Francesco

Although the most famous movie about St Francis of Assisi still appears to be poetical BROTHER SUN SISTER MOON by Franco Zeffirelli, FRANCESCO by Liliana Cavani is, perhaps, less famous but appears to be more faithful to the biography of this great man who renewed the medieval church in the spirit of the Gospel. While Zeffirelli's film concentrates purely on the youth years of Francesco, his spiritual birth, his joy of life, and is, therefore, more an interpretation than a biopic, Cavani's film draws our attention to Francesco's suffering, his search for God not in flowers but in tears, and is, therefore, a very realistic biopic filled rather with pain than with song. But let me treat this movie separately, as an individual work since comparison may sometimes disturb the gist.

The first aspect that makes any movie good or weak are performances. Mickey Rourke is pretty memorable in the lead. There are his moments that really shine, particularly in the sequence of painful experience of the main character. Although Mickey is known for not so ambitious roles, you may get used to him as Francesco in the long run. Helena Bonham Carter is, perhaps, not the Clare many people imagine; however, she gives a profound performance of a spiritual person, a woman of charity and pure love, a woman of great sainthood. Francesco's parents, Paolo Bonacelli as Pietro Bernardone and a French actress Andrea Ferreol as Pica, are good. That seems to be quite probable how "worldly spirited" Francesco's home really was: dreams for business and luxury. Except for them, I liked Diego Ribun as Bernardo Quintavalle. He has that nobility in his face that Bernardo must have had (what we know from biographies). I also liked Fabio Bussotti as calm Leon called God's lamb. Generally, performances are fine.

The insight into the historical period is also accurate. Although one watches a biopic of a saint, this aspect of historical accuracy is pretty important. Liliana Cavani does a good job showing the reality of the medieval town, the cruelty of war, but foremost the horrific social discrepancies. That is what moved Francesco and promoted in him the desire to help, to hug a leper, to give the last slice to the starving, to offer a smile to the upset, in short, to regard the Gospel to the letter. Sometimes, these scenes may seem too realistic, too depressing; yet, they have to be there. When we consider the life of St Francis, it was, as I already mentioned, a way of tears. I will never forget the final scene, the real spiritual suffering that turns into physical one...and this physical pain occurs to be such a Gift of God...

The music is perfect. Vangelis, as always, supplies us with a profound tune that opens us to wonderful horizons. Francesco does not sing at all (which is a historical shortage), yet the music in the background fits really well as if to present a perfect harmony of flesh and spirit, the harmony that Francesco was given by his Master because he learned to love entirely, without any limits. In the final moments, Vangelis makes a combination of tunes applied to feelings. Unforgettable!

I recently saw FRANCESCO again after more than 10 years. Then, when I saw it for the first time, I did not like it that much, I found it too serious; perhaps I was more used to other biopics. Nevertheless, now I heartily recommend this movie to anyone who likes spiritual experience, who is able to see deeper, who looks at the world more through the eyes of love than through the eyes of reason.

Il Poverello, as Francesco is called, brought the message of peace and goodness, PAX ET BONUM, to every place where he stood. He brought love where hatred was, joy where sadness was, pardoning where injury was, smile where tears were, console where terror was. Although this message seems to be universal, is today's viewer able to understand these things? Is PAX ET BONUM (Peace and Goodness) something more than just a slogan of one man who lived hundreds of years ago? 7/10

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 an editor at a facility in the late 80's early 90's that did a cut-down version of the original film. I think this is the version in circulation today. The guys who did the cut-down were less concerned with continuity than they were at getting it in to their desired length.

That being said, it is still a pretty good film. When you mention that Mickey Rourke is Saint Francis to most people you get an interesting look, but I think he did a good job with the roll, maybe a bit over the top at times, but still watchable. Helena Bonham Carter was great as Clare. If you get a chance to see this film, by all means, check it out.

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.

I'd seen the Zefirelli version of St. Francis, and in contrast, I have to say this presented a somewhat different perspective -more realistic if anything. Not knowing much about Mickey Rourke, I was pleasantly surprised. Of course he had a modern hair cut throughout, and his tatoos could be seen in some scenes. . . .but when put to the test he passed in my estimation. His training at the Strasberg School paid off. In the beginning he was a little stiff, but as the film developed, so did his character, and the emotional scenes were very believable. Condensing the life of St. Francis of Assisi into a 2 hr. film is a challenge, but I think the important events were covered including his early life as a man of the world, his life-altering crisis of finding God, the creation of the little band of followers and the conflicts, the stigmata, etc. And, OK, Mickey Rourke has gorgeous eyes!!!