Franziskus, der Gaukler Gottes

Unfortunately, this is not an easy film to see. It is not available on video, and it is rarely if ever shown in commercial theaters, not even art houses. I was fortunate enough to see it at a local museum's Italian film series.

This film is exquisitely photographed and beautifully acted, mostly by non-professionals. It's depiction of Francis and his followers make the practice of Christianity seem almost zenlike; that is spirituality consists in being totally involved in whatever one is doing at the moment, in doing, not talking. This is such a relief from much of the pap that passes as religious film these days. See it if you can.

The Criterion DVD release of Rossellini's Flowers of St. Francis offers a fully restored version in high contrast black and white of the long unavailable 1950 film, considered one of Rossellini's finest. It is interesting that two of the finest films about religion, The Gospel According to St, Matthew and Flowers of St. Francis, were directed by avowed atheists, (Pier Paolo Pasolini and Roberto Rossellini), both capturing, through non-professional acting and neo-realist technique, a sense of purity and poetry missing in the heavy-handed message of newer religious films. Unlike Pasolini, however, Rossellini's film does not contain peak dramatic moments or even a linear narrative.

It is a series of vignettes that does not attempt a history of the period or a biography of St. Francis of Assisi as did the woeful Brother Sun, Sister Moon by Zefferelli. Rather it shows Francis, a 13th century monk who founded the order known as the Franciscan Friars and his followers (particularly brother Ginepro) in easy going and often light-hearted fashion going about their daily life with devotion and humility before God. While I do not subscribe to the idea that allegiance to God requires extreme self-denial, the film is persuasive in showing the simple compassion of the Friars and how it changed the lives of the people around them, although the line between simple and simple-minded as depicted by Rossellini is often tenuous.

Flowers does not attempt to bludgeon us with a point of view, but suggests by example that there is an alternative way to live our lives that does not involve ego and greed. The episodes illustrate different aspects of Franciscan life, all introduced by intertitles. In the first, the brothers seek to find shelter in a pouring rain in a little hut they have built in the woods near Assisi. When they arrive, they discover that a farmer has appropriated the hut with his donkey and refuses to let the brothers in. Francis responds by telling his followers, "Have we not now reason to rejoice? Providence has made us useful to others." In another episodes, Ginepro cuts off a pig's foot for a meal requested by a hungry ailing brother. Unfortunately, no one questions what brother pig thinks about his leg being sacrificed and the episode left me feeling queasy.

In other sequences, the Friars prepare a rebuilt chapel to receive Sister Chiara, Francis meets a leper during his walk and embraces him in a childlike, loving manner, and Ginepro is provided lessons on how actions rather than words win souls for God. In one of the later sequences played mostly for laughs but with a potent message, Ginepro is in danger of losing his life to a group of bandits led by the corpulent Nicolaio until the power of faith rules the day. Flowers of St. Francis presents an idealized version of a "pure" form of Christianity and promotes love, humility, and compassion for the poor. While the film is a welcome antidote to the cynicism and despair common in films these days, ultimately it leaves the viewer to decide whether or not excessive missionary zeal practiced by those who are convinced they alone have the true faith has been a positive or negative force throughout history.

The film dramatizes about a dozen vignettes from the life of St. Francis and his early followers - starting with their return in the rain to Rivotorlo from Rome when the Pope blessed their Rule and ending with their dispersal to preach.

Rossellini had a strong interest in Christian values in the contemporary world. Though he was not a practicing Catholic, Rossellini loved the Church's ethical teaching, and was enchanted by religious sentiment —- things which he felt were neglected in the materialistic world. I can appreciate this. While I am also not a practicing Catholic, I was raised in the tradition and love the rich history of the Church. Though the tenets are not for me, the values are universal and it is interesting to see how they have been carried out, in this case by creating an entire Order of priests.

The look of this film is beautiful, the black and white as stark and striking as the best Scandinavian films. In the era of the neo-realist Italian film, this really has the perfected look, and can be enjoyed both for its great storytelling and just its glorious imagery.

The comment about the film having 'not much depth' is absurd. I have rarely been moved to tears in a film but this one did it for me. Among all the absurdities, it captures some quite unique moments of meditation between Francis and God that we, the audience are very privileged to witness. The leper scene...beautiful moment of compassion, completely blew me away. The film cuts no corners and portrays rather blatantly the fact that NOBODY, not even St Francis is or was perfect, we're all foolish from time to time and must undergo humility to progress in the eyes of God. The fact is, saints like Francis and others lead a bleak existence, they lived hardcore lives and the rawness of this film captures that beautifully. The Mickey Rourke film is for those who see through a glass darkly.

"The Flowers of St. Francis" is a very unusual film. Instead of telling the life of St. Francis of Assisi in any traditional sense, the film is made up of several parables about him and his followers--stories that are most likely fictional. They are all meant to illustrate various lessons--such as humility, service and kindness. This makes the plot very episodic and somewhat disjoint. The film is also unusual, at least when seen today, because almost all the people in the film are non-actors. However, at the time, the Italian Neo-Realist movement (led by the likes of Rossellini and De Sica) stressed the extensive use of non-actors in natural settings--mostly because the country was bankrupt following WWII and had little other choice! But, what sets this apart is that the monks in the film are actually real monks! That is pretty amazing.

My enjoyment of this film was impaired, somewhat, by my having seen a recent documentary, "My Voyage to Italy". In it, Martin Scorsese discusses many of his favorite films. However, instead of just explaining what he likes in them or how they influenced him as a director, Scorsese goes on to explain the plots as well as the endings of many of these films! So, because he provided so many spoilers for "The Flowers of St. Francis", I didn't get nearly as much out of the film as I might have.

So is it worth your seeing it? Of course. The biggest reason is that these non-actors gave some amazing performances and the film is very artistic. It also is far less heavy-handed than most religious films. While I still would have preferred seeing the life story of St. Francis, I still did appreciate the work that went into making this lovely film. Additionally, its message of spirituality over religiosity is timeless and inspiring.