User reviews

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.

Caravaggio's Shadow is a fever dream of a film, vividly photographed and convincingly played by an (unsurprisingly) handsome Italian cast.

There's plenty of melodrama, but it's an Italian period piece; anything less would have felt restrained.

At the heart of it is an irresolvable contradiction: the Vatican and papacy are the immensely rich and powerful core of Catholicism, but Catholicism is anchored by the teachings of Jesus, friend of the poor, the outcast and the desperate. What happens when the Vatican's most talented painter - a devout genius - uses the poor, the disgraced, and the outcasts of society as his subjects in seeking the truth of scripture?

Expect plenty of debauchery, plenty of on-location renaissance architecture, some intrigue, and even some swashbuckling swordfighting.

Worth your time.

Carravaggio

For fully appreciate this movie, it help to be a fan of the work of the painter ...as one understand more what was the motivation behind his choices , and why his works were so controversial yet so good...the Catholic Church at the time was the Church, the only one yet the rise of what would become the Protestant churches were making the Vatican nervous.

The conflict between the reality of life of the average people and the grandiose representation of the saints ...had no much income ...

Knowledge of some of the work of Caravaggio help understanding lots of scenes in this movie ...and what makes his work so good is what was no conceivable at the time...that you could use the face of common daily people to personified a saint , an angel ..which of my God of the time had no gender, no sex...

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.

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.

I have watched the movie at the cinema, in Timisoara. The movie looks to carefully illustrate the life of the painter. The actors and the actresses are very nice interpretating their roles. The scenes, the costumes, the colours and the decorations are very loyal to the XVII secol, when Caravaggio lived. The main actor, playing as Caravaggio, is a great actor, full of passion.

It is interesting, and still present on our days) the conflict in understanding what is the good and what is bad, because the bad can be find in good and viceversa. And of course, this is an unique truth for each of us.

Even the movie is 2 hours long, I have not figured out when the time passed.

Congratulations to all actors and for the entire team of the movie!

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.

I just thought that this movie about such big artist would have more art in it. The process and the hard work. Instead, all I got was already finished paintings and an italian telenovela with more dialogue than Nolan's Oppenheimer, with no time to absorb the beauty of the cinematography and the poetic essence of Caravaggio's life and his work.

But I thought using Schatten's perspective of interviewing Caravaggio's models and other people he met and capturing their narratives and stories so the viewer can learn more about the artist was smart and the story came nicely full circle at the end. But that still doesn't compensate the rest for me.

Riccardo Scamarcio has a nice butt tho.

What the heck was that? Messy, hyperbolic, and porny. Despite all the known facts about Caravaggio and his kinks, he really did not deserve this. This is not your usual family watch. LOL. Why all those overstretched, explicit scenes? We got the memo, but anyway. Who cares? Total caricature. Lack of seriousness, lack of any attempt at least some form of introspection and real context, lack of everything. Consult with historians! Come on, Giuseppe! Don´t make niche, "artsy" movies for 8 nerdy folks in Calabria; broaden your audience. There is no way that any teacher with a sound mind will recommend this to anyone. No doubt, individual actors have amazing potential, but you need to write a good script first for them first! And yes. Weird, smoky light. Hazy. Were there really no crisp colours in the 17th century? Doubt that. Also, costumes. Not pretty; low effort! So, kids, go and watch Ridley Scott´s Napoleon or Coppola´s Marie Antoinette instead.