It happens sometimes, quite rarely I'd say, to find in the schedule of the mall cinema non-mainstream titles produced outside US or locally. But it's also rare to make me interested enough for a big screen experience, and to be able to get to what's typically one scheduling per day in cinema requires luck. Well, one exception was "L'ombra di Caravaggio". I can say that visually did worth the time, except that so & so...
The subject, the life of Michelangelo Merisi known as Caravaggio, is one that you'll find very fitting for a movie if you do some quick online research. This production starts from the point where the painter, fled to Naples after being sentenced for a murder during a street brawl tries to find his way back to Rome, needing for this an official papal pardon. The script introduces in the story a character hired by the church for investigating the accused. From here onward we have a radiography of Caravaggio's entire career getting us through the troubled life of the man from his first paintings to the status of recognized artist of the time, but permanently in conflict with the clergy for the freedom taken to depict his works.
The director of the movie is Michele Placido, probably known for his main role in "La piovra" decades ago, and all I can say is that.. well, unfortunately it confirms my opinion that when directing is done by an actor it typically shows, and not in a positive manner. What we have here is a "deconstructed" Caravaggio. The connections are sufficiently coherent for linking the experiences in the life of Caravaggio the man with the impact over Caravaggio the painter, which more or less speculating what history preserves as known facts tries to get to deeper meaning. Still, the keyword remains "sufficiently". You can feel that the movie is sort of disconnected and made by patching pieces, permanently jumping from flashbacks to present and back to the past. Another problem, even more obvious, is the secondary cast. If Riccardo Scamarcio makes a perfect role for how the history preserved the image of the charactere, the rest of actors seemed to me overacting way too often, starting with the "shadow" Louis Garrel as the church investigator. Maybe it's a directing metaphor as reference to the contrast met as specific element in Caravaggio's pieces, although I doubt it. It looks more like an economy for more takes on a scene.
Over all the above problems, we still have left a visual story that's done very well, getting you through the history of Caravaggio's paintings, up to reconstructing an entire piece on the screen. So, I can say that if you're interested in the cinematography of a movie, this one definitely deserves watching. Besides that, what's presented behind the documentary value of the production, is also probably up to a personal interpretation for each viewer, on which, at least at the current time, I'm not sure how objective I could be. The essence is probably that during history, whoever had some level of inteliggence high enough, more obvious in arts but there are examples in other areas, also had his or hers own demons. The important part is how well can you keep these for your own without affecting the people around, and it's complicated to find a balance that allows you to leave something behind you. Over time, history seems to say that Caravaggio managed to get right at least the second part. Besides that... Happy Holidays ;)
Rating: 3.5 out of 5
Posts
