Caravaggio: The Soul and the Blood

The analysis of Carravagios work is presented in comments of a price over and interviews with Italian art specialists. However we get so little to see of the paintings itself and then in short details or with a moving camera. The total showing of the work is always very short like 4 seconds. Then there are quotes of Carravagio himself, very interesting but as a voice over with actors who play scenes which are of a misplaced symbolic character.

"Caravaggio: The Soul & The Blood is the latest film about one of the greatest painters who ever lived. In his short and often violent life, Michelangelo Merisi de Caravaggio, or Caravaggio as he was commonly known, produced some of the most powerful religious images ever put on canvas. To be brutally honest, this film was a major disappointment. For a start, the photography in no way did Caravaggio's paintings justice; the film, after all, is about his art and life, not about the outside of churches, as beautiful as many of the churches no doubt are. The musical score is overwhelmingly loud, and pompous. Why the views and opinions of 'Caravaggio experts' were not sub-titled, is beyond me; having the dialogue in Italian, then to be overdubbed in English, makes for confusion. To cap it all, we are treated to an actor trying to portray (I assume), what a tormented soul Caravaggio was, by wrapping his face in cellophane, submerging himself in water, or smearing himself with tar. If that was the director's intention, then it didn't work: in fact, it was totally unnecessary. Having said that, the film is worth a look, if only to see Caravaggio's paintings up there on the big screen.

Caravaggio: The Soul and the Blood (2018) is an Italian documentary directed by Jesus Garces Lambert.

In my opinion, Caravaggio was the greatest painter of the Italian Baroque. He was also a fascinating--if not likable--person. A documentary, rather than a feature film, should have been an important movie.

After all, many of his works survive, and can be seen in Italian churches and in museums around the world. We have contemporary and modern biographies. We even have some material written by Caravaggio himself.

However, the movie doesn't really work well. Director Lambert wanted to avoid a film that simply alternated between talking heads and works of art. He added extra footage of an actor who represents Caravaggio. (He doesn't look like Caravaggio. It's symbolic.)

The movie opens with the actor wrapping tape around and around his face and mouth. Not a great start. Then there are underwater scenes, and repeated images of blood. OK--not just talking heads, but opportunities wasted.

The more important problem is that there really isn't much art. (A previous reviewer has commented about this as well.) We don't get that many chances to view the paintings themselves. We get details and we get brief images. I've seen many of these paintings, and they are glorious. However, you'd barely know that if your only source were this movie.

Another problem is that much is made of Caravaggio's using his mistress and prostitutes as models for saints and The Virgin Marry. The filmmakers failed to make note of the fact that the painter was bisexual. This attraction is not subtle when you view his paintings of young men. If you're going to do a biography, and if you're going to mention sexuality, I think you should tell the whole story.

We saw this film at Rochester's excellent Little Theatre. I'm grateful to The Little for giving us a chance to see the movie. I think it will work well enough on the small screen. I just wish the movie were better and worth seeking out.

P.S. There's an exceptionally good book about Caravaggio entitled "Caravaggio: The Complete Works" by Rossella Vodret. It was published in 2010 by SilvanaEditoriale.

Caravaggio is really a great artist. There would be no needs to create fancy storyline, invented voiceovers, forced dramatic images. The documentary is there. The artist is there. Why do we need all this mess? Worst direction ever. Caravaggio, version Jersey Shore.

I watched this movie/documentary at the cinema and I didn't like it much. Maybe my expectations were too high, but I found it uncomplete, too slow and not balanced. The idea to mix a modern part with an historical/artistic one was not good in my opinion: the actor alone in the room had nothing in common with Caravaggio and it seemed to me a bit unrelated to the rest of the movie. I read the entire biography of the painter and I discovered many more things about his life and his works. The documentary doesn't really say anything new and the images are stressfully repeated. Not a real documentary, not a biography and not a movie, it is an experiment not successful at all.