In short, this film does not know what it is - and that is why it ultimately fails to communicate much.
The film is marketed as an arthouse biographical film of Padre Pio, and yet Shia Labeouf's screentime - who plays Pio - is sparse at best.
The rest of the film concerns itself with the plight of villagers who, growing weary of their overlord's tyranny, turn to Socialism. It goes without saying that such a narrative is overly simplified, uninspired, and not particurlary compelling. Some of these characters are played with a degree of nuance, but their development is so poor that I found myself struggling to feel anything when a significant event took place.
On the face of it, this second narrative (interwoven, quite well I might add, with Pio's plot) appears to have nothing to do with the film's namesake. Nevertheless, a tenuous link does emerge, which is that the spiritual struggles of Pio become a kind of microcosm for the peasants' struggles against the landowner's tyranny and the suffering of the war. This link, whilst an interesting concept, fails to communicate anything profound because, ultimately, nothing in the narrative really happens to bring about any kind of resolution or catharsis from this struggle. Moreover, this link does not hold naturally and, in the end, feels overly politicised and on the nose.
Whilst watching the film, you cannot help but get the impression that Pio is merely a vessel for the director's political fantasies. And this is probably the central failing of the film, since it fails on at least two levels: first, it insults the intelligence of anybody who knows anything of Pio and effectively misses the tremendous draw of Pio in the first place, and, two, it confuses and totally misdirects the purposed purpose of this film, which was - allegededly - a biographical movie.
It is important to acknowledge that the director's intention was most likely to communicate Pio's spiritual struggle in a concretised narrative, interlinking the two to enrich a viewer's understanding of the spiritual turmoil undergone by Pio and to help provide a stake for an audience who may not be Catholic or personally invested with Pio. It is important to remember that this is an arhouse film and not a straightforward biopic. I do not find this objectionable in the least and the concept is actually a very interesting and novel one. Unfortunately, the execution was poor, confused, and there was only a tenous link between these two narratives.
Ultimately, what that means is that neither narrative fails to achieve anything at all, especially when the peasants' narrative is ham-fisted anyway. This therefore works to make the end of the film - which I won't spoil - feel basically random and emotionally worthless.
It is a shame because, as stated, the concept is a good one. It is just that the execution ultimately failed and it is clear the director did not quite know what he was trying to achieve with this. The cinematography, lighting, and set design were all extremely well done and engrossing; it works to make the film feel claustrophobic and effectively aids the narration through its use of light to communicate setting, emotion, and whether things are taking place on the material or spiritual plane. The cinematography helps to make the film feel old, hostile, yet mysterious and spiritual. In that respect, then, this film is extremely effective.
The score ranged from brilliant to terrible. The scenes involving diabolical influence were definitely supported by its musical choices, nevertheless some choices felt jarring and damaged the level of immersion.
The film deserves a 6/10 because whilst its narrative ultimately fails, it nevertheless presents a novel concept in a visually pleasing way. The narrative fails to achieve greatness, but the film is still extremely interesting and was not at all a boring experience.
The film is marketed as an arthouse biographical film of Padre Pio, and yet Shia Labeouf's screentime - who plays Pio - is sparse at best.
The rest of the film concerns itself with the plight of villagers who, growing weary of their overlord's tyranny, turn to Socialism. It goes without saying that such a narrative is overly simplified, uninspired, and not particurlary compelling. Some of these characters are played with a degree of nuance, but their development is so poor that I found myself struggling to feel anything when a significant event took place.
On the face of it, this second narrative (interwoven, quite well I might add, with Pio's plot) appears to have nothing to do with the film's namesake. Nevertheless, a tenuous link does emerge, which is that the spiritual struggles of Pio become a kind of microcosm for the peasants' struggles against the landowner's tyranny and the suffering of the war. This link, whilst an interesting concept, fails to communicate anything profound because, ultimately, nothing in the narrative really happens to bring about any kind of resolution or catharsis from this struggle. Moreover, this link does not hold naturally and, in the end, feels overly politicised and on the nose.
Whilst watching the film, you cannot help but get the impression that Pio is merely a vessel for the director's political fantasies. And this is probably the central failing of the film, since it fails on at least two levels: first, it insults the intelligence of anybody who knows anything of Pio and effectively misses the tremendous draw of Pio in the first place, and, two, it confuses and totally misdirects the purposed purpose of this film, which was - allegededly - a biographical movie.
It is important to acknowledge that the director's intention was most likely to communicate Pio's spiritual struggle in a concretised narrative, interlinking the two to enrich a viewer's understanding of the spiritual turmoil undergone by Pio and to help provide a stake for an audience who may not be Catholic or personally invested with Pio. It is important to remember that this is an arhouse film and not a straightforward biopic. I do not find this objectionable in the least and the concept is actually a very interesting and novel one. Unfortunately, the execution was poor, confused, and there was only a tenous link between these two narratives.
Ultimately, what that means is that neither narrative fails to achieve anything at all, especially when the peasants' narrative is ham-fisted anyway. This therefore works to make the end of the film - which I won't spoil - feel basically random and emotionally worthless.
It is a shame because, as stated, the concept is a good one. It is just that the execution ultimately failed and it is clear the director did not quite know what he was trying to achieve with this. The cinematography, lighting, and set design were all extremely well done and engrossing; it works to make the film feel claustrophobic and effectively aids the narration through its use of light to communicate setting, emotion, and whether things are taking place on the material or spiritual plane. The cinematography helps to make the film feel old, hostile, yet mysterious and spiritual. In that respect, then, this film is extremely effective.
The score ranged from brilliant to terrible. The scenes involving diabolical influence were definitely supported by its musical choices, nevertheless some choices felt jarring and damaged the level of immersion.
The film deserves a 6/10 because whilst its narrative ultimately fails, it nevertheless presents a novel concept in a visually pleasing way. The narrative fails to achieve greatness, but the film is still extremely interesting and was not at all a boring experience.