by Sam Juliano
We probably know more about St. Francis of Assisi than any other medieval saint. We are in possession of much of his own words, testament, letters, poems and liturgical writings, but perhaps most signicantly the intimate accounts of several of his disciples, written down within twenty years of his death. From this great plethora of authentic material a clear picture of the man emerges. St. Francis is one saint whom both Catholics and non-Catholics have united in honoring. Certainly no other has so appealed to Protestants and even to non-Christians, and the appeal is timeless: Francis captured the imagination of his contemporaries as well as that of modern men by his unique simplicity and a pure grace of spirit. A classic collection of popular legends, the Little Flowers of St. Francis, first printed in 1476, contains some charming and beautiful stories of Francis’s love for the poor, of animals, of all nature. In action it can reasonably be assumed that in action he was an “original”, in speech picturesque and poetic, yet ultimately he was a man inspired by faith and in devotion of the risen Christ. He was born in the stony hill-town of Assisi in Umbria in the year 1181 or 1182. His father Peter Bernadone was a wealthy merchant, while his mother by some accounts was gently born and of Provencal blood. Much of Bernadone’s trade was with France, and his son was born while he was absent in that country. Perhaps for this reason the child was called Francesco, “the French man,” though his baptismal name was John. As a youth he is said to have been ardent in his amusements and seemed carried away by the mere joy of living, taking no interest at all in his father’s business or in formal learning. Bernadone, proud to have his son finely dressed and associating with young noblemen, gave him plenty of money, which Francis squandered foolishly. Though Francis was high-spirited, he was too fastidious to lead a dissolute life, especially as this was the age of chivalry, and he was thrilled by the songs of the trubadours and the deeds of knights. At the age of twenty or thereabouts, during a petty war between the towns of Assisi and Perugia, he was taken prisoner. During a year of captivity he remained cheerful and kept up the spirits of his companion, but soon after his release he suffered a long illness.
It is at this point of St. Francis’s life that celebrated opera and film director Franco Zeffirelli began his treatment of the beloved figure in his 1973 Brother Sun Sister Moon, a film widely reviled upon it’s release, but now the recipient of an impassioned cult following. Zeffirelli, who achieved critical and box-office success in the late 60’s with Shakespearean adapatations of both The Taming of the Shrew and Romeo and Juliet again tried to wow the young with a film that deliberately attempted to transcribe its iconic character’s freespiritedness into the flower-child “hippie” sensibilities of the early 70’s. Zeffirelli, who is well known for his painterly eye and a ravishing appreciation of color, imparted on his film his inimitable grasp of breathtaking composition, and the potent use of the oldest device of all: the close-up. With his gifted cinematographer Ennio Guarnieri and three art directors, including Giorgio Giovanni, Zeffirelli conceived and shot the in the same manner as he did with Romeo and Juliet, with breathtaking settings, lush color and scenes of delicate beauty that all translated into a veritable feast for the senses. Particularly ravishing was the use a field of orange and violet flowers (reportedly located in Serbia) where St. Francis first consumates his love for nature: “Birds are singing sweet and low/in the trees that gently grow.” But Zeffirelli is a master of the heart stopping moment, like the Freudian scene at the waterfall where the film’s female beauty Claire is inducted to the order by having the strands of her flowing blond hair cut by a male follower before her renunciation. The unmistakably erotic sequence recalls Bo Wiederberg’s Elvira Madigan, released six years earlier which similarly boasted gorgeous compositional control. The only visual aspect of the film where Zeffirelli misses on is making squalor in a rainbow spectrum, as in an extended sequence near the beginning which shows Francesco walking among lepers; the hues are all wrong.
Inevitably, some liberties are taken with St. Francis’s story, including the assertion here that the future saint left his family permanently to wander with his diciples, and that he visited Pope Innocent III in Rome, although the latter sequence featuring Alec Guiness as the pontiff is one of the film’s dramatic highlights. (Guiness becomes so inspired by Francesco’s mission that in a moment of “weakness” he kisses the feet of the beggar, angering his own councel.) But mainly Zeffirelli and three co-screen writers including celebrated film director Lena Wertmuller remained faithful to the accounts, beginning with Francesco’s recovery from near-fatal captivity and his subsequent rebuilding of a small church in Damiano, to his renouncing his name and his wealth to live as a beggar in the name of Christ. Infectiously, others follow his lead and his band scatter through countryside towns, spreading the word. The rampant religiosity is given unexpectantedly poignant aural accompaniment by the folk singer Donovan, who provides a score of great warmth, music that perfectly supports the flower child sensibilities of the film. Yet, to the critics who panned the film, this score represents its most dire element, as the naysayers rejected the entire attempt to modernize the past with a frivilous, trendy movement of the present that would surely be short-lived. While the latter contention was a correct one, there was unquestionable unity in story and score. The title song is a sweeping and melodious number that defines the spirit of the film, and the philosophy of its central protagonist. Similarly the other songs in the score further embellish the various activities being performed, including assistance for the poor, or simple immersion with nature. Donovan’s work here has wide appeal, as can be evidenced by three decades of requests from music and film lovers, who unsuccessfully petitioned for a CD release that to this day is tied up in legal limbo. In one of the most stunning turarounds in movie history, what was once thought to be one of the most frivulous and inept film scores is now seen as a beautiful aural underpinning of a number of the film’s most striking sequences, and a stand-alone release that has been dreamed for by music lovers for years.
The very concept of a nature and peace-loving man fighting the system, as he does when he strips down to his flesh in the marketplace, or when he tells his furious father “I’m not your son anymore” while throwing his rich garments out the window will always appeal to those who reject conformity, and the actor Graham Faulkner, who admittedly isn’t given any kind of provocative dialogue is physically right for the role, with his expressive features. Judi Bowker, a blond bauuty who plays Claire is also a magnificent manifestation of character although again she is only given perfunctory things to say. While neither of the lead exhibits any special acting talent, they both fit into Zeffirelli’s rapturous pictorial design, which has characters represent a spiritual order. Lee Montague, an actor with smashing vitality does a fine job as Francesco’s father, while the pampering French-speaking mother is played by Valentina Cortese, who is passable, despite her awkward English lines. Guiness is majestic in his brief role, using verbal pauses to great effect, and effectively showing the hierarchy being humbled.
Brother Sun Sister Moon shows Zeffirelli in defiance of the conventional mode of storytelling, which stresses a well-written screenplay and fine acting. In large measure this film fails on both counts. But to use that as a summary judgement is entirely to miss the point. Imagery and music are what tell this timeless story about one of Christianity’s most venerated figures, and in the end one can’t help being ravished by a film that is as aesthically beautiful as it is religiously touching.
Sam, I wanted to like this film and the colors of the cloths in the dye factory are dazzling, but it lacks depth and as a consequence is spiritually empty. St Francis deserves better.
St Francis is circulating in his grave like an electric eel with the heebie jeebies.
Sam needs to get the notion that forsaken 70s cinema shoul;d equate to stuff that shouldn’t refer to stuff unfairly treated. To call this excrement would be being too kind…religion for the Woodstock brigade.
No cinema should carry the death penalty for infliction, but this should at least be life imprisonment.
Tony’s comment here was fair and respectful, but I should have known that legendary predator from Kendal would follow-up with his ruthless embellishment.
If I thought it was a bad as you are now contending I wouldn’t have had it on this list, right? It’s a no-brainer.
This is MY review, not yours.
What a beautiful piece of writing. I never saw the film, but have always loved “Romeo and Juliet”. The director does wear his heart on his sleeve, but there is apainterly quality to his visuals that is irresistible. I’d be interested in hearing Donovan’s score, which you issue some quality praise for.
Yeah, Allan really goes for the jugular, but his opinion is his opinion, and no more.
Excellent review regardless of whether the film has failed to impress everyone. I do think you do a fine job in poiting out the flaws, while still offering valid reasons why the acting and script are less important in conveying the ‘spirit’ of the work. The two caps you chose here are lovely, and make one want to check out the entire film. Like Joe I’m sorry to report that I have never seen it, but I do know Zeffirelli’s other work. He does have the painterly eye. I love his ‘Otello’ most.
Well, I CAN see both sides to this coin. This film has been run on BRAVO many times, in a nice letterbox print no less, and I can definately see where Sam is coming from. This film is all style over substance. BUT WHAT STYLE. I have to admit that I am a sucker for this kind of thing, which I call “painting on film”. But unlike, say, Kubricks BARRY LYNDON (where style and substance merge perfectly), this films missteps are almost fatal. The imagery saves this film as well as the performance by Guiness. However,Donovans score is excruciatingly painful and is in a class of sugar water like the work of Glenn Yarborough. I will admit, though, that I was brought up by my Grandmother for the first fourteen years of my life, she was a staunch Roman-Catholic Italian, whose devotions were to rules and regulations, food and the ideals that life is set up by God and his “hentchmen” (her words not mine). And although God and Jesus Christ almighty were big in our house, the star attractions were St. Francis and Anthony
And one other thing.. This was an extremely well written and expressed essay. Gotta admit, Schmulee is really tightening up as one of the best and most expressive writers here. Looks like he’s making a play to give Allan a run for the money. Keep up the fine work Sammy. Thanx, Dennis
Sam, what a marvelous descriptive review! Your deep love for the manner in which the movie was filmed shines through in every sentence. My mother knows this film well and she loves it. I plan on getting this on netflix.
I adore Romeo and Juliet and Donovan.
This is one of the most beautiful films I have seen in my lifetime, and I can’t for the life of me figure out why some are attacking it. I vividly remember seeing it at the Lee Theatre in Fort Lee, which of course has now been torn down. The photography and music are breathtaking I must agree. I think at the end of the film, you really feel you understand who St. Francis was, and how he was one with nature. I remember our previous parish priest who considered this his favorite film. I can still hear that music in my head.
I never cared much for this film, but I can understand why Sam feels the way he does. And make no mistake about it, this is a tremendously forceful review that hooks you from the very first sentence. I kind of agree with Tony d’Ambra that St. Francis deserved more. Still, the argument that the film “captures” the spirit of this religious figure in visual beauty and music makes sense.
Thanks for the kind remarks, everyone!
Maria: Movie Man’s mother is also a big fan from what I have been told.
Dennis: Indeed, the visual style here, while nothing we haven’t seen as far as form, was stunning to look at. Sorry you don’t like Donovan’s score; I felt it was integral to this unique experience.
Karen: I am positively thrilled to hear that!!! Thanks so much for your impassioned defense and anecdotes.
The purpose of the ‘Forsaken 70’s cinema’ series is to review films that either:
1. Got mostly bad reviews that I feel were underserved.
2. Films that for one reason or another have fallen off the radar.
3. Smaller films that have worth in some sub-genres.
Hope that helps. And for those who wish to inquisitive or adventurous, you will find some glowing assessment of this film by some bloggers and affluent movie lovers in addition to the ones like Allan who are trashing it. Opinions run from one extreme to the other.
Frank:
Thanks for leaving one of your finest comments ever under this piece. Much appreciated my very good friend!
Sam you’ve done what every reviewer should: you’ve made me want to see a movie I might ordinarily have had no interest in. Stick to your guns!
Since the film is so obviously controversial however, I would’ve liked to see you address some of the criticisms of the film directly and provide your take on them. Perhaps you take them as understood, but I have to admit I don’t know the whole story.
Well Craig, I thank you very much for posting under a film that is surely off the beacon track so to speak.
The criticisms of the film were so outlandish, that I will admit I generalized. While some viewers were deeply moved by the film’s religious essence (Catholics and non-Catholics alike) others found the hippie culture embodiment ludicrous and laughable. It all depends on what kind of a mindset you approach this material, and whether you will allow yourself to “submit” to it as I did. What I tried to express is that those who use the traditional barometers of measurement in assessing this film are missing the entire point, as Zeffirelli went completely via the “sensory” route. The writing and some of the acting was only passable by normal standards, but th euse of the camera and the soundtrack brought enrapturing aesthetics to the table, a far better game plan than straitforward storytelling, which doesn’t give this beloved religious figure the interpretation that is rightful. I understand the nay sayers, and why they can’t take the film seriously, but my sensibilities have allowed me to fully experience the beauty of Zeffirelli’s vision.
I can understand, especially now that we look back at the hippie lifestyle with a more jaded eye, how such a thing would seem trite. It’s easy to kick hippies around, isn’t it? I agree they’re on overly idealized lot, but their ideals still hold a certain appeal and they’re applicable to the subject in question.
I’m big on trying to approach a movie on its own terms so I might have some luck here. It could be a crashing failure, but like I said you’ve piqued my curiosity.
Indeed Craig, indeed. The hippie culture is seen today as a blight on our cultural past. Zeffirelli was only trying to equate the life of St. Francis with the kind of sensibilities that dominated at the film’s time of release, but only because the figure himself embodied the movement’s essence. I can’t say predict how you will wind up on this, but I am gratified for piquing your curiosity. That was the ultimate aim of this review, which brings back fond memories for me. It all seems like it was yesterday.
Susan says this is a film of great beauty, Sam. I’ll have to hawk a copy on DVD, and I envy you for seeing it on the big screen. I know Zeffirelli made “Jesus of Nazareth” and the one everyone seems to know, “Romeo and Juliet.” But his opera films are really his claim to fame, and I know you appreciate that fact especially. This is a fantastic look at this “lost” film.
Sue is right, Peter. Zeffirelli is a consumate visual artist, and whether one connects with BROTHER SUN SISTER MOON or not, one can deny the man his due. His output in opera is incomparable (a fact even Allan begrudgingly admits) and with several cinematic works and the JESUS OF NAZARETH you mention. Thanks very much.
I have not seen this film but this is a phenomenal post!
Thanks very much Kaleem. We will have to rectify that situation!
Nice blog with a nice picture. the movie was fantastic. Enjoyed going through your blog. Keep it up the good work . Cheers 🙂
Well thanks very much for that Beth! I know there are fans of this film out there, who have embraced its instrinsic beauties.
What a lovely color screen cap! If that doesn’t promote the film all by itself, then I don’t know what does. I just posted at your John Waters review that you may have written your best Forsaken Film review, but now I’m not so sure. This is high octane writing and so descriptive and poetic. I love Taming of the Shrew and Romeo and Juliet but I need to see this and Jesus of Nazareth.
Frederick: All I can say is THANK YOU! That is way too kind.
Frederick said it best. This was a highly poetic piece. We plan on watching this again during the week.
Hope you did get to this Peter!
Like his breathtakingly beautiful version of “Romeo and Juliet,” the visually gifted Franco Zeffirelli attempted to play the same winning game with this film. Look for the lush, stunning color,and scrupulously accurate attention to historical detail that is this director’s hallmark–but don’t look for a complex treatment of this most complex saint. Francis, as well as his followers, is portrayed as rather naive and simple, as is their appeal to the cynical and worldly Pope Innocent. This film was made during the hippie, flower-child era, and shows the stamp of that more innocent period, complete with Donovan’s plaintive music score. The film is a visual treat and well-worth seeing as an accurate visual rendition of medieval life in Italy–13th century Assisi comes gorgeously alive–but Zeffirelli is not Fellini–don’t look for depth in the characters. I must tell you Sam that you penned as great a review as possibly could be written for this film. One of your finest creations.
Bill that is one wonderful comment there! Wow! Thanks so much.
I just got to read this now Sam. Great descriptive writing in the service of a beautiful film. You’ve never been better. I’d love to get a copy of this film.
Your wish is my command Sue! You will have a copy pronto.
Sam,
I am a BS,SM fan. I appreciate your giving this film a gracious and understanding review. To those who might criticize the film and/or your review, I suppose they have missed the spiritual message that Zeffirelli’s film ultimately delivers to many with an open mind and longing soul. I have watched the film, almost to its exhaustion, maybe a dozen times or so in the last 18 years. I still cry at certain points, but also have become aware of the shots which could not have been filmed on the presumed location, such as the Fairy Terns hovering during the rooftop scene (not native to the area) and the production flaws of the era (slightly quaking background behind the crowd shots of the courtyard scene where Francesco renounces his lifestyle). There are shots which make no sense and are purely there for artistic touch (Francesco peering through the branches at the crumbled church, when he could easily take a step to the left and be clear of them).
I could go on and pick apart every scene, but what would I gain except the miserable view of life that many film critics seem to be unknowingly trapped in. Fortunately, your average Joe isnt looking for the flaws in production values or to critique imperfect dialogue.
I managed to take from this movie not mere appreciation for Zeffirelli as a film maker, but a deeper understanding of what God hopes for us all to learn in this life. Any film maker can entertain for a couple hours and maybe inspire a coversation or 2 about his creation. But to have THE MASTER CREATOR use your movie to inspire some to reconsider their way of life is an honor that few will know. I often wonder if the filmmaker knew what impact it would actually have. For those not open to the simple truths revealed in this film, they they are missing a great gift. I recommend it for anyone and many of us who have watched it gain a spiritual connection that doesn’t fade
Magnificent response there Dano!
It is heartening to know that there are people out there that feel that have been deeply moved by this film, as we both are. Yes, there are tear-inducing moments, and the film does have a resounding spiritualityh that few more celebrated films have lacked. It’s a sumblime film, with beautiful images, a haunting score and a rampant sense of idealism. It wa srefreshing upon release and still is. I thank you for your insights here!
After reading this again I am certain this is your best review.
Thanks so much for that Fred!
Sam – When we got home from a long bicycle ride in Wisconsin yesterday, we treated ourselves to watching ‘Brother Sun, Sister Moon” that we’d ordered from our library.
I was a sophomore in high school when the film came out in 1973 – I can’t imagine why I never saw it. I don’t remember it coming to the movie theater in our town.
The cinematography was beautiful — there were dozens upon dozens of shots of the Italian countryside that as still-shots would make gorgeous posters.
In this heart-warming film we learned a lot about St. Francis’s humble life of service; a life that was by-choice unencumbered of material possessions.
Never addressed this great response Laurie, which I appreciate so much. This film has long meant quite a lot to me, and you my friend have captured its essence!
Most of it today I find “corny” yet as you say it is ravishing in its beauty, the light, the colors, the sense of something deeper trying to be conveyed. This visit to the Pope was a pure indulgence in oppositis, Francis and his poor but happy followers immersed into that Drama of Popery is a statement of Greed and abundance that Francis was trying to make people move away from. I think maybe Zeffirelli was trying to make a statement. Of course this whole film is a statement about a more simple way of life.
Beautifully written, great responses to the non-likers.