Francesco

I am beginning to realize that film critics who told audiences what to watch & what to overlook had far too much power prior to the internet and the digital streaming age. In 1989 when "Francesco" was released in Italy, most Americans had never even heard of it and by this time, Hollywood had grown exasperated with Rourke for refusing to play by its rules- and for rejecting roles which would have likely cemented Rourke's star power at the time (Rain Man, Pulp Fiction come to mind). What is truly jarring is to watch Rourke's beautiful and moving portrayal of the man who became a Catholic saint (an artistic & purposeful film) & then to watch Rourke's affable, but frivolous, ride in "Harley Davidson & the Marlboro Man" released the following year. Although Rourke's teaming with Don Johnson enjoys an enthusiastic cult following now, Rourke has publicly denounced "Harley" and admitted that he only accepted the part for the paycheck. Rourke has stated that doing that movie ("Harley") was the final straw in his self destruction and decision to return to boxing at the age of 39. One must only watch Rourke writhing -naked- in the snow because he has been "tempted" by desires of the flesh or gaze upon his look of ecstasy before dying, knowing that he is blessed because he bears the marks of the crucifixion, and the marks of Christ himself - to find context for the self-loathing for having "sold out" by lending his name & face to a production he did not respect (as "Harley Davidson").

Whether the choice to cast any American actor in the title role of this very European production was controversial or not at the time, I have no idea because I was not even aware the film existed until many years later when I became more interested in the career and life of Mickey Rourke. In order to understand Rourke's interest in and commitment to Francesco, it is important to note a few things. First of all, Rourke has never shied away from stating that he has always preferred other countries to his own and in fact, at least 2 of the movies Rourke is best known for - "Nine and 1/2 Weeks" & "Angel Heart," were seen as too intense/risqué by American censors. Both films were box office bombs in the U. S. but Nine and 1/2 Weeks was such a huge success in Europe that it apparently played in theaters for 2 years in France. Rourke became a bigger star in Europe than he was in his own country. Therefore, it makes sense that Rourke would have preferred working with an Italian production (rather than "Hollywood" which he had grown to loathe by this time) and it makes sense that an Italian production would seek to cast him. Secondly, Rourke was - and remains- a devout Catholic who has relied upon his Catholic faith and the support of his priest (now deceased) to get through a very dark period in his life. Finally, Rourke was & still is, a man who seeks meaning in life - and in death- and thus, his portrayal of a man who renounced his earthly possessions and wealth, to become a man of purpose, a man of God in beggar's clothes is quite compelling. Although the other actors - including a young Helena Bonham Carter- are mainly British or Italian, the dialogue is in English (not Italian) and Rourke often communicates emotion using only the expressions on his face. Young Rourke had a soft voice, appropriate for this role, and at almost every age, Rourke has been a presence on screen, often as a man of few words.

I will leave the plot summaries to the religious scholars because this is a historical drama which also received several awards. The film begins with Francisco's death. The story of his life is then told by his followers and friends through flashbacks & vignettes. The real Francesco was born into wealth and has been described as an attractive man who enjoyed fine silks. Rourke credibly depicts Francesco as a man of privilege who renounced wealth & desires of the flesh to connect with God (the "father" who replaces his). Because Rourke himself comes from far more humble circumstances, he is equally convincing in his humility after he takes vows. Francisco's conscious choice to give up the privileges of wealth & physical beauty are made more compelling by the gorgeous & charismatic Rourke who credibly embodies the role of a lover who could have had any woman he desired and a man of status who could have continued to live comfortably (having remained his father's pride & joy until his father's death).

For anyone who is a Rourke fan, this movie illustrates his capacity for providing layers & depth. Although I am not Catholic, I was raised within a devoutly Christian family which often causes me to view "Christian" historical dramas with skepticism. I was genuinely moved by the sincerity of the portrait of a man who finds peace & a connection to God after witnessing the horrors of war & poverty and coming to understand that the things which had provided him with pleasure had also separated him from God and his higher purpose. There is also a wonderful scene involving a young lamb & group of hungry followers (hint: the lamb is not slaughtered).

For those who prefer the Mickey Rourke of "Get Carter" or "Double Team," this film may not be your cup of tea. There is incidental nudity. There are no graphic or simulated sex scenes but Rourke strips down a couple of times as do others for symbolic, spiritual purposes. There is also a view of the war dead & a mass grave. This is not an action thriller but the film's narrative is humbly & thoughtfully recited and its effect- uplifting. I had to watch the movie twice (within 2 days) to fully appreciate it.

I was surprised to see that Mickey Rourke did this movie. He does a lot of B movies. His performance was done very well. He can be a good actor when he applies himself. He just does not know how to pick good roles. The story was interesting. It tells the life of St. Francis of Assissi. It was very inspiritual. It is interesting to see how this sect of monks came to be. 7/10

How many religious epics have you seen that are actually historically acurate and present the Characters as human?

One Website critiqued Francesco as the "Dr. Dolittle" of Christianity. This is an extremely unfair and shortsighted view of what this movie presents. The stories of St. Francis' union with nature and animals do not even get mentioned in this film.

One of the coolest things that this film gives is a glimpse of the mystery of conversion to Christianity. No one could understand what Francesco has discovered until they too are willing to forsake all they have and commit themselves to the obedience of the gospel. This movie screams of the love affair that Francesco had with CHRIST.

Also this film does a great job showing how the pride and ambition of man screws up good things that GOD has started in the hearts of men.

Could any one do better than Mickey Rourke in this role? Probably, but could it be somebody that wouldn't come across acting like Pat Boone in the Cross and the Switchblade?

My only regret is that the actors in this film have not discovered in reality the truth of what St. Francis' life can show us. Helena Bonham Carter has all but been type casted in my mind as Chiara, but films like Fight Club will add a good amount of dross to that image.

I've seen this film several times and plan to see it several more, this film is a treasure among religious films. Brother Sun, Sister Moon sucks compared to this film. I do hope to see more like it.

Also if anyone can help me find out where I can see the 1966 version I would be appreciative.

I thought Mickey Rourke did a wonderful job portraying Francesco. I did not realize the historical surrounding of what was going on in Francesoco's time. It is so important to understand the context of what makes a person into what they are. His experiences and what he witnessed in the prison and the lavish lifestyle that he and his friends were a part of and his experience in reading the "word" in his own language affected him deeply.

I also want to mention the portrayal of Chiara "St. Clare". What a truly beautiful and generous person.

I believe that the way the movie portrayed his journey in faith gave a lot of insight to a truly great man. It has helped me in my own faith as a Christian and as a person in general. The movie really moved me.

I am continually amazed that this truly great film still receives so little recognition. There are probably multiple reasons for this. Certainly, the initial distribution was lackluster. Critical commentary is also hard to come by. Still, even in its most widely available and unfortunately truncated form (more on this later), Francesco impresses and inspires.

The decision to cast Mickey Rourke as St. Francis must seem almost like a goof to many. Those who are most likely to want to see a film of this nature might even be put off by what they may see as stunt casting by a director who is not serious. But this is just not the case. Rourke's career since this film has been spotty at best and his screen image has often descended into self-parody, but there was a time when he was a fine actor doing exemplary work and his performance here is absolutely on par with any of that. He gives us a vision of the saint which is rooted in material human essence, not overwrought histrionics. His internal changes are evoked through delicate, nuanced moments--small changes in Rourke's facial expressions, physical gestures, etc. Not a note is careless or inconsistent. The paroxysms of emotion toward the end are earned.

The development of his spiritual quest is not overstated; we are constantly positioned on the outside looking in--the film is framed by the reflections of Francesco's followers. This has the effect of heightening the aura of mystery around the man and establishing respect for him as a man, not simply an iconic caricature.

Cavani takes the religious aspect of the story very seriously; far more so than many more overtly pious films. Though every scene carefully considers the implications of faith, no points are made simply. The reality of the life Francesco chose is depicted as rough and uncompromising. The film's theological arguments are subtle and complicated, benefiting from the deeply serious tone of the piece. Having said all that, it must be added that the version currently available in the US is pretty atrocious actually. At 119 minutes, it savagely whittles the original version down by a full half hour. This is common with European films distributed in the US and isn't always unbearable. Here, though, it isn't a matter of just cutting out or trimming scenes. Whole sequences have been rearranged, creating a jumbled rhythm. Vangelis' music cues, which add so much to the emotional quality of the film, are also switched around for no apparent reason. It is a tribute to the strength of Francesco that even in such a butchered state it remains powerful (the US cut was all I could see for years), and it does benefit from the ability to hear Rourke and Bonham-Carter's real voices. If you give the film a chance and like what you see try hunting down the region 2 DVD release. It is well worth the effort to see such a glorious work in its proper form.