Sócrates

THIS is a masterpiece. JEAN SILVERE was a revelation. Also, ANNE CAPRILE, his wife, was superbly wrought. So perfect was SILVÈRE's portrayal, that for me, he became SOCRATES.

I was wary, however, in the beginning, because the conversations went by so quickly. But now I understand what was going on and, as the story progressed, I became absolutely engrossed in this great, tragic story of one of history's great martyrs of truth.

I was moved, and I am not ashamed to say, literally to tears, during the last somber scene. I must now praise ROSSELLINI's direction. It gave me a more solid understanding of those times.

Also, the serious and unobtrusive musical score, which pulsated on had a drone-like quality which disappointed me at first, but again, as the story progressed, I understood why it was composed in this manner. It gave this work of art, the final touch of perfection.

This needs to be seen by a wider audience. I hope it will, in time, be required viewing in all the halls of education, everywhere.

I shall never forget it.

Rosselini's made-for-television movie ought to be shown in high school classes, if only to inform today's students that there was once a Democracy in a place called Greece and that it was the home of many philosophers, Socrates arguably chief among them. Generally speaking, Americans seem pretty dumb today, especially students. Tasks that were routine assignments when I was in high school are now found in Advanced Placement classes. ("The Great Gatsby", eg.) I suspect Socrates might have agreed with me. Here's a quote often attributed to him, though there's no real proof he said it.

"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers."

I'm with Socrates when he complains about the young. I wasn't with him when I was young but now that I'm old, well, I'm with him.

At the same time, Socrates is sort of bad company when you get right down to it. After a lifetime of teaching, and at the age of seventy, he was brought before the judges in Athens accused of all kinds of crimes, from corrupting the youth of Athens and not believing in the gods to wearing white after Labor Day. After an eloquent and non-apologetic Apologia, he was sentenced to death, drank a cup of hemlock, and died content.

Considering that this was never intended to be a Major Motion Picture, it's quite good. Jean Sylvère who plays Socrates LOOKS a lot like the bust of Socrates that many have seen, the bust with the nose broken off, although Sylvère's nose is in fact intact. And the dialog, apparently lifted from Plato, is an excellent illustration of the Socratic method.

I understand some modern professor's use some version of the Socratic method. You don't take a position and argue it. You ask enough of the right KINDS of questions until your adversary finds himself making the argument for you. I'll give just one of the briefest examples. Socrates is about to take the hemlock when his wife, Xanthippe, runs to him, flings her arms around the old man's neck, and cries, "You've been convicted so unjustly!", to which Socrates replies over her shoulder, "Would you rather have me convicted justly?" My impression was always that Xanthippe was something of a nag but she redeems herself here.

The values of the production are spare but adequate to the task. True, there is a lot of talk and nobody's head gets wrenched off, but the talk is so enthralling, so unusual in today's discourse, that I found it eminently followable. I suspect even high school students might get a lot out of it.

Apart from his feature films,Italian director Roberto Rossellini was famous for some of his films which were made for television.It was in these films that he told the stories of some of the greatest philosophers who took birth on earth. Among these films one can mention the names of films about Blaise Pascal,Saint Augustine,René Descartes and Socrates.The film 'Socrates' is not a biography per se.It does not show all the important events which took place in the life of Socrates.It is an important film not only for viewers of cinema and television but also for admirers of philosophy.As a filmmaker,apart from 'Socrates', Rossellini reveals a lot about the times in which the great philosopher flourished.One gets to see the state of Athens when Socrates was condemned.The film 'Socrates' was not shot in Greece but most viewers wouldn't be able to recognize that the locations used in the film are in Spain.Locations are of less importance if the cast is good.This is one reason why actor Jean Sylvère has done a great job.He is perfect in his role as 'Socrates'.He looks so convincing as if the real Greek philosopher is in our midst.This is one of the main points of this film.

Apparently, no one else has seen this. That's a pity. Anyone who has studied Plato would love it, I think. Of course, it doesn't beat the actual reading of Plato's dialogues, but it's a nice supplement. The adaptation is straightforward. The Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, and Phaedo are reduced in size, but their contents are there. Also there is to be found pieces of The Republic and many others that I probably haven't read yet (the Protagoras and Lysias are mentioned directly). The Symposium, which is the only dialogue that I can say I know particularly well, is briefly alluded to. There's also a great scene where a man teases Socrates by citing Aristophanes' The Clouds, which was the play that, according to the Apology, sowed the seeds of his death. Rosselini's direction is subtle and exquisite. The camera moves perfectly. The production design is great. A lot of research went into this to make it as accurate as possible. I don't know of any film that has done as well in these aspects. The acting is also perfect. The man who plays Socrates IS Socrates. 9/10.

I have previously discussed Rossellini's work on metaphysics; Stromboli (suffering), La Paura (desire), St. Francis (selflessness - meant in the Buddhist way), Viaggio (memory and self).

All of them sparse, ascetic works that take a transparent look at what informs self and put him on my list of important makers. I turn to his historic work from a later period hoping to find the continuation of that journey.

The first thing to say is that Rossellini's turn from (all else aside) an aesthetic cinema to the encyclopedic mode shows an aging man's desire to educate. The loss is that we have the words, the lecture, but not the visual embodiment (not talking about conventional beauty) that in Viaggio paved the way for Antonioni.

The second is to see what the film isn't; there's no drama to speak of, no passion or anxiety that perturbs, it's a practical unfolding of one man's challenge to his own self to embody his beliefs. To clarify: it's not that there isn't drama around the man, it actually has the most dramatic conflict, the trial. It's that Socrates is not swept in it: and this is the point of the film.

In Anglo hands the film would be much like any of those on Jesus, with much torment and lachrymose redemption. None of that here; Socrates refusal to commute death for exile or escape from prison is not a mute idealism, he grounds why it's not an option as a practical matter: it makes sense. There's a funny scene where he's scolded by his wife for being a no good man-about-town who doesn't bring in any money.

Then to see what it actually is. It's a grounded search for reason, though the important distinction is made from mere intellectualism; not words on paper, dead language that you can't interrogate, but the living reason that is in touch with an 'inner voice' and actively searches for truth. An effort for relative truth, clarity as drawing limits on what we are able to say instead of presuming to say anything.

So not any reason, it's why Socrates rejects the orator who would defend him in court with flattery. It's clear that when he talks of knowledge he means skiing on what's possible to know and not just knowing trivia or nice expression. Rossellini grounds the questioning search in an embodied understanding of god as everything we see, which Socrates' opponents satirize him about as talking about the clouds.

All around him however we see tyranny, ego and ignorance, so how is any of this to take root in daily life?

The powerful admission is that you have to make life out of it, embody. Not just say things then when it's not convenient to follow through do something else, that way life becomes meandering rationalization. 'Make it, don't fake it'. No easy thing, therein lies the adventure.