I'm reviewing BROTHER SUN, SISTER MOON for the CT Movie website - the DVD release date is next Monday - and I viewed it tonight. Far better film than I expected: gorgeous to look at, that's for sure, and less encumbered with tacky hippy stuff than I had dreaded.
Alec Guinness is very fine as Pope Innocent III, and the film builds simply and effectively to that culminating scene at the Vatican.
My big surprise was that Lina Wertmuller collaborated on the screenplay! Anybody know anything about that? Still can't get my head around that one. BSBM (1972) immediately preceeds THE SEDUCTION OF MIMI (1972), then it's a mere two years (and a couple lesser known films) before SWEPT AWAY (1974) and SEVEN BEAUTIES (1976). I guess Francis's rejection of materialism fits (sort of) with Wertmuller's anti-capitalism, but it seems a stretch. Anyone? Anyone?....
Tomorrow I'm going to watch FRANCESCO. Knowing little about it, I had thought it would probably be pretty much a "What Were They Thinking?" flick (Mickey Rourke as St Francis?!), but it gets some cred here and there. The MoMA ran it in their HIDDEN GOD series, didn't they? Anybody got anything to chime in on that one?
Are there any other Francis movies around?
Ron
Full Version: Brother Sun, Sister Moon: Wermuller? Donovan? Guinness?
I saw BSSM a dozen years ago or more. I saw it immediately after A Man for All Seasons, which I was completely riveted by, and since I didn't know going into BSSM that I should be dreading tacky hippie stuff, of course I was annoyed and disappointed. Francis is much more a nut case and much less a wacky visionary and mystic than he should have been (although he can be a little bit of a nut case and that's okay too). Some nice stuff though.
I haven't yet seen Francesco, although having recently set myself a goal of reviewing all the films on the Vatican film list this year I expect I will be seeing it within the next few months. Like you, I am a bit apprehensive about it ("What were they thinking?" does seem to be the obvious phrase, although who knows, it might not be a complete wash). Even so, if I'd been on the papal commission that put the list together, I'm sure I would've plugged for Diary of a Country Priest over ONE of those 15 other films -- quite possibly this one.
I haven't yet seen Francesco, although having recently set myself a goal of reviewing all the films on the Vatican film list this year I expect I will be seeing it within the next few months. Like you, I am a bit apprehensive about it ("What were they thinking?" does seem to be the obvious phrase, although who knows, it might not be a complete wash). Even so, if I'd been on the papal commission that put the list together, I'm sure I would've plugged for Diary of a Country Priest over ONE of those 15 other films -- quite possibly this one.
I saw BSSM back when it came out. I agree with SDG that Francis comes off as a bit of a nut case. I also remember seeing it at the time as very anti-Capitalist. Francis' identification with the working masses; total rejection of his father's business. I don't think I felt that as strongly when I saw it a second time years later.
Keep in mind, though, that it's a movie from the 70's. Francis becomes a bit of proto-hippie. As I recall, that is somewhat heightened by the meeting between Francis and Dominic (the film's version of the Young Republicans).
The Francis film I'd like to see is a film version of Kazantzakis' book. I love Brother Leo's struggle to live up to Francis.
Keep in mind, though, that it's a movie from the 70's. Francis becomes a bit of proto-hippie. As I recall, that is somewhat heightened by the meeting between Francis and Dominic (the film's version of the Young Republicans).
The Francis film I'd like to see is a film version of Kazantzakis' book. I love Brother Leo's struggle to live up to Francis.
[quote]
My big surprise was that Lina Wertmuller collaborated on the screenplay! Anybody know anything about that? I guess Francis's rejection of materialism fits (sort of) with Wertmuller's anti-capitalism, but it seems a stretch. Anyone? Anyone?....
Ron[/quote]
Ack. Those proto-hippies. Isn't this the one that features Francis skipping delightedly through the flowers? What a strange candidate for DVD release. The only stretch here seems to be that Wertmuller can manipulate Francis the way she does her other characters. In Swept Away Wertmuller tried to show us that once all vestiges of capitalist society are swept away, two humans that in that situation were socially alienated from each other really can get along and roll naked in the sand together when money and status aren't an issue. (When all that really happens is a hairy ape overtakes a supermodel through a series of fumbling chauvinist overtures. And she really doesn't seem to mind one bit.)
Isn't this film a classic case of a writer whose story gets taken over by an ideology that doesn't exactly match up with the subject matter? I remember it feeling an awful lot like Godard's marxist stuff from the same period.
My big surprise was that Lina Wertmuller collaborated on the screenplay! Anybody know anything about that? I guess Francis's rejection of materialism fits (sort of) with Wertmuller's anti-capitalism, but it seems a stretch. Anyone? Anyone?....
Ron[/quote]
Ack. Those proto-hippies. Isn't this the one that features Francis skipping delightedly through the flowers? What a strange candidate for DVD release. The only stretch here seems to be that Wertmuller can manipulate Francis the way she does her other characters. In Swept Away Wertmuller tried to show us that once all vestiges of capitalist society are swept away, two humans that in that situation were socially alienated from each other really can get along and roll naked in the sand together when money and status aren't an issue. (When all that really happens is a hairy ape overtakes a supermodel through a series of fumbling chauvinist overtures. And she really doesn't seem to mind one bit.)
Isn't this film a classic case of a writer whose story gets taken over by an ideology that doesn't exactly match up with the subject matter? I remember it feeling an awful lot like Godard's marxist stuff from the same period.
Ron, after I got your email, I realized you were confusing Francesco with the film MoMA screened, Roberto Rossellini's beautiful The Flowers of St. Francis. He casted actual monks and filmed most of the movie in the sun-dappled countryside--it's one of the warmest and most joyful films I've ever seen. (You'll note I included it in my 100 films suggestions.)
Rossellini in 1950:
"If, as some maintain, it is possible to trace a spiritual itinerary throughout my films, I would say that Germany Year Zero is the world that has reached the limits of despair because of its loss of faith, whereas Stromboli is the rediscovery of faith. After which, it was natural to look for the most accomplished form of the Christian ideal: I found it in St. Francis. However, I never meant to recreate the life of the saint. In The Flowers of St. Francis, I don't deal with either his birth or his death, nor do I pretend to offer a complete revelation of the Franciscan message or of its spirit, or to tackle the extraordinarily awesome and complex personality of Francis. Instead, I have wanted to show the effects of it on his followers, among whom, however, I have given particular emphasis to Brother Ginepro and Brother Giovanni, who display in an almost paradoxical way the sense of simplicity, innocence, and delight that emanates from Francis' own spirit.
In short, as the title indicates, my film wants to focus on the merrier aspect of the Franciscan experience, on the playfulness, the "perfect delight," the freedom that the spirit finds in poverty, and in an absolute detachment from material things."
Rossellini in 1950:
"If, as some maintain, it is possible to trace a spiritual itinerary throughout my films, I would say that Germany Year Zero is the world that has reached the limits of despair because of its loss of faith, whereas Stromboli is the rediscovery of faith. After which, it was natural to look for the most accomplished form of the Christian ideal: I found it in St. Francis. However, I never meant to recreate the life of the saint. In The Flowers of St. Francis, I don't deal with either his birth or his death, nor do I pretend to offer a complete revelation of the Franciscan message or of its spirit, or to tackle the extraordinarily awesome and complex personality of Francis. Instead, I have wanted to show the effects of it on his followers, among whom, however, I have given particular emphasis to Brother Ginepro and Brother Giovanni, who display in an almost paradoxical way the sense of simplicity, innocence, and delight that emanates from Francis' own spirit.
In short, as the title indicates, my film wants to focus on the merrier aspect of the Franciscan experience, on the playfulness, the "perfect delight," the freedom that the spirit finds in poverty, and in an absolute detachment from material things."
Sounds like the opposite of Time of the Wolf.
-s.
-s.
[quote]...since I didn't know going into BSSM that I should be dreading tacky hippie stuff, of course I was annoyed and disappointed. [/quote]
Makes sense. I went into this viewing of it expecting nothing but tacky hippie stuff, and was surprised how much better a film this was than I had come to expect.
[quote]
Francis is much more a nut case and much less a wacky visionary and mystic than he should have been (although he can be a little bit of a nut case and that's okay too).
[/quote]
I first saw the film when I was still pretty much a tacky hippie (now I'm just tacky), and it had a huge effect on me. I started reading about St Francis, but it wasn't until digging into the Real Stuff - The Little Flowers Of St Francis in particular - that I was truly confronted with Francis As Nut Case. The quirky antics of the guy in Zeff's movie don't hold a candle to the hardcore craziness of the historical Frank (as far as I could tell, anyhow). I think St Francis was a madman, far more than is portrayed in BROTHER SUN. I also believe it was a profoundly holy madness - he was truly God's Fool.
If there's a problem with BSSM, it's that Francis isn't crazy enough - he's only mildly crazy, in a way that's too easily confused with general "We're the young generation, and we've got somethin' to say" eccentricity.
Still, watching the film last night, I found myself quite willing and able to bracket some of those affectations as symptoms of the age, and viewed through that sort of corrective lens, I came to think there's an undervalued film there.
[quote]
I haven't yet seen Francesco, although having recently set myself a goal of reviewing all the films on the Vatican film list this year I expect I will be seeing it within the next few months. [/quote]
Ah yes, that's the list I was thinking of! Doug's right, FRANCESCO doesn't appear on the MoMA list, it's this one. Did you know that this was director Liliana Cavani's second run at the St Francis story? There's also a 1966 film she did in Italian. Wish I had time to track that one down, as well as the Rossellini.
[quote]Even so, if I'd been on the papal commission that put the list together, I'm sure I would've plugged for Diary of a Country Priest over ONE of those 15 other films -- quite possibly this one.[/quote]
Yes, that's a strange omission. But ain't that the way with this sort of list? Just wait 'til we start boiling down the 300 films on that other thread to a mere hundred...
[quote]
I saw BSSM back when it came out.... I also remember seeing it at the time as very anti-Capitalist. Francis' identification with the working masses; total rejection of his father's business. I don't think I felt that as strongly when I saw it a second time years later.
[/quote]
It's definitely there - but in keeping with the historical Francis, wouldn't you say? Of course capitalism per se wasn't a thing yet in his day, but clearly a rejection of materialism, possessions, etc was pretty central to the Francis story.
[quote]
Keep in mind, though, that it's a movie from the 70's. [/quote]
Very much so. I kind of think that the degree to which one is put off by those cultural trappings (no, deeper than trappings - that cultural mindset) is the degree to which one might be put off by the film. If the very thought of Donovan provokes physical wretching, BSSM won't be likely to work well.
[quote]The Francis film I'd like to see is a film version of Kazantzakis' book. I love Brother Leo's struggle to live up to Francis.
[/quote]
Nice call. Wonder if Marty Scorsese's got a few spare months to throw something together?
[quote]
Ack. Those proto-hippies. Isn't this the one that features Francis skipping delightedly through the flowers? [/quote]
So how are you on Donovan, then, Mike?
Sure, "Saint Francis, Flower Child" is the standard summary among people who comment on the film, and yes, it's inescapable. But watching the film last night, quite prepared to see the movie you describe, I had to reconsider. I think that summary may be an over-simplification, and it's not insignificant that the folks who label the film that way almost inevitably move straight into mentioning Francis skipping through fields of flowers - which is also a subtle distortion. Yes, the character walks through (stunningly photographed) fields of flowers, and even befriends little birdies. But how is that inappropriate to St Francis? A love of nature was huge for him, and hey, he's the original Dr Doolittle, preaching to those same little birdies. I know it seems like splitting hairs, but Zeff's St Frank doesn't skip through the fields of flowers: he walks through them. (Added later: Well, okay, he doesn't just walk. He runs. Happily. But he doesn't skip, okay?) Why shouldn't he? The film was made in the actual area where Francis lived - seems to me pretty appropriate to root his love of nature in the actual soil he grew out of. It would be perverse to make a film about this guy on his home turf and ignore the natural beauty.
On this very point, I was reminded of Zeff's much-praised ROMEO & JULIET, which also had the obligatory sixties lovestruck-run-through-beautiful-scenery scenes, far more cliche and over-played than in BROTHER SUN. Why does he get away with it in the former, and get slammed for it in the latter?
Still, lest I come across as too unblinking an admirer of BSSM, I certainly won't deny that this is a very soft St Francis, all flower-child (which I'll continue to argue isn't inappropriate) but none of the darker colours. Where's the stigmata? Where's the sense of betrayal by his followers? Where's the reality that the crust of bread shared among half a dozen guys after a day's work in the field just ain't enough? BSSM tells only half (or less) of the story, and is the weaker for it. But I don't think it's worth writing off, for all that - and it ain't as bad as we all have come to remember.
[quote]
What a strange candidate for DVD release.
[/quote]
I don't see it that way. Having viewed the thing, I think it's about time for a reconsideration of this film, which has been a tad caricatured, I would suggest. These are materialistic days: can't see that a little St Francis goes entirely amiss. And even if everybody continues to see this as an embarassing artifact from a regrettable blip in the zeitgeist, I would submit that at the very least the visual power of this film needs to be rediscovered - something that comes through powerfully on the DVD.
[quote]The only stretch here seems to be that Wertmuller can manipulate Francis the way she does her other characters. In Swept Away Wertmuller tried to show us that once all vestiges of capitalist society are swept away, two humans that in that situation were socially alienated from each other really can get along and roll naked in the sand together when money and status aren't an issue. (When all that really happens is a hairy ape overtakes a supermodel through a series of fumbling chauvinist overtures. And she really doesn't seem to mind one bit.)
[/quote]
Funny!
Fact is, I share your distaste for SWEPT AWAY, but we do read it differently. I thought that, once all vestiges of capitalist society were swept away, the two humans showed themselves to be locked in very similar (and similarly ugly) power struggles. Yes they rolled naked in the sun and sand, but I didn't see them getting along: there was such a sense of power and dominance, it just seemed nasty to me. (Though whether that was a pessimistic vision, or just my negative reading of a vision Wertmuller perceived as positive, I can't say. Disliked the movie enough to have avoided giving it a whole lot of subsequent thought.)
[quote]
Isn't this film a classic case of a writer whose story gets taken over by an ideology that doesn't exactly match up with the subject matter? [/quote]
I don't know that it is such a bad fit with Francis, though. Genuine Marxism, no, that's not Francis. But Francis's dialogue in the film isn't taken from Marx, it's taken from Jesus: verbatim, often as not. To write off the movie because its anti-materialist themes remind one of communism or Sixties rhetoric may not be adequate if one would have the same discomfort to the things Francis or Jesus actually said.
Let me try this another way. Maybe the one thing the hippies (and some communists?) did have right, in among the million things they probably had wrong, was the point where they happened to overlap with Saint Francis - a conviction that there is something wrong with a money-obsessed culture, whether it be in Francis's day, the end of the Sixties or the beginning of the new millenium?
[quote]Ron, after I got your email, I realized you were confusing Francesco with the film MoMA screened, Roberto Rossellini's beautiful The Flowers of St. Francis. [/quote]Exactly! (By the way, the MoMA book is now in print, and I ordered me a copy today.)
[quote]He casted actual monks and filmed most of the movie in the sun-dappled countryside--it's one of the warmest and most joyful films I've ever seen. [/quote]
Well, just so long as he doesn't skip through the sun-dappled countryside, I guess it's okay.
All for now. Thanks for the stimulating perspectives, o esteemed colleagues. Need to go harvest a few more specifics from BSSM, then settle in for FRANCESCO...
Ron
Makes sense. I went into this viewing of it expecting nothing but tacky hippie stuff, and was surprised how much better a film this was than I had come to expect.
[quote]
Francis is much more a nut case and much less a wacky visionary and mystic than he should have been (although he can be a little bit of a nut case and that's okay too).
[/quote]
I first saw the film when I was still pretty much a tacky hippie (now I'm just tacky), and it had a huge effect on me. I started reading about St Francis, but it wasn't until digging into the Real Stuff - The Little Flowers Of St Francis in particular - that I was truly confronted with Francis As Nut Case. The quirky antics of the guy in Zeff's movie don't hold a candle to the hardcore craziness of the historical Frank (as far as I could tell, anyhow). I think St Francis was a madman, far more than is portrayed in BROTHER SUN. I also believe it was a profoundly holy madness - he was truly God's Fool.
If there's a problem with BSSM, it's that Francis isn't crazy enough - he's only mildly crazy, in a way that's too easily confused with general "We're the young generation, and we've got somethin' to say" eccentricity.
Still, watching the film last night, I found myself quite willing and able to bracket some of those affectations as symptoms of the age, and viewed through that sort of corrective lens, I came to think there's an undervalued film there.
[quote]
I haven't yet seen Francesco, although having recently set myself a goal of reviewing all the films on the Vatican film list this year I expect I will be seeing it within the next few months. [/quote]
Ah yes, that's the list I was thinking of! Doug's right, FRANCESCO doesn't appear on the MoMA list, it's this one. Did you know that this was director Liliana Cavani's second run at the St Francis story? There's also a 1966 film she did in Italian. Wish I had time to track that one down, as well as the Rossellini.
[quote]Even so, if I'd been on the papal commission that put the list together, I'm sure I would've plugged for Diary of a Country Priest over ONE of those 15 other films -- quite possibly this one.[/quote]
Yes, that's a strange omission. But ain't that the way with this sort of list? Just wait 'til we start boiling down the 300 films on that other thread to a mere hundred...
[quote]
I saw BSSM back when it came out.... I also remember seeing it at the time as very anti-Capitalist. Francis' identification with the working masses; total rejection of his father's business. I don't think I felt that as strongly when I saw it a second time years later.
[/quote]
It's definitely there - but in keeping with the historical Francis, wouldn't you say? Of course capitalism per se wasn't a thing yet in his day, but clearly a rejection of materialism, possessions, etc was pretty central to the Francis story.
[quote]
Keep in mind, though, that it's a movie from the 70's. [/quote]
Very much so. I kind of think that the degree to which one is put off by those cultural trappings (no, deeper than trappings - that cultural mindset) is the degree to which one might be put off by the film. If the very thought of Donovan provokes physical wretching, BSSM won't be likely to work well.
[quote]The Francis film I'd like to see is a film version of Kazantzakis' book. I love Brother Leo's struggle to live up to Francis.
[/quote]
Nice call. Wonder if Marty Scorsese's got a few spare months to throw something together?
[quote]
Ack. Those proto-hippies. Isn't this the one that features Francis skipping delightedly through the flowers? [/quote]
So how are you on Donovan, then, Mike?
Sure, "Saint Francis, Flower Child" is the standard summary among people who comment on the film, and yes, it's inescapable. But watching the film last night, quite prepared to see the movie you describe, I had to reconsider. I think that summary may be an over-simplification, and it's not insignificant that the folks who label the film that way almost inevitably move straight into mentioning Francis skipping through fields of flowers - which is also a subtle distortion. Yes, the character walks through (stunningly photographed) fields of flowers, and even befriends little birdies. But how is that inappropriate to St Francis? A love of nature was huge for him, and hey, he's the original Dr Doolittle, preaching to those same little birdies. I know it seems like splitting hairs, but Zeff's St Frank doesn't skip through the fields of flowers: he walks through them. (Added later: Well, okay, he doesn't just walk. He runs. Happily. But he doesn't skip, okay?) Why shouldn't he? The film was made in the actual area where Francis lived - seems to me pretty appropriate to root his love of nature in the actual soil he grew out of. It would be perverse to make a film about this guy on his home turf and ignore the natural beauty.
On this very point, I was reminded of Zeff's much-praised ROMEO & JULIET, which also had the obligatory sixties lovestruck-run-through-beautiful-scenery scenes, far more cliche and over-played than in BROTHER SUN. Why does he get away with it in the former, and get slammed for it in the latter?
Still, lest I come across as too unblinking an admirer of BSSM, I certainly won't deny that this is a very soft St Francis, all flower-child (which I'll continue to argue isn't inappropriate) but none of the darker colours. Where's the stigmata? Where's the sense of betrayal by his followers? Where's the reality that the crust of bread shared among half a dozen guys after a day's work in the field just ain't enough? BSSM tells only half (or less) of the story, and is the weaker for it. But I don't think it's worth writing off, for all that - and it ain't as bad as we all have come to remember.
[quote]
What a strange candidate for DVD release.
[/quote]
I don't see it that way. Having viewed the thing, I think it's about time for a reconsideration of this film, which has been a tad caricatured, I would suggest. These are materialistic days: can't see that a little St Francis goes entirely amiss. And even if everybody continues to see this as an embarassing artifact from a regrettable blip in the zeitgeist, I would submit that at the very least the visual power of this film needs to be rediscovered - something that comes through powerfully on the DVD.
[quote]The only stretch here seems to be that Wertmuller can manipulate Francis the way she does her other characters. In Swept Away Wertmuller tried to show us that once all vestiges of capitalist society are swept away, two humans that in that situation were socially alienated from each other really can get along and roll naked in the sand together when money and status aren't an issue. (When all that really happens is a hairy ape overtakes a supermodel through a series of fumbling chauvinist overtures. And she really doesn't seem to mind one bit.)
[/quote]
Funny!
Fact is, I share your distaste for SWEPT AWAY, but we do read it differently. I thought that, once all vestiges of capitalist society were swept away, the two humans showed themselves to be locked in very similar (and similarly ugly) power struggles. Yes they rolled naked in the sun and sand, but I didn't see them getting along: there was such a sense of power and dominance, it just seemed nasty to me. (Though whether that was a pessimistic vision, or just my negative reading of a vision Wertmuller perceived as positive, I can't say. Disliked the movie enough to have avoided giving it a whole lot of subsequent thought.)
[quote]
Isn't this film a classic case of a writer whose story gets taken over by an ideology that doesn't exactly match up with the subject matter? [/quote]
I don't know that it is such a bad fit with Francis, though. Genuine Marxism, no, that's not Francis. But Francis's dialogue in the film isn't taken from Marx, it's taken from Jesus: verbatim, often as not. To write off the movie because its anti-materialist themes remind one of communism or Sixties rhetoric may not be adequate if one would have the same discomfort to the things Francis or Jesus actually said.
Let me try this another way. Maybe the one thing the hippies (and some communists?) did have right, in among the million things they probably had wrong, was the point where they happened to overlap with Saint Francis - a conviction that there is something wrong with a money-obsessed culture, whether it be in Francis's day, the end of the Sixties or the beginning of the new millenium?
[quote]Ron, after I got your email, I realized you were confusing Francesco with the film MoMA screened, Roberto Rossellini's beautiful The Flowers of St. Francis. [/quote]Exactly! (By the way, the MoMA book is now in print, and I ordered me a copy today.)
[quote]He casted actual monks and filmed most of the movie in the sun-dappled countryside--it's one of the warmest and most joyful films I've ever seen. [/quote]
Well, just so long as he doesn't skip through the sun-dappled countryside, I guess it's okay.
All for now. Thanks for the stimulating perspectives, o esteemed colleagues. Need to go harvest a few more specifics from BSSM, then settle in for FRANCESCO...
Ron
[quote]I don't see it that way. Having viewed the thing, I think it's about time for a reconsideration of this film, which has been a tad caricatured[/quote]
I really look forward to reading your re-reading of it then. I actually scanned some other reviews yesterday and found that most people did seem to be passing off the film in a sardonic tone. That either usually means it is bad, or everybody missed something important.
[quote]I would submit that at the very least the visual power of this film needs to be rediscovered - something that comes through powerfully on the DVD.[/quote]
This alone makes it worth re-visiting. Are there any good extras on the DVD?
[quote]Fact is, I share your distaste for SWEPT AWAY, but we do read it differently.[/quote]
I can walk with you a mile on this one. As you pointed out, it didn't seem worth a ton of thought after watching it. I just recall finding a lot of interesting power issues beneath the veneer of a ideological fable. As if the story took on a life of its own.
I really look forward to reading your re-reading of it then. I actually scanned some other reviews yesterday and found that most people did seem to be passing off the film in a sardonic tone. That either usually means it is bad, or everybody missed something important.
[quote]I would submit that at the very least the visual power of this film needs to be rediscovered - something that comes through powerfully on the DVD.[/quote]
This alone makes it worth re-visiting. Are there any good extras on the DVD?
[quote]Fact is, I share your distaste for SWEPT AWAY, but we do read it differently.[/quote]
I can walk with you a mile on this one. As you pointed out, it didn't seem worth a ton of thought after watching it. I just recall finding a lot of interesting power issues beneath the veneer of a ideological fable. As if the story took on a life of its own.
[quote]...I actually scanned some other reviews yesterday and found that most people did seem to be passing off the film in a sardonic tone. That either usually means it is bad, or everybody missed something important.[/quote]
Or perhaps, in this case, a bit of both.
I will say that, re-re-watching it late last night to cite specifics for my review, I definitely came to love the things in the movie that work best - mostly visual elements, actually. I think this is one of those "When it's good, it's very very good" movies. And how horrid it is when it's NOT being good will largely depend on how much the mannerisms of the period grate on the individual viewer.
(Hmmm, maybe that should have gone in the review.....)
Or perhaps, in this case, a bit of both.
I will say that, re-re-watching it late last night to cite specifics for my review, I definitely came to love the things in the movie that work best - mostly visual elements, actually. I think this is one of those "When it's good, it's very very good" movies. And how horrid it is when it's NOT being good will largely depend on how much the mannerisms of the period grate on the individual viewer.
(Hmmm, maybe that should have gone in the review.....)
OK so I'm brand new to this site and, much less knowledgeable about film than many true "buffs". But I happened to have seen BSSM a couple of years ago. Having no previous knowledge of the film, it's writers, actors and director I thought I might be able to offer a fresh perspective. Also I am about 6 years younger than the film itself and entirely unaffected by attitudes about hippies and the times it came out in.
First of all I think this is a film we understand better when we are younger. I think I was 22 or 23 when I watched it and very much in the midst of a struggle for meaning and authenticity in the world and myself. I watched it alone in a dark room on an old 20" screen in my basement suite, curled up and aching for the comfort a film can often bring. The sound was bad on this tape, and some of the actors spoke kind of mumbly so I had to strain to hear every word. But what I got out of it was profound to me at the time! A young man is confronted with his own life of privilege, there's a strartlingly beautiful young woman who cares for the lepers down by the river. He could have reformed the abusive ways of his fathers and still had an ordinary life with a beautiful wife if only he had been willing to make a compromise. But he chooses the harder thing, and discovers something new. One scene that stands out is when one of Francis' old friends returns from the Crusades and rants about his frustrations, not with the Church or the war, but his own need for meaning in it. He personified for me a struggle I was having with myself at the time. And I was struck by the wisdom of the young Francis who had the time to sit and listen...
like I say it's been a while since I've seen it but I do remember it being a powerful film which affected me strongly at that time and in that place. I don't know if it would be the same now, but I think everything in art is subjective to experience. I'm glad for having had in this case so I guess that means the film succeded...for me.
First of all I think this is a film we understand better when we are younger. I think I was 22 or 23 when I watched it and very much in the midst of a struggle for meaning and authenticity in the world and myself. I watched it alone in a dark room on an old 20" screen in my basement suite, curled up and aching for the comfort a film can often bring. The sound was bad on this tape, and some of the actors spoke kind of mumbly so I had to strain to hear every word. But what I got out of it was profound to me at the time! A young man is confronted with his own life of privilege, there's a strartlingly beautiful young woman who cares for the lepers down by the river. He could have reformed the abusive ways of his fathers and still had an ordinary life with a beautiful wife if only he had been willing to make a compromise. But he chooses the harder thing, and discovers something new. One scene that stands out is when one of Francis' old friends returns from the Crusades and rants about his frustrations, not with the Church or the war, but his own need for meaning in it. He personified for me a struggle I was having with myself at the time. And I was struck by the wisdom of the young Francis who had the time to sit and listen...
like I say it's been a while since I've seen it but I do remember it being a powerful film which affected me strongly at that time and in that place. I don't know if it would be the same now, but I think everything in art is subjective to experience. I'm glad for having had in this case so I guess that means the film succeded...for me.
Hey, welcome, Adam! How great to meet a "real world" friend here. Hope you stick around.
And thanks for your comments about the St Frank flick. There's no doubt the film had a great personal impact when I first saw it, as well - at a considerably younger age, which may indeed have been a factor. There's a certain innocence about this movie that's easy to condescend to, but which wasn't any kind of problem when I was 21. I remember riding home after the film, sitting silent in the back seat, my former fiancee and my room-mate (also the future husband of the aforementioned fiancee) in the front seat. Tears running down my face, I was so shaken up by the film, as they chatted away, writing off the movie. I thought, "Some people just don't get it." Within a month or two, under the influence of St Francis, I gave away all but a tithe of my records (ah, records. Just imagine an oversized black CD...) and a bunch of other stuff and headed for the west coast. Still there 26 years later, still under the influence - though it's taken a lot of work to replace all those records...
Ron
And thanks for your comments about the St Frank flick. There's no doubt the film had a great personal impact when I first saw it, as well - at a considerably younger age, which may indeed have been a factor. There's a certain innocence about this movie that's easy to condescend to, but which wasn't any kind of problem when I was 21. I remember riding home after the film, sitting silent in the back seat, my former fiancee and my room-mate (also the future husband of the aforementioned fiancee) in the front seat. Tears running down my face, I was so shaken up by the film, as they chatted away, writing off the movie. I thought, "Some people just don't get it." Within a month or two, under the influence of St Francis, I gave away all but a tithe of my records (ah, records. Just imagine an oversized black CD...) and a bunch of other stuff and headed for the west coast. Still there 26 years later, still under the influence - though it's taken a lot of work to replace all those records...
Ron
My review is up.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.