ellipsis, these films (or at least the three that I have had the opportunity to see so far - I still have the Louis XIV film to watch) made me think that they are Rossellini's filmic form of treatise. Individual studies meant to be appreciated for how they fit into a whole and, similar to the way Descartes talks of his seemingly disparate learning adding up to a wholistic view of his subject, that seems to be Rossellini also speaking about this project through his character. Either that or following in Descarte's footsteps!
Dragoon En Regalia wrote:
stroszeck wrote:
Cartesius in particular was not particularly interesting to me, although there were some brilliant dialogue scenes and very closely mannered, intriguing performances. Plus was it me or does Ugo Cardea have the strangest eyebrows in all of filmdom? I was strangely hypnotized by his contemplative gazes.
Ugo Cardea surely baffles the eyes. His facial profile and big eyebrows really stick out, making him the perfect choice for Cartesius. Not to mention great acting ability.
I feel like the films were straddling the line between dramatized history and a cinéma vérité history film, and they ever succeed at being both, or one of them at least. Whereas Age of the Medici feels lively and optimistic, with individuals mired in statistics and flexible rivalry, the people's represented in the other films showcase complex, conflicted times. And, given how mortal and divided Europe was in the 17th century, the films reflect the bleakness of Europe's future, primarily through Descartes' isolation and Pascal's inner death.
Either way, though, they're all great films. But even I feel that their potential was cut short by a lack of planning, either in stylization or in brevity.
Watching Blaise Pascal straight after Cartesius I was pleasantly surprised to see the character of Father Mersenne reappear as a kind of patron for Pascal, and it was even more amusing to see an entirely different kind of portrayal of Descartes from the one Ugo Cardea does in the later film dedicated entirely to him in the scene where Blaise visits and listens to one of his lectures. That I think is my favourite scene from Blaise Pascal, showing a discussion between important thinkers of their times that doesn't exactly take the form of a one-sided lecture, instead more of a point-counterpoint presentation of different approaches to their studies.
I really felt as if I only really had trouble with Age of the Medici, whereas the other two films I was able to watch without such problems. Perhaps this is to do with the solipsistic characters who due to the internal nature of their studies necessarily have to be the centrepieces of their films, whereas Cosimo de Medici is much more an enabler or icon of the times and the action in that film so widely spread across so many characters that there is a very disorienting sense of there being no real strong centre to the film for a viewer.
For example Leon Battista Alberti is a strong character through the second two films but himself is regularly lost in the crowd. The major example of what feels like the main character Thomas Wadding from the first section is a good example, as is Machiavelli in accompanying him to Florence and touring him around the city. Yet they never appear again once the silk weaver's guild has punished the forger. There's also the high point of Fred Ward's appearance in episode two, really energising the action as the Muslim convert regaling the group with tales of his adventures, who then pops up again to end the second episode with a highly amusing summation of capitalist practices! Many other, less well introduced, characters appear and disappear back into history throughout - it is a nice stylistic conceit but does prevent the audience from understanding the world through any strong ongoing identification with particular characters or character arcs. I suppose though that it makes Cosimo (and later Leon Battista) more important almost by default as they are the few characters that the film returns to for more than a handful of scenes.