Hermano sol, hermana luna

The filmography by Zefirelli is stunningly beautiful -- one of his best -- a masterpiece worthy of a Florentine artist (Zefirelli's home city).

Being an admirer of Francis of Assisi, I've seen several films which attempt to portray his life. This is the only one, in my opinion, which successfully captures the incredible SPIRIT of the man. It's a movie to experience with the heart rather than the head. It has made a lasting impact on my own faith and spirituality since I first saw it in Italy in the early eighties.

The Italian version of 'Fratello Sole, Sorella Luna' is edited differently and has the beginning scenes in an order slightly different from the English version.

Note: It's helpful to know something about the life of Saint Francis before viewing the film. Since it centers on his spiritual rebirth in Christ, it's rather sparse in other historical details of his life. Zefirelli assumes that the viewer already knows these -- as most Italians would. For example, when Francis first stands in silence and awe before the crucifix in the ruined church of San Damiano, Zefirelli assumes you know that this is the moment of Francis' conversion, that this is when Francis first heard Christ say, "Rebuild my church."

This is one of the most beautiful films I have ever seen. Whenever I feel down or my energy lags, I pop this film into my VCR and I'm transformed. The rythm of the movie is what I enjoy most. It is like a great symphony, with rising action that compliments the wonderful music by Donovan.

This is a film that is totally captive to its time and place. It's impossible to think of this movie being made five years earlier or later. It is completely a product of the early '70's. The brotherly love shown by the Franciscans of Assisi, the touching of man to man without a hint of homosexuality, would be unthinkable today.

Franco Zeffrelli is a master of setting up his camera and location shooting. Notice the great sweeps over the lovely red and yellow fields of Italy, and the use of the architecture of the region.

I just wanted to comment on the film, mainly because the one other commentator stated that the film was terrible. I happen to like the film. Sure, there are moments when it is a bit too saccharine, but it is still worth viewing. The cinematography is superb, and I think the music score is AMAZING. It is simple with a folk-song quality that I think fits with Saint Francis's teachings. I only wish there were a soundtrack available; I'd buy it in a heartbeat. I agree with the other commentator that there is nothing really "new" added to the story of Saint Francis; however, the story is a good story without something "new" added to it. I do wish that the film could have been a bit "grittier"; what I mean is, sometimes in the film, Saint Francis comes across as if he were so kind and gentle that he is floating or mindless. I wish the film could have shown the harsh realities that Saint Francis would have faced. Overall, the film is beautiful. Don't miss it.

Oh yes, we can look at this as a parable of the "hippies" and an anti-war, anti-establishment film (as if those are somehow "bad" things.) It is all that. Any director who cannot interpret through the lenses of his time is not a very good director. Zefferelli is a master at it. It may make the movies seem dated but that also is a sign of mastership as we see the life of Francis and also see life in the Vietnam era 1970s. The movie itself is hauntingly filmed in a dreamlike manner. It tells the story of Francis who we will later know as Saint Francis Of Assissi. It is not an attempt to tell the complete story of the saint, but to use episodes from his life to speak to the culture of the time. It is not a biography so much as it is an interpretation.

Three things of interest here.

The first is cinematic. I am engaged in a movie indexing project that will likely go open source. There are a few beginning qualities I've been working on. I think I will add architectural cloth, as this film reminds me. Its main cinematic device — other than the ordinary ones — is the use of cloth to denote notions of eye, story, vision. There are four specific episodes here as well as the general acting style where the actors have been directed to act into their clothes.

The second is largely historical and probably will only be appreciated by old farts like me. I can't quite explain the extent of the Beatles influence on the late sixties. There just hasn't been anything like it since then. They were more than admired and emulated, they were spiritual leaders. They were serious about this if not altogether willing, and that comment about being more "popular" than Jesus wasn't an offhand statement. In 1968, they were in Rishikesh, India seriously putting together something that they thought was attuned to cosmic structure. It was, in a sense. With them were a few Beach Boys and Donovan.

Around this time they were approached by Zeffirelli to take roles in his "Brother Moon" project. They would have; Paul was the fellow behind the movie projects (and most else) and he truly wanted to. But this was the time of the breakup. So what happened was Zefferelli make the film with ordinary actors and Donovan's music composed with The Beatles at Rishikesh. So at least, this is an echo of the profound influence they had, perhaps as profound as Francis, and perhaps as compromised by the surrounding institutions.

The third has to do with the church. How strange it is that the two most spiritually deep "Biblical" films (in my experience) were made by two gay Italians. These were men (Zeffirelli and Pasolini) not welcome in their chosen world, in fact persecuted for their being, persecuted by their own faith. And they would be even more today as the leadership has "gotten tough with queers."

Lots of lessons here. I first saw this by an aesthetic hippie in about 73 who was carrying a worn print around from town to town to show it in coffeehouses, small ashrams and any alley he could find a spot in.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.