Caravaggio (1986)

So much average

Just perfect...

I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

To celebrate my first encounter with Jerman's work, an encouraging 8 out 10 is a steadfast testament. For an experimental and aesthetic essay which occasions a fiery contention concerning the fashioning of art and human's innate struggle for desire, CARAVAGGIO is the perfect standard-bearer in the field.There are many merits from the film I can recapitulate, firstly, the recreation of Caravaggio's oeuvre is thrillingly overwhelming and a chief accomplishment is the starkly austere setting (a Silver Berlin Bear for its visual shaping that year is the most cogent proof for both), constituting a cocktail of the simplicity from the mundane world and the inexplicable lust from the spiritual concussion. Secondly, a theatrically radical group of thespians manages to embroider the no-frills narrative, which has been dispatched into several erratic episodes, with some passionately innovative punch, name checking the very young and rookie couple Sean Bean (smoking hot!) and Tilda Swinton (for whom this film is her debut), and as the titled genius, Nigel Terry resembles a doppelgänger image of the artist, while relentlessly contributing a scorching destructive epidemic to the character itself. Other small roles, such as Jack Birkett's Pope, Robbie Coltrane's Scipione Borghese and Dexter Fletcher's younger Caravaggio are all surrealistically wacky. Thirdly, the film is far from a biographical recount, a downright English accent and many deliberate anachronisms (smoking, typewriter e.g.) are contrived to amplify the zany flare to its cult hut, a phantasmagorical interpretation of the artist's ill-fated life. Clearly the film could be pigeonholed into a love-it-or-hate-it category like other non- mainstream films from genuine auteurs, and this time, my gut-feeling is being exaltedly dumbfounded.

I really hated this film. I have watched many experimental, ambitious, and complex movies that demand much thought and attention from the viewer, but this one was an inexcusable exercise in self-indulgence by the filmmaker. The voice overs contained language which was heartbreakingly beautiful and I wished that more of that intelligence and beauty had been transmitted to the rest of the movie. Instead we get a tawdry pastiche of soft-core pornography which becomes so tedious that, when another perfect male form was displayed I became numb and angry. One would imagine that Caravvagio created his work in a vacuum, and that his art was a product of his violent and transgressive nature only. Having studied art, and being an artist myself, I was looking for some insight into this fascinating man and his revolutionary work. The scenes of him painting were unconvincing and the paintings in progress looked like amateur attempts in figure-drawing. I was able to wrest some meaning from Caravaggio, but that occurred early on and the only reason I kept watching it was the thought that it would kick in and start making some overarching sense. Watching this would lead one to believe that Renaissance Italy was populated mostly by homosexuals with a strong predilection for violent sex, and the clergy who exploited them for their private titillation. "Caravvagio" managed to demean the people it was trying to celebrate, oversimplify a complex individual, and bore and confuse its audience. Only recommended for a committed student of Jarman's work, as the "auteur" was obviously more interested in himself than in the subject.

Derek Jarman has crafted a beautiful and unique work of art in "Caravaggio". Perhaps the fact that I have a great love for the work of the real Michelangelo Caravaggio, influences my judgment just a bit; It was quite enjoyable to see the paintings come to life, and to witness how they might have actually been created. In fact, much of Jarmans poetic film has the look of a lush, living painting. There is much to admire here besides the aesthetics; the talented and beautiful cast, led by Nigel Terry, the intense-looking Sean Bean, as Ranuccio, and the elegant Tilda Swinton, as Lena; the woman loved by two very passionate, and tormented men. The acting is all around excellent, but Nigel Terry as Michelangelo really stands out. He is great to watch, and brings life to a man the world knows not so much about. Also actor Dexter Fletcher was quite funny and likable in his portrayal of the younger Caravaggio. More than a historical, biographical account of the painter, this is more the study of a classic love triangle. Caravaggio's models were mostly street people, many of them also criminals, and it seemed that he often became personally involved with his subjects. His love for 'Lena' seems to be as strong, if not stronger, than his love for 'Ranuccio'. And this divided love has tragic consequences, for all involved. I didn't find "Caravaggio" an overly gay film, as the subject wasn't focused on obsessively, like other films of this nature tend to do. The love affair between Lena and Michelangelo was given as much attention as the relationship between him and Ranuccio. Therefore those who might feel a little uncomfortable with the subject matter, need not be, as it is actually quite accessible. Recommended, especially for admirers of the painter Caravaggio. As mentioned earlier, there are scenes that are modeled exactly on the paintings. To see these come alive is really something to behold. There is a new region 2 DVD from Germany that features the most beautiful transfer I have ever seen of any film. It comes close to "High Definition" quality, I recommend this as well.

It's been long since Caravaggio along with Wittgenstein created a new level in my personal movie picture register. I was fifteen and excited over any kind of ideas which has a lot to do with "another"; strange or at least different scope on reality. No surprise that I liked Caravaggio. Eventually Greenaway (Drowning by numbers and later Prospero's Books) has also found his place in that same box. And very slowly my love towards Jarman's movies receded.Is it a good movie? Scoopy has no answer to that question. Actually that question can't be answered. Caravaggio has stubbornly flat structure - it should not be a movie in the first place. And another question appears: can you be sure in Caravaggio - in Jarman's case, of any intention to make a good movie?As much as I can put aside artistic inclinations in all Jarman movies - i cannot forget the fact that regardless the time they were made, all look, talk, feel and smell the same. It is clear that articulating the scheme of the artist is of great importance. Esthetics comes first.That fact I see today as a big malfunction.