Lesson 2 - Schama - Caravagio

It goes without saying that the works of Michelangelo deCaravagio were both brilliant and disturbing.  I believe the same can be said for the making of Simon Schama's film.  So, for this blog, I have chosen to analyze the film itself, rather than the artist.

There are several brilliant techniques in the film that I felt almost mirror the life of the subject.  For instance, the actors were depicted as dirty, dusty and desolate, much like those who lived just outside the Vatican palace at that time in history.  This depiction resembled the beliefs that Protestants felt in regards to paintings presented in Catholic churches. They felt the art was filthy and distracting to the true gospel of the bible.  The actors, representing the 'real' commoners of Rome were a distraction to those trying to live a spiritual life.

When the actors were portrayed reenacting Caravagio's life, the filmmakers used fog and dim lighting, highlighting shadows and adding a sense of mystery to the scenes.  These effects resembled the spiral downward of the artist's life as they showed decreased visibility and a darkness, not unlike Caravagio's paintings.  As Schama describes, "Caravagio's art crashes the safety of the frame.  It tears away at the separation.  It reaches you."  The film's lighting effects were also quite powerful, much like the paintings.

However, while I appreciate the symbolism included by the creators, I was unimpressed with the film as a whole.

For starters, there was a particular scene of a shadowy caped figure, assumed to be the painter himself, running down a corridor, away from... something.  This same clip was used multiple times throughout the film, making it appear low on budget and creativity.

I also didn't care for the scenes which made use of handheld cameras.  Although mostly used during reenactment scenes, there were a few times where Schama took advantage of the method as he was narrating, walking through the streets of Rome.  Watching these scenes was difficult, with a dizzying effect.  Although the camera 'shakiness' could be likened to the instability of Caravagio's mental state, I felt nauseated.  But, perhaps that was the point - to disturb the viewer to the core.

Finally, I found several of the film scenes unnecessary and out of place.  I didn't feel that I needed to see Caravagio's dog walking on it's hind legs, nor did I find it relevant to the film itself.  Also, the scenes where Caravagio's peers were speaking directly to the camera, as if being interviewed in real time, were ridiculous.  Such artistry would be better suitable on a cheesy reality TV show.

I admit, I am not sure if my analysis is what is expected of me for this class assignment.  But, perhaps this angle of critiquing the film making, makes me a little like the artist itself.  As the Narrator reminds us, throughout the film, "Caravagio wasn't going to do things the way he was supposed to do."