or dramatic impact. The unschooled, natural performances also contribute to the film's feeling of verisimilitude, particularly the lead performance by non-actor Carlo Battisti. - Judd . I was unable to watch this movie for many years much to my displeasure.I am but a tad more than a dillitante when it comes to film but have an ardent passion for the art form of film.I offer my subjective opinion based on my singular experience although some aspects of this film are fundementals required of all film makers in order to make a film worth watching.I watched this film and was left sharply ambivalent as to whether or not it had any cathartic utility.The fact that it was always considered a "must see" by film experts made me expect a substantive utility.I would not look for this in "Avatar" for example.After three hours of befudlement I realized that by my own reckoning,i strongly concluded this movie was entirely life affirming.As the main character has 15000 lire in his pocket and we see him being quite affable and capable at socializing there is no reason to believe he would not meet new friends as his life continues beyond the films end.The fundementals so important for those interested in film making mostly concerns De Sica's fine use of images that imply meaning.A basic part of successful film making is the communication of ideas through scene content that by itself means nothing in particular but in relationship to the content of scene's around it make a poigniant and poetic impression.Examples of this can be heavy handed,(like showing a caged bird to imply a character's limitation),or, subtle and oblique content which helps create the ambiguous questions many look to be challenged by through film as an artistic medium.To go on and on a bit.....I mean to say that in film the use of a scene filmed at a different time and place is edited to be next to another scene,which subsequently implies information.Two lovers in bed switching to scene of baby chicks in a nest as the sum rises.Or....two lovers in bed then awitch to a cloudy aky with crows cackling ominously with sounds of the wind blowing.These are simple silly examples but ya get my drift.I found Umberto D to be life affirming.Perhaps you might enjoy finding out how you feel about it.As I said I could not watch it for many years but found it worthwhile at age 46.