Sin

Up until the final scene, Il Peccato seems a beautiful chaos, with an apparently random series of scenes that seem to go nowhere in particular. But, alas, the finale might be enlightening. Konchalovsky's film obviously echoes Andrei Rublev, even though it can't be but a shadow if compared to Tarkovsky's masterwork, by portraying Michelangelo as a troubled artist that feels out of place in his brutal times. Unlike Rublev, Michelangelo is however torn by less religious themes, even though he too complains about the brutality of his commissioners, the Della Rovere and the Medici families. Always in economic difficulties, always aspiring to a sublime that he identifies in poet Dante Alighieri, never able to settle in one place, fueled by an inner omnipresent rage. Ultimately, Michelangelo's titular 'sin' is not revealed, but it might be pride: he makes no secret of how he considers himself to be a genius far above anyone else, he tries to do overly impossible things without accomplishing them entirely. A physical representation of his pride might constitute the huge marble block seen in the poster, that pays a specific role in part of the film. The cast is made up of less well-known italian actors, but Alberto Testa in particular seems the perfect choice in terms of appearance to play the Renaissance Sculptor. Equally particular is the choice to shoot the movie in 4:3 aspect ratio. The coloring however somehow reminded of Sokurov's Faust.

This movie has left me without blinking during the more than two hours it lasts. With beautiful photography, a hard and dry plot, and hypnotic images for its approach to an Italian Renaissance as it must have been in reality, dirty, poor and tremendously unfair.

The actors seem sculpted against the beautiful background of Tuscany with the same rawness that we find in Pasolini's films. We must not forget that Konchalovskiy collaborated with Tarkovsky in the birth of the story of another tormented artist, 'Andrei Rublev', one of his masterpieces.

From the beginning of the film we see Michelangelo in his maturity, when the intense and fierce compulsion of his sculptural works, which seem to relax only in his 'Pieta', are those of a man pursued by 'the devil' -as his character says-, obsessed by money, in a purely masculine world, far from femininity, compassion and subtlety.

The central scene of 'Il Peccato' has been compared to a certain scene in the movie 'Fitzcarraldo' and they are not wrong, because there is dementia linked to the search for a goal that constantly escapes, no matter how much effort is made, and all this is told in a way that takes your breath away. Although it is not a drama, it is the life of someone at the limit of his strength.

Highly recommended.

More than half a century before he wrote (in collaboration) and directed 'Il peccato', Andrey Konchalovskiy co-wrote another memorable film about another great Renaissance artist - Tarkovsky's 'Andrei Rubliov' (1966). A year before 'The Agony and the Ecstasy', the adaptation of Irving Stone's novel directed by Carol Reed, had been a great international success. Konchalovskiy's film begins with that moment in Michelangelo's life where 'The Agony and the Ecstasy' ends. Like his illustrious predecessors, the Russian director has created a meditation on the genius artist, his era and his relationship with the Divine. But his hero, even if he is in search of the sacred, appears many times in this film closer to the Devil. 'Il peccato' (distributed in the English-speaking market as 'Sin') suffered the fate of many films released on the threshold of the pandemic, having a limited theatrical release. My impression is that it deserved a better fate and that there is a good chance that this film will be rediscovered and appreciated at its true value in the future.

Art history considers that when he finished the sculpture of David and the fresco on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, Michelangelo was considered 'The Divine', the greatest artist of his age, surpassing in talent and fame even his contemporaries Raphael and Leonardo. And yet, the script of Konchalovskiy's film presents us as a man torn by contradictions, with an enormous ego but also susceptible to criticism and gossip, receiving respectable fees and advances but just as easily squandering the money on the family or to buy the marble for future creations, leading an ascetic life together with two of his disciples of whom he demands absolute devotion but whom he constantly suspects of betrayal. Much of the story relates the master's confrontation with the 'Monster', a huge block of marble that he wishes to bring from Carrara to his workshop to transform into what will forever become the Pieta. The metaphor seems to combine the stories of Moby Dick with that of Werner Herzog's 'Fitzcarraldo'. We see how Konchalovskiy's Michelangelo looks in every form around for a source of inspiration. From the ephemeral he extracts the essence to represent the sacred. He has a vast culture, he appreciates his competitors at their fair value but would never tell it, he reads, Dante guides his steps in life and creation, but Bocaccio is no stranger to him either. He cannot avoid getting involved in the political conflicts of the time and especially in the one between the Medici and della Rovere houses who were fighting for the control of the papal seat and the entire peninsula. The two rival groups will not hesitate to use any means - money or blood - to enslave the great artist. Obstinately pursuing his goal, Michelangelo must fight for his art, lie, betray, hurt with or without intention those around him. But nothing matters to the artist who aspires to the sacred and who, in order to reach it, is ready to cross the abyss.

Konchalovskiy creates in 'Il peccato' a complex visual universe that absorbs us in the Rome and Florence of the early years of the 16th century. The meticulous documentation is evident in various details, from clothing and food to the decoration of the palaces and the tools of the artists of the era. The lead role is trusted to Alberto Testone, an actor I did not know, who has a striking physical resemblance to the artist we know from the portraits that have reached us, and who lives his character with intensity. The same can be said about the actors around him, many of them non-professionals. The film is a Russian-Italian co-production and the influence of both cinematographic schools is evident. The result is a meeting between the historical thoroughness and the artistic and religious fervor of 'Andrei Rubliov' and the natural and realistic acting style of the films of the masters of Italian neo-realism. However, everything bears the signature of the great director that is Konchalovskiy, including the feeling that we are permanently between two worlds.

The main thing I would like to point out is that every single scene from this movie was like a beautiful painting straight out of an Italian museum. I can't remember when was the last time the visuals of a movie stunned me so greatly that I was with each scene change surprised by the beauty of the images.

Secondly, the feeling I get reading the rest of the reviews, and hearing other people comment on the movie, is that that people almost expect this movie to be a some sort of thriller depicting the genius of Michelangelo, the person we all know as the one of the worlds greatest artists of all time. But the greatness of this movie is in the contrary - Michelangelo is portrayed as a mere, sinning human - who steals, betrays, lies, and also hates showering. He is a imperfect person just like any other, haunted by his fears and suspicions and I can't shake off the feeling that people did not (or did not want) to see Michelangelo in those lens. But for me that is the main thing that makes this movie so great - the viewer can share Michelangelos' emotions and thoughts as if they were their own or of their friend, since the artists is another common, but very talanted man, and not some untouchably skilled alien of the past.

Thirdly, the movie shows us only a fragment of the artists life, and a fragment describing the very beginning of the sculpting process, and it is that time that the fullness of Michelangelos' character can be met, like it is in the movie. Who wants to see a historical documentary about his whole life? You can tune into the History channel if your into that. On the other side, the movie is an artistic take at an artists life, excellently describing Michelangelos true identity, his problems and thoughts, related or not to his work.

For me, the point and the idea of the movie is that Michelangelos works such as David and Pieta were not thought up in the vast and luxuriose castles and churches of Florence, while the artists was enjoying a cup of tea snf reading philospophy, but instead, in the middle of a marble mine in high up in the mountains, alongside plain working men, when the idea arises in sight of a mere daughter of one of the workers leans on a marble rock for a short afternoon sleep - it is that plain scene which inspires the divine masterpiece of the artists work today. This is what makes the movie so down to earth and realistic, and in combination with the incredible scenery, makes the viewer feel like he is in 16th century Italy for two hours.

Instead of being 24 pictures per second, this movie is 24 paintings per second. Contrary to modern cinema camera is very still. Instead of boring, static actors, we have static frames with a lot of movement in them with perfect angles for every single shot. It was so full of atmosphere, 100% realism and natural sounds that I did not blink for two hours. But instead of being some fancy art film, it tells a story which is very passionate, moving, dynamic. The protagonist lives through heaven and hell in following hos passion and this is so natural and real, that combined with the perfect atmosphere and realism, it made me feel as if I was there with him. And I've seen quite a lot of movies and hard to impress. Every scene, every inch of the screen, every sound, every second has meaning. Even quiet, still shots are felt so heavy, that there is no doubt you would feel them too.

The feeling of the age is so true, everything is so analog. As if no computer was used in the making of this film. I can only imagine the tons of hard work put into it to create this realism. Now I want to see more of Konchalovsky!