Caravaggio (Special Edition)

!!SPOILER ALERT!! I will discuss the film in depth. So if you don't want to know story details read elsewhere.I think the film should have been titled something like: CARAVAGGIO: A Fantasy about sex and art loosely based on the life of Caravaggio. Because the film's story only vaguely follows what is known about Caravaggio's life. Whereas Jarman got the cast of characters more or less right, and in many cases the actors bear striking resemblance to the characters they portray, the story he weaves around them is more or less wholly fiction. The most blatant example of this is his depiction of Caravaggio's sexuality. He was not sexually interested in adult men. In modern terms, he was a pedophile. The objects of his lust/love were boys from the ages of 11 to about 15 at the oldest. But he was not a "child molester". He was a lover of boys which was, in his own time, a more or less accepted facit of the Roman social/sexual scene. The homosexuality presented in the film relates more certainly to that of the director than it does to the putitive subject of his film. The relationship between Caravaggio, the Sean Bean character (Ranuccio Tommasoni) and the Tilda Swinton character (Lena Antognetti)(and between Ranuccio and Lena) are wholly fictitious. Caravaggio did indeed know both but he knew Ranuccio only slightly socially. He did have a close friendship with Lena: she posed for some of his most important Roman paintings. But they were almost certainly "just friends". And while he did indeed kill Ranuccio, it was in the heat of a street brawl and was unintentional, rather than murder. It could rightly be said that Caravaggio did buy many a boy (for fun and games and to model), but he never bought a boy from the boy's family as depicted in the film. There was no mute companion. And as presented in the film, Caravaggio's death is another instance of fiction. Though in this case, it was based on fictions told at the actual time of his death, meant to cover up the reality of it. He was almost certainly murdered by high placed enemies he made on Malta while he was desperately running/hiding from the death sentence decreed by Pope Paul V because of the killing of Ranuccio Tommasoni. His body was never found. One can only speculate about why Jarman would fictionalize Caravaggio's life so heavily. I assume he did so in order to tell his own story. Several reviewers have suggested that the film is more about the film maker himself than it is about the painter. Caravaggio was a radical innovator in the art of painting at the time. It can be credibly said that he literally changed the course of Western art/painting. Jarman was very much of a radical film maker, though he certainly did not change the course of art/cinema. Jarman identified deeply with Caravaggio in this respect as he did with his homosexuality. So he used Caravaggio as a pretext for making a fantasy/meditation on his own art and sexuality. The film is way more about Jarman than about Caravaggio.What Jarman did get brilliantly right was the way in which he blended Caravaggio's paintings into the fabric of the story he told in the film. It was a total surprise and delight to see the paintings come to life. For instance: The scene of Lena dead lying on the bed surrounded by mourners underneath that vast blood red drapery was a near perfect reproduction of the huge painting Caravaggio did of The Death of the Virgin Mary for which Lena posed as the Virgin. It was a scandel at the time that he used a prositute to pose for the Virgin, but the painting was considered such a triumph as a painting that this was eventually over looked. Caravaggio's paintings crop up all thru out the film.Many reviewers have complained about what they consider to be the present day "anachronisms" Jarman scattered thru out the film. This suggests to me that these folks know little about Caravaggio's art or the art of the renaissance in general. From very early on Italian painters solved the vexing problem of just what did the dress of Jesus' time look like, by painting the people in early Christian history dressed in the fashions of their own time. (Or by simply draping their models in yards and yards of plain cloth.) So in this sense all of renaissance religious art is wholly anachronistic. But we are so accustomed to seeing this that we do not see it as such. Jarman followed this custom and his "anachronisms" are fabulous. I suspect that he chose a 30s/40s "look" because it helped establish a kind of "period" feel to the overall look of his film. (In this respect I did find the pocket calculator out of place with that period look.) One must also remember that Jarman was filming on a very tight budget which would have made inexpensive vintage contemporary clothing a wonderful creative choice based on necessity.Many reviewers felt it necessary to apologize for the gay content of the film. I assume they were straight people talking to straight people. But how are you going to make a film about a gay artist (whether film maker or painter) without in some fashion or other delving into that aspect of the artist's life? You can't. (Unless of course you are the Italian film makers who made the more recent made-for-tv film version of Caravaggio's life who simply & blatantly made him a straight guy.) In truth, the film is virtually sex free. Caravaggio and Ranuccio do kiss. (As do Caravaggio and Lena, much more tellingly I might add) And that's about it. At the same time the film is awash in and virtually dripping with gay sexual ambiance. Short of porn, I have never seen so many beautiful young men presented so deliciously in one film. It's breathtaking. If this is not to your taste, then don't watch. But don't fault the film for not conforming to your personal preferences. What is curious in this respect, is that Jarman chose to make his fictional relationship between Caravaggio and Lena the pivital relationship in the film, and the pretext for his killing of Ranuccio. That Caravaggio and Lena had a close relationship appears to be fact. But the exact nature of that relationship is unknown. What is known is that close intimate (but platonic) relationships between gay men and straight women are very common. Whereas boy lovers very rarely if ever suddenly fall in love with a straight woman, even if she is as wonderously beautiful as is Tilda Swinton. I found this the only jarring out of step aspect of the film, especially since it was used as the pretext for the murder of Ranuccio.I greatly admire this film and think it is truly a magnificent work of film art. But I think it is best appreciated if one puts aside the idea that it is a bio pic of Caravaggio, and simply go with it as a story of the life/loves/art of a fictional artist who bares a slight resemblance to Caravaggio. If not for the title, this would be exactly what it is. It is sumptuously, deliciously, achingly beautiful to see. And I think it paints a very good picture of the deleriously decadent milieu of early 17th century Rome. And given the limitations under which Jarman had to work in order to get it made (it took 7 years of hard struggle)I think it is an astonishing achievement, and a real masterpiece of late 20th century cinema art. I think all of the criticisms of the film relate more to the tastes of the critics than to problems with the film itself.For those who are actually interested in the life of Caravaggio, I highly recommend Peter Robb's biography called M. THE MAN WHO BECAME CARAVAGGIO. I based my analysis of the film' story line on it.

Derek Jarman was a great film maker, up to a point. His aggressive penchant for anachronism sometimes comes off a little heavy-handedly but there is usually a fair amount of humor inherent with those moments. Time and place mean little to him and somehow it doesn't matter. I am not familiar with Jarman's 'philosophy' of film making or anything like that, not being a cinema scholar, but I can only suppose from viewing his work that he is more interested in a mythical approach to his subjects. His interest in historical subjects like St Sebastian, Edward II and Caravaggio and the like, leads me to think he had a very deep searching mind that responded to the universal humanity in those people that can be found today in people of our own time. He was a classicist pouring new wine in to old bottles.There isn't much of a story in Caravaggio beyond the day-to-day activities of a sensuous, intelligent and genius of a painter. The motto on Caravaggio's stiletto says Nec Spe Nec Metu (no hope no fear). A rather wise and clear-eyed philosophy of life. This film is rather wise and clear-eyed as well despite the lack of riveting narrative and dramatic impetus.The cast is superb. Nigel Terry is wonderful as Caravaggio, his low-key style of acting fitting in well with this enigmatic and world-weary character. Sean Bean is beautiful and fascinating as Ranuccio, Caravaggio's purported lover. I say purported because, unlike many of Jarman's films, there are no obvious scenes of sex or nudity. Much is suggested but not blatantly depicted.The supporting cast is outstanding, especially Tilda Swinton in her first screen role.The greatest reason to see this film is the cinematography which is like a Caravaggio painting come to life. The colors are magnificent, and you can almost smell the oil paints and linseed and straw on the ground, not to mention their filthy feet!The way to watch this film is to go in to a mild trance and let the visuals wash over you. Don't look for Sean Bean's naked body either, there is no nudity at all, at least in the version I watched, which was not the special edition or the director's cut. Perhaps, if a director's cut exists, there is more to see in the flesh department.A fine, thought-provoking film for a rainy Sunday afternoon.

Im interested in Caravaggio so purchased this thinking it would enlighten me I should have been warned that Derek Jarman was the director Its a complete waste of time and left me confused aand cross at wasting my money on a film of self indulgent nonsense.

scrappy and no sense of an artist at work. Caravaggio was a subtle and imaginative and artist , Nowhere does one sense this in the film. Really rather coarsely put together with little sense of the artist working or the problems in realising his vision

This movie is hard to get into, and it jumps around quite a lot through the artist's life. Throughout the movie there are some amazing set pieces that recreate the artist's famous paintings in minute detail, and these alone make the movie worth watching if you like Caravaggio's work. Created on extremely low budget, it's amazing what imagination and fine acting can do.

This was a good dvd not to bad it's been a long time since I last watch it but still ok

Good as expected