I appreciate what Derek Jarman does different from other historical biopics - not following a conventional timeline, not sticking to historical accuracy for better mood, the use of poetic voiceover etc.- but it still suffers from the same problem as the standard ones in that it feels like you are staring at the world through a plate glass window rather than being in the shoes of the individuals.

The ugly aesthetic Jarman brings to history greatly appeals to me being a lot more lively than the more traditional stuffy period piece route. The film has a lovely poeticism to it, and its look at the artist's life is captivating, though the anachronisms left me more perplexed than involved.

When I first read about Caravaggio's life I thought "Damn, this would make a great movie" and sure enough, Jarman was two steps ahead of me.

A lurid tale of sex and death set in Renaissance Italy. Jarman is far more interested in mood than in historic detail (most obvious in his use of anachronism, such as the use of a calculator); his eye for striking imagery (faithfully recreating the look of Caravaggio's paintings) and theatrical staging contributes to the film's heavily allegorical feel. In addition to its bold storytelling, there's much to ponder in regards to its religious and sexual connotations. A fascinating film.

A formless mess. Sort of like "Querelle" with huge artistic pretensions.

Interesting biography of Caravaggio. The theatrical outlook works fine, especially the lightning; the director has been reading Caravaggio's paintings good. In here the feeling is more important than the story. A couple of scenes were a bit out of canvas though.

Film on a canvas.

It feels less like a historical account of the painter and more an aesthetic rendering of his life via the colours and images. That said, I also like the historical look here, where everyone is red-faced, foul, stinking, and sexual. It's the ugliest I've ever seen Tilda Swinton and Sean Bean, that's for sure. It's a grotesquerie.