Customer Reviews

St. Francis

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Michele Soavi enjoys international cult-status as the maker of avant-garde horror films, and as such, his fans will not be disappointed with "Saint Francis." The first half of this movie's cup overflows with sinister characters, protracted violence, on-camera torture, and endless journeys through frightening dwellings and landscapes.

That said, he made an admirable attempt to depict a "muscular" Christianity and present Francis's life without pastel colors. It had to be done and he did it. But, while this film is an artistically lush period piece and is conceptually intriguing, the realization is disappointing. The plot is somewhat muddled, the script doesn't justify its three and one-half hour length, and the characters are unremittingly stern---whereas, the hallmark of St. Francis was joy. (According to witnesses, he bore his year in prison "with cheerfulness and good temper." A better interpretation of the saint's troubadour-like personality is the father's character in the Italian film "Life is Beautiful.")

Additionally, Soavi's portrayal of Francis' relationship with the Catholic Church is slightly skewed and incomplete.

Saint Francis was a reformer, not a rebel.

In Soavi's interpretation, Saint Francis appears as a precursor to Luther; that is, Christianity should be "sola scriptura." Add to that '"sola" nature' and '"sola"poverty' and you have the plot of this film in a nutshell. The Franciscan ideal does contain the Gospels, nature, and poverty, but it contains much more; obedience being high on the list. Saint Francis' faith was never at odds with the faith of the Catholic Church.

Furthermore, belief that the Church did not allow men and women to read the Gospels in their native language is an erroneous belief, but it is widespread and one need not be anti-Catholic to hold it. This theme in the movie's plot is historically inaccurate. (What the Church guarded against were "Gospels" written in the vernacular that contained error. For those who are interested, Mario Derksen (Catholic Insight) in his essay, "Did the Catholic Church Try to Keep the Bible From the Laity?" uses modern and historical sources to argue that the Church was concerned with mis-translations, not translations.)

For many good reasons Michele Soavi's film will (or, will not) resonate with viewers, but for an accurate picture of Saint Francis and Saint Clare one would do well to get a good biography. (G.K.Chesterton's "Saint Francis of Assisi," is a start.)

I have seen all the movies that are made about our beloved Saint, but this is the best. This was even better than "brother sun and sister moon". Well done. Except a few minor points, the story follows the life of Saint Francis. This is a must see, for those who love Francis.

I looked forward to watching this movie, but was disappointed. Overall it is well made, but the representation of St. Francis was at best disappointing. I realize St. Francis's life was not a bed of roses, but there was almost no joy *AT ALL* in his life, according to this movie. Far too much crying for his character lines.

Also, it was troubling to have St. Francis represented as someone almost bordering on disobedience to the Pope when he requests approval for his order. It is one thing to speak freely but they carried it too far for the saint who "rebuilt Christ's church."

Although visually sumptuous, gritty and sensual, this film has several problematic characteristics that prevent it from being either an enjoyable or edifying portrayal of St. Francis.

In the first place, a_very_blatant Protestant plot element is inserted in the movie, with an apparent Waldensian St. Francis meets in prison. The man is there because he translated the Gospels into "the common tongue" and is then brutally tortured for such "heresy", but not before he passes his ragged Bible to Francis, whose faith is awakened by this first introduction to the Word of God.

The second problem is that the movie does not attempt to attribute any sort of supernatural explanation to Francis' actions, but instead gives a naturalistic depiction of his life. God does not speak to Francis here. The closest we come to anything miraculous was when Francis and his brothers saw a large flock of birds. Even his stigmata is played down to resemble nothing more than scrapes on his hands. It is also hinted at that it is self-inflicted, since the movie earlier showed us Francis intentionally grasping a thorny stick as hard as he could, and wounding his hands.

The third issue is that Francis' personality is just warped in this movie. He is portrayed as a delusional, self-harming, neurotic lunatic, an amiable simpleton at best. He is frequently shown crying, moaning, rolling around the ground in pain, spitting up blood. It is none-too-subtly hinted at that he was nuts.

The fourth problem is that the movie is interminable. It is almost 3 hours long. If it contained any sort of plot development or dramatic tension, that would have been bearable, but with Francis mostly just acting strangely, it was not a pleasant experience.

The movie isn't all bad, as I said. It is beautiful to watch, and so far as I can translate Italian, the acting seemed powerful to me. I was glad it didn't obscure Francis' faith, as Zefferelli's proto-hippy Francis seemed to do. However, the problems I elucidated above ruined it all for me.

Excellent movie. Top quality screenplay, impressive actors. The movie is based on true facts, so it is not a fantasy film. Highly recommended to see.

Thanks to everyone who was involved in the creation of the film. God bless you all!

In a world where media is dominant this movie is so refreshing as it chronicles the agony of a person who yearns for God. Watch it! 0:)