Michelangelo

As a biopic about Michelangelo, it will most likely leave you with more questions about the man that you initially had. The narrative is very cryptic and revolves around him trying to balance his art around commissions and orders he has no hope of actually fulfilling.

Most of the movie is spent on "the monster," a marble block he considers more important than any of his responsibilities or desires. But when it comes down to actually watching the transportation, it is just an accident waiting to happen. You know that it's coming, and yet it is surprising nonetheless when it does.

The plot is stitched with bits and pieces of his life and relationships with multiple Popes he lived through. It only makes sense if you already know anything there is to know about his biography. The movie will not bother establishing differences between the pope factions or highlighting the significance of the events. You are on your own in this one.

His character also becomes more confusing as it goes along, his clear perfectionism and suspicion of everyone stem from vaguely alluded conspiracies around him that start and end abruptly, sometimes in the same scenes. His obsession with the monster and willingness to betray everyone and everything for it is captivating, however, his revelation at the end just seems way too nebulous for it to be understood by anyone except him, and maybe this is how it should be. The best aspect of Michelangelo that the movie so carefully and authentically portrays is that, despite looking like a local madman who has to beg on a street, he was never poor; his tight-fistedness is something of a legend in and of itself. Including a chest full of ducats under his bed that he just doesn't spend while living in what amounts to poverty.

Speaking of which, the mise-en-scene of the medieval cities is impeccable. It's one of those ultra-authentic dirty movies that doesn't resort to erasing color everywhere to show the dirt. No, everything can be vibrant while the roads are made of layers upon layers of mud. That's not a contradiction. Everyone is sweaty with their unwashed clothes full of holes and tears. All this only highlights the absolute beauty of his creations.

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.

Knowledge. Loyalty. Truthfulness. Guilt. Perseverance. Effort. Strength. Love. Spirituality. If you want to learn a thing or two about the above, it's a must to watch.

I found watching Il Peccato / Sin (2019) a delight!

Some user reviews of this film express their disappointment in the fact that you don't see the great master in action, working on marble or drawing. But I see that differently. Being trained as an art historian, I recognized the events and characteristics of Michelangelo shown in this film from the historical documents that have survived from that time. Having spent a significant amount of time studying the subject before making the film, I believe Konchalovskiy in particular closely read Giorgio Vasari's Lives of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors, and Architects (1550/1568), a contemporary collection of biographies of Renaissance artists (in the case of Michelangelo, Vasari knew him personally), as the major themes in the film correspond with Vasari's account of this episode in Michelangelo's long life.

Echoing his early masterpiece Andrey Roublev (1966), which he made together with Andrei Tarkovsky, Il Peccato shows how artists are subjects of the time they live in, dependent on power structures and turbulences in violence and prosperity. The film gives a good insight in Michelangelo's social interactions with his family, rivalling artists, and patrons. Moreover, the cinematography is impressive, and the largely unprofessional acting crew performed overall very strong. A great addition to the genre of movies about artists, much more nuanced and intelligent than the classic The Agony and the Ectasy (1965). Hopefully, Michelangelo's rival Leonardo da Vinci will get a biopic of comparable quality soon!