Caravaggio's Shadow

I saw it as a fair work. For beautiful cinematography, reminding, scene bty scene, the art of Michelangelo Merisi, for Riccardo Scamarcio and his work in skin of Caravaggio, for Isabelle Huppert and Louis Garel, more than inspired crafters of their characters , for music and for good kick to viewer to (re)discover a great artist masterpieces.

Obvious, the film reflects the perspective of Michele Placcido and, I admitt, far to be easy say about the best manner to reflect a life defined by torments, force and shadows like this.

A beautiful film, not perfect, not correct in many details, not exactly for admirers of Caravaggio, simplistic for few reasons but enough for define it more than decent movie , not comparing with Derek Jarman 1986 film or with documentaries across last decades.

A decent but no notable retelling of the life of the celebrated 17th-century painter through his brilliant, nearly blasphemous paintings and his flirtations with the underworld. Caravaggio proceeded to develop a new style of painting giving a more realistic view of the world in which he lived. He also begins love affairs with his models, and relations with lower life people: prostitutes, hobos , beggars, street fighters, and robbers. Their relationship leads to murder and deceit. After fleeing Rome accused of murder, Caravaggio takes refuge in Naples, under the protection of the Colonna family, there he awaits a possible absolution from Pope Paul V. Caravaggio proceeded to develop a new style of painting giving a more realistic view of the world in which he lived. When Pope awares Carvaggio (Riccardo Scamarcio) uses bad-life women, thieves and vagabonds as models for his religious works, he orders to investigate him secretly. For this reason, an inquisitor (Louis Garrel) is sent to find him and interrogate him, as the Pope weighs whether to grant him clemency for killing a rival. Along the way, Caravaggio is protected by aristocrat Costanza Sforza Colonna (Isabelle Huppert) . Following some sad events, Caravaggio stayed a few more months in Naples and finally left for Malta, the seat of the Knights of Malta. It is believed that his trip was sponsored by Alof de Wignacourt, Grand Master of the Order. De Wignacourt was so pleased with the painter's work that he proposed him as a candidate for the Order. In 1608 the painter was named a knight of grace and devotion of the Sovereign Military and Hospitaller Order of Saint John of Jerusalem, of Rhodes and of Malta.

The film is acceptable and passable but it gets bogged down in the darkest, most critical and painful moments of the painter's life, which is why it is somewhat unsympathetic and unpleasant to watch. Thus, the movie recreates a multitude of sexual moments, orgies, murders, with a lot of dirty and ugly characters, describing dark, impious people or evil inquisitors. Although Caravaggio's life could have developed in this way, it is not necessary to recreate his life so dark and creepy. See instead the example of the much better biography of Michelangelo: ¨The Agony and the Ecstasy¨ by Carol Reed with Charlton Heston, which despite being much longer was much more entertaining, bright and enjoyable to watch. And that is even though Michelangelo also lived a life in poverty and related to people of all social classes, especially the lower classes, and also suffered persecution.

The protagonist Riccardo Scamarcio, who gives adequate acting, is well accompanied by an international cast of known actors, such as: Isabelle Huppert (Elle) and Louis Garrel (Little Women), the latter plays the role of the Vatican emissary in charge of investigating what is hidden behind his works. The motion picture was mediocrely directed by Michele Placido.

Caravaggio captured close anatomical observation with a dramatic use of chiaroscuro that came to be known as tenebrism. This technique became a dominant stylistic element, darkening shadows and transfiguring objects into brilliant shafts of light. He vividly expressed crucial moments and scenes, often involving violent struggles, torture and death. He worked quickly from life models, eschewing sketches to work directly on canvas. His influence was profound on the new Baroque style that emerged from Mannerism and can be traced in the works of such great masters as Peter Paul Rubens, José de Ribera, Rembrandt and Diego Velázquez. His pictorial work was immense (many of them appear in the film): Medusa, Love Victorious (1602) shows Cupid above all earthly powers: war, music, science, government. The Death of the Virgin, The Conversion of Saint Paul on the Road to Damascus, Seven Works of Mercy, Saint Jerome Writing, The Flagellation of Christ, The Beheading of Saint John the Baptist (the only painting by Caravaggio with his signature). The Burial of Saint Lucy, The Raising of Lazarus and The Adoration of the Shepherds. And Portrait of the Grand Master of the Order of Malta Alof de Wignacourt, as well as portraits of other knights of the Order.

There are various biographic adaptations: 1941 ¨Caravaggio¨ directed by Goffredo Alessandrini, produced by Elica Film.1986 ¨Caravaggio¨ directed by Derek Jarman, with Nigel Terry, Sean Bean, Dexter Fletcher, Spencer Leigh, Tilda Swinton, Michael Gough. 2007 ¨Caravaggio The Shadow of Genius¨, directed by Angelo Longoni, produced by Ida di Benedetto and Stefania Bifano, for Titania Produzioni, two-part television miniseries. 2018 ¨Caravaggio - The Soul and the Blood¨ directed by Jesus Garces Lambert.

The hypocrisy of key Church figures who condemn the sensuality of the painter, all the while competing to hoard his art seems bizarre, the figure of Caravaggio becomes an attractive and sympathetic revolutionary hero in a secular era. While his animalistic rutting grosses me out he gets the best lines. The investigator who travels around interviewing witnesses is so intent on his task he becomes one-dimensional. But the film suffers from such poor narrative construction that it becomes tedious and repetitive, gradually dulling my interest. If the powerful originality of the artist's output were shown more clearly I would have found it more enjoyable.

A lot is not known about Caravaggio's life, but a lot is. It is understandable and legitimate that a film like this fills in the unknown gaps. The fact that it twists, falsifies and rewrites the known things is unworthy of a biography.

I am anything but a friend of the Catholic Church and even less of the church leaders. But the way he was portrayed here in a one-sided way as a victim of the church, whose representatives were Caravaggio's most zealous supporters, is infamous. "The Death of Mary" has nothing to do with being rejected by a pope; the monks who commissioned it did that themselves. Because Caravaggio did not paint in accordance with the commission. And the painting was not saved by Rubens, who is said to have bought it in Rome according to the film, but by Ferdinando Gonzaga, Duke of Mantua, the year after it was completed. Or the questioning of Artemisia Gentileschi. Caravaggio probably didn't even know her, even if her father did.

And these inaccuracies, distortions and falsifications run through the entire film, which has only one goal: to save the artist's honor. But he doesn't need to be saved. His art speaks for itself, as does his raw, unbridled character, which borders on brutality. Presenting the church as his murderer is an affront to all the church's real victims.

So an honorable attempt becomes a historically useless piece of work that doesn't bring you any closer to the artist's work. His apotheotic classification as a three-eyed man among the blind is tiring early on in the film.

The movie is the story of Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio who was an Italian painter in the 16th century, through the eyes of the Pope's investigator. He was known for painting "what he saw", some kind of reality that he wanted close to the divine, which was of course not ok with the Catholic Church. Within his paintings, you could see famous prostitutes, hoboes, represented as saints, such as Mary or St Peter. His life has multiple legends around it, he was known to have sexual relationships with both males and females, while painting for the Church, and his competitors tried to destroy him for that. He had to flee Rome after killing (accidentally?) someone and lived in Naples, Sicily, Malta, etc. The story of the movie is a bit long, but this is not why you should see this movie. The whole movie is staged as a painting, with that kind of atmosphere that you get from 16th century Italian paintings. Would I watch it again? No, but I am happy I watched it.