Standing before a painting by Caravaggio is an experience, particularly when the emotion of a dramatic scene is heightened by his intense lighting, attention to detail, and chiaroscuro technique. It's a style that's instantly recognizable, and was influential far beyond Caravaggio's life (1571-1610). Aside from a wide range of artists who followed, like Rembrandt, Velazquez, and David, Martin Scorsese said that there were scenes in Mean Streets (1973) that were framed and lit like direct homages to Caravaggio.
Derek Jarman's historical drama succeeds in giving a taste of the man behind the paintings, capturing a certain sense of the sordid way he lived his life, which was often among "low" people and violent. At its best, we feel Caravaggio's earthy background and the uneasy bargain he struck with the Church and wealthy patrons. I smiled over his meeting with the Pope, who in this fictional telling, confided his desire simply to keep the "quo in the status" and didn't care about finding the truth about a prostitute's murder. The prostitute was Fillide Melandroni ("Lena" here, played by 26-year-old Tilda Swinton in her very first film) who appeared in several of Caravaggio's works, and who was probably murdered by him. I also loved the occasions when we see paintings recreated by those posing for them with an astonishing likeness, like the one of Saint Jerome in his study.
Quite a bit of what was shown seems to have been more of a reflection of the director than Caravaggio, however. Jarman didn't seem to have a problem freely bending history, saying among other things that "people tend to think that history is immutable, that there is something called reality." He didn't sugarcoat Caravaggio as others might, but downplayed his brawling and violence, and decided against actual evidence that Caravaggio was bisexual. Among other things, he infers that he molested a child servant that he purchases from a poor family, and that he himself was molested by a priest, his patron. There are elements that could fall under artistic license as interpretation, and there are elements that simply aren't accurate historically, which is a shame.
Jarman also occasionally used modern items from the present, like calculators or radios, I believe as an homage to Caravaggio, who sometimes employed modern dress on his Biblical figures. In the paintings this brings the legends to life, giving them an immediacy in what was then the present; in this film, it just seems disjointed and odd. I have other quibbles, such as the amount of time spent on the deathbed scene spread out through the film, while there was very little on the artist's craftsmanship. He was wise to keep it to 93 minutes and to avoid trying to be comprehensive though, and I'm glad he cared enough about Caravaggio to make this film.
Derek Jarman's historical drama succeeds in giving a taste of the man behind the paintings, capturing a certain sense of the sordid way he lived his life, which was often among "low" people and violent. At its best, we feel Caravaggio's earthy background and the uneasy bargain he struck with the Church and wealthy patrons. I smiled over his meeting with the Pope, who in this fictional telling, confided his desire simply to keep the "quo in the status" and didn't care about finding the truth about a prostitute's murder. The prostitute was Fillide Melandroni ("Lena" here, played by 26-year-old Tilda Swinton in her very first film) who appeared in several of Caravaggio's works, and who was probably murdered by him. I also loved the occasions when we see paintings recreated by those posing for them with an astonishing likeness, like the one of Saint Jerome in his study.
Quite a bit of what was shown seems to have been more of a reflection of the director than Caravaggio, however. Jarman didn't seem to have a problem freely bending history, saying among other things that "people tend to think that history is immutable, that there is something called reality." He didn't sugarcoat Caravaggio as others might, but downplayed his brawling and violence, and decided against actual evidence that Caravaggio was bisexual. Among other things, he infers that he molested a child servant that he purchases from a poor family, and that he himself was molested by a priest, his patron. There are elements that could fall under artistic license as interpretation, and there are elements that simply aren't accurate historically, which is a shame.
Jarman also occasionally used modern items from the present, like calculators or radios, I believe as an homage to Caravaggio, who sometimes employed modern dress on his Biblical figures. In the paintings this brings the legends to life, giving them an immediacy in what was then the present; in this film, it just seems disjointed and odd. I have other quibbles, such as the amount of time spent on the deathbed scene spread out through the film, while there was very little on the artist's craftsmanship. He was wise to keep it to 93 minutes and to avoid trying to be comprehensive though, and I'm glad he cared enough about Caravaggio to make this film.