This is an extremely enjoyable account of the last part of Socrates' life, including his trial and execution. Roberto Rossellini gives us a glimpse into Socrates' discussions in the marketplace and the political events that lead to the trial. Jean Silvère is a perfect choice for Socrates. Except for his wife, played by Anne Caprile, the supporting cast's acting is a bit stiff. Some of the sets have painted backgrounds, but by and large the imagery gives one the feeling of being in Ancient Greece. The English subtitles are sometimes hard to keep up with because there is a lot of fast dialog. The script, however, is strong and captures the essence of the Platonic view of Socrates' last days. I highly recommend this movie.
10 Reviews
In His Cups.
rmax30482318 September 2017
Rosselini's made-for-television movie ought to be shown in high school classes, if only to inform today's students that there was once a Democracy in a place called Greece and that it was the home of many philosophers, Socrates arguably chief among them. Generally speaking, Americans seem pretty dumb today, especially students. Tasks that were routine assignments when I was in high school are now found in Advanced Placement classes. ("The Great Gatsby", eg.) I suspect Socrates might have agreed with me. Here's a quote often attributed to him, though there's no real proof he said it.
"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers."
I'm with Socrates when he complains about the young. I wasn't with him when I was young but now that I'm old, well, I'm with him.
At the same time, Socrates is sort of bad company when you get right down to it. After a lifetime of teaching, and at the age of seventy, he was brought before the judges in Athens accused of all kinds of crimes, from corrupting the youth of Athens and not believing in the gods to wearing white after Labor Day. After an eloquent and non-apologetic Apologia, he was sentenced to death, drank a cup of hemlock, and died content.
Considering that this was never intended to be a Major Motion Picture, it's quite good. Jean Sylvère who plays Socrates LOOKS a lot like the bust of Socrates that many have seen, the bust with the nose broken off, although Sylvère's nose is in fact intact. And the dialog, apparently lifted from Plato, is an excellent illustration of the Socratic method.
I understand some modern professor's use some version of the Socratic method. You don't take a position and argue it. You ask enough of the right KINDS of questions until your adversary finds himself making the argument for you. I'll give just one of the briefest examples. Socrates is about to take the hemlock when his wife, Xanthippe, runs to him, flings her arms around the old man's neck, and cries, "You've been convicted so unjustly!", to which Socrates replies over her shoulder, "Would you rather have me convicted justly?" My impression was always that Xanthippe was something of a nag but she redeems herself here.
The values of the production are spare but adequate to the task. True, there is a lot of talk and nobody's head gets wrenched off, but the talk is so enthralling, so unusual in today's discourse, that I found it eminently followable. I suspect even high school students might get a lot out of it.
"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers."
I'm with Socrates when he complains about the young. I wasn't with him when I was young but now that I'm old, well, I'm with him.
At the same time, Socrates is sort of bad company when you get right down to it. After a lifetime of teaching, and at the age of seventy, he was brought before the judges in Athens accused of all kinds of crimes, from corrupting the youth of Athens and not believing in the gods to wearing white after Labor Day. After an eloquent and non-apologetic Apologia, he was sentenced to death, drank a cup of hemlock, and died content.
Considering that this was never intended to be a Major Motion Picture, it's quite good. Jean Sylvère who plays Socrates LOOKS a lot like the bust of Socrates that many have seen, the bust with the nose broken off, although Sylvère's nose is in fact intact. And the dialog, apparently lifted from Plato, is an excellent illustration of the Socratic method.
I understand some modern professor's use some version of the Socratic method. You don't take a position and argue it. You ask enough of the right KINDS of questions until your adversary finds himself making the argument for you. I'll give just one of the briefest examples. Socrates is about to take the hemlock when his wife, Xanthippe, runs to him, flings her arms around the old man's neck, and cries, "You've been convicted so unjustly!", to which Socrates replies over her shoulder, "Would you rather have me convicted justly?" My impression was always that Xanthippe was something of a nag but she redeems herself here.
The values of the production are spare but adequate to the task. True, there is a lot of talk and nobody's head gets wrenched off, but the talk is so enthralling, so unusual in today's discourse, that I found it eminently followable. I suspect even high school students might get a lot out of it.
The Rossellini method
generalmuss13 November 2021
In the first part of Socrate, Rossellini crams too many historical events for a one hour time span. This results in the characters themselves explaining too much to fill in the gaps for the viewer. The rest of the time we watch Socrates as he strolls around with his students, reciting his most overused quotes.
The second part, which is essentially Socrates' apology and his last days, feels almost like a different film in pace and gravity. But Plato's Apology of Socrates is ready-made material to ensure a great, dramatic scene. Another flaw is the awkward contrast between the professional actors playing Socrates and his wife Xanthippe against the rest of the characters, who are non-actors (a common practice in the neo-realist era of Italian cinema). For example, Meletus - Socrates' main accuser - seems completely inept at the crucial scene of the trial, like some teenage urchin that the director picked up from the street a few hours before filming.
On the positive side, it is refreshing to actually hear Mediterranean sounds for once in a film about Ancient Greece. Crickets and random dog barking are natural sounds still heard in Greece. It is not a small detail, as it works to create a strong sence of time and place. All and all, the film is watchable, albeit with quite a few flaws.
The second part, which is essentially Socrates' apology and his last days, feels almost like a different film in pace and gravity. But Plato's Apology of Socrates is ready-made material to ensure a great, dramatic scene. Another flaw is the awkward contrast between the professional actors playing Socrates and his wife Xanthippe against the rest of the characters, who are non-actors (a common practice in the neo-realist era of Italian cinema). For example, Meletus - Socrates' main accuser - seems completely inept at the crucial scene of the trial, like some teenage urchin that the director picked up from the street a few hours before filming.
On the positive side, it is refreshing to actually hear Mediterranean sounds for once in a film about Ancient Greece. Crickets and random dog barking are natural sounds still heard in Greece. It is not a small detail, as it works to create a strong sence of time and place. All and all, the film is watchable, albeit with quite a few flaws.
useful
Kirpianuscus17 August 2016
it is an useful film. for know. for remind. for search. because Rosselini gives more than a good biopic but a correct portrait of the life of Athenes, in its different aspects , the end of Peloponeses war consequences, portraits of the lead people around Socrates, a convincing Xantipa, , the essence of Dialogues by Plato, the atmosphere , the trial . sure, Jean Sylvere is the most inspired choice for meet Socrates because he has the admirable gift to inspire to the public the feeling of time trip. he is, in many scenes, with admirable grace, Socrates, the expected Socrates for the readers of Plato. the film has , in same measure, another virtue - it is a fundamental lesson for understand the present. not surprise, off course. but for a public for who the Old Greek is only history, for who Internet is more important than the book, this film could be a significant introduction to discover the reality out of appearances.
An excellent treatment of the last days of Socrates
zetes18 February 2002
Apparently, no one else has seen this. That's a pity. Anyone who has studied Plato would love it, I think. Of course, it doesn't beat the actual reading of Plato's dialogues, but it's a nice supplement. The adaptation is straightforward. The Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, and Phaedo are reduced in size, but their contents are there. Also there is to be found pieces of The Republic and many others that I probably haven't read yet (the Protagoras and Lysias are mentioned directly). The Symposium, which is the only dialogue that I can say I know particularly well, is briefly alluded to. There's also a great scene where a man teases Socrates by citing Aristophanes' The Clouds, which was the play that, according to the Apology, sowed the seeds of his death. Rosselini's direction is subtle and exquisite. The camera moves perfectly. The production design is great. A lot of research went into this to make it as accurate as possible. I don't know of any film that has done as well in these aspects. The acting is also perfect. The man who plays Socrates IS Socrates. 9/10.
This made for television film by Roberto Rossellini is a good introduction to Greek philosopher Socrates.
FilmCriticLalitRao18 January 2016
Apart from his feature films,Italian director Roberto Rossellini was famous for some of his films which were made for television.It was in these films that he told the stories of some of the greatest philosophers who took birth on earth. Among these films one can mention the names of films about Blaise Pascal,Saint Augustine,René Descartes and Socrates.The film 'Socrates' is not a biography per se.It does not show all the important events which took place in the life of Socrates.It is an important film not only for viewers of cinema and television but also for admirers of philosophy.As a filmmaker,apart from 'Socrates', Rossellini reveals a lot about the times in which the great philosopher flourished.One gets to see the state of Athens when Socrates was condemned.The film 'Socrates' was not shot in Greece but most viewers wouldn't be able to recognize that the locations used in the film are in Spain.Locations are of less importance if the cast is good.This is one reason why actor Jean Sylvère has done a great job.He is perfect in his role as 'Socrates'.He looks so convincing as if the real Greek philosopher is in our midst.This is one of the main points of this film.
A Masterwork
Enrique-Sanchez-5624 September 2017
THIS is a masterpiece. JEAN SILVERE was a revelation. Also, ANNE CAPRILE, his wife, was superbly wrought. So perfect was SILVÈRE's portrayal, that for me, he became SOCRATES.
I was wary, however, in the beginning, because the conversations went by so quickly. But now I understand what was going on and, as the story progressed, I became absolutely engrossed in this great, tragic story of one of history's great martyrs of truth.
I was moved, and I am not ashamed to say, literally to tears, during the last somber scene. I must now praise ROSSELLINI's direction. It gave me a more solid understanding of those times.
Also, the serious and unobtrusive musical score, which pulsated on had a drone-like quality which disappointed me at first, but again, as the story progressed, I understood why it was composed in this manner. It gave this work of art, the final touch of perfection.
This needs to be seen by a wider audience. I hope it will, in time, be required viewing in all the halls of education, everywhere.
I shall never forget it.
I was wary, however, in the beginning, because the conversations went by so quickly. But now I understand what was going on and, as the story progressed, I became absolutely engrossed in this great, tragic story of one of history's great martyrs of truth.
I was moved, and I am not ashamed to say, literally to tears, during the last somber scene. I must now praise ROSSELLINI's direction. It gave me a more solid understanding of those times.
Also, the serious and unobtrusive musical score, which pulsated on had a drone-like quality which disappointed me at first, but again, as the story progressed, I understood why it was composed in this manner. It gave this work of art, the final touch of perfection.
This needs to be seen by a wider audience. I hope it will, in time, be required viewing in all the halls of education, everywhere.
I shall never forget it.
Rolling over in his grave
drjgardner21 September 2017
Boy is this film bad. It consists of talking heads going back and forth, talking about people we haven't met or even know about. It's all Greek to me, but it's Italian, and for a goodly portion of the film it looks like it's been dubbed, which it hasn't. I guess the track is off kilter.
The language itself is pure modern, with almost no hints of the true nature of Greek speech in 400 BC. And none of the beauty of Socrates speeches.
It was so bad I didn't see it through to the end. So maybe it got a lot better after the first 30 minutes.
The language itself is pure modern, with almost no hints of the true nature of Greek speech in 400 BC. And none of the beauty of Socrates speeches.
It was so bad I didn't see it through to the end. So maybe it got a lot better after the first 30 minutes.
Rossellini: the biography years
tieman6421 July 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Roberto Rossellini directed a string of biographies in the 1960s and early 70s, all of which revolved around famous historical figures (Christ, Pascal, Descartes, Socrates, St Francis, St Augustine, King Louis XIV, Giuseppe Garbaldi, and one unrealized project about Marx), and all of which utilized a sparse, stripped down aesthetic which revoked the pomp and pageantry typically ascribed to such characters.
The earliest of these films, if one ignores "The Flowers of St Francis" and "Viva L'Italia" (aesthetically, they don't quite belong to Rossellini's "new phase"), is "The Rise to Power of Louis XIV", released in 1966 and funded by a French television production company (Rossellini turned to television after a string of box office flops). Starring Jean-Marie Patte as King Louis, the film begins with the death of Cardinal Mazarin, the incident which marked Louis' ascension to the throne of France. What follows is less an attempt to demystify Louis than a lesson in realpolitik. Rossellini draws parallels between kings and film directors, politicians and actors, and dwells on what he sees to be a widening gap between appearance – the calculated, outer face of power and politics - and everyday reality. And like Visconti's "political" films, "The Rise to Power of Louis XIV" is implicitly about the birth of the modern nation state, the decline of feudalism and the rise of the bourgeoisie, though unlike Visconti, who was prone to nostalgia, Rossellini adopts a more cosmic tone; he sees transience and inevitable decay in all things.
Rossellini's "Socrates" was released five years later, and focuses on the philosopher's later years. Comprised mostly of dialogue, all terse and to the point, the film is Rossellini's advocation of reason and intellect, traits which themselves land Socrates in hot water, as he is put on trial and sentenced to death for "corrupting youths" and "opposing the state". Released in the midst of both Vietnam and the Cold War (and the nuclear arms race, a new age of unreason), the film is both Rossellini's attempt to put hippies and activists in togas and sandals, and a call to arms; test the Gods with a hammer, question leaders and be warned that any state which craves power will stop at nothing to maintain its grip on such.
In 1972 Rossellini released "Blaise Pascal", his somewhat cold examination of the seventeenth-century scientist and mathematician. The film revolves around a court of judges, one of whom is Pascal's father, who accuse a servant of practising witchcraft. What Rossellini is really presenting, though, is the flip-side to "Socrates". Here we observe men of the state as they behave irrationally in the guise of utmost rationality. This is a cautionary tale about the death of enchantment, and the danger of cold, iron logic, which commits crimes in the guise of truth and denies a certain all-inclusiveness or subjectivity. Mirrrored to this tale is Pascal's own existential crisis, and fear of what he calls "the void of infinity". To deal with this void "we need a multitude of methods", Pascal says, which echoes the sort of "atheistic spirituality" Bergman was likewise dealing with at the time. For both directors, reason without spirit is as icy and destructive as spirit without reason (in interviews, Rossellini would cite "atheism" as itself a prejudice. What he strove for was what he called "knowledge without dogma"). The film ends with a brilliant sequence which strongly recalls Bergman's chamber pieces, Pascal "embracing" God on his deathbed, his room darkening whilst a maid lights a feeble candle.
Sandwiched between "Socrates" and "Pascal" was Rossellini's "Augustine of Hippo". If Rossellini's earlier "biographies" trace the formation of the modern nation state, the rise of the post-faith moment, the dangers of subsuming all things to post-enlightenment rationality, then "Augustine" takes the next step and critiques covetousness and the "logic" of a budding, 21st century capitalism. "Tear the greed out of your heart," Bishop Augustine of Hippone preaches, as he urges his listeners to turn their backs to the "cult of the senses" and the "worship of youth". Alongside this is the film's clash between Augustine's meek band of non-violent monks and the Donatists, a group of violent "heretics" who themselves become the recipients of violence when Rome Falls. At this point Augustine urges his followers to embrace and help their Donatist foes. By the film's end, Rossellini has captured an odd paradox; mankind both torn apart by Christian morals, and dependent on Christian morals for survival.
Rossellini released "Descartes" in 1974 and "The Messiah" one year later, one about seventeenth-century philosopher Rene Descartes the other about Jesus Christ, but both about quiet men of reason who advocate clarity and honesty in a world overrun by dogma. In "Descartes", such dogma spews, ironically, from men of science, all of whom are tainted by personal prejudice and bias. Science is the new faith, the new gospel, the new irrationality, Rossellini states, a problem with Descartes rectifies with his "twenty one rules", which replace Christ's ten commandments with a set of instructions designed to foster a methodical approach to testing which lessens errors, ulterior motives, preconceptions and prejudice.
Meanwhile, in typical Rossellini fashion, Christ is portrayed not as a deity, but a blank slate upon which his followers blindly project their burdens, wants and needs. Rossellini's Christ is a resonant tabula rasa, and it is ultimately others who turn him into the son of God. In this regard, Christ's followers are turned into a parody of irrationality, whilst those naysayers whom films typically show lambasting Christ as a conman and charlatan, are shown to be simply reacting against illogical, scripture twisting "Christians" who are, at worst, a dangerously irrational mob, at best, actual revolutionaries.
8.5/10 – Along with "The Rise to Power of Louis XIV", "Socrates" is one of Rossellini's better biographies.
The earliest of these films, if one ignores "The Flowers of St Francis" and "Viva L'Italia" (aesthetically, they don't quite belong to Rossellini's "new phase"), is "The Rise to Power of Louis XIV", released in 1966 and funded by a French television production company (Rossellini turned to television after a string of box office flops). Starring Jean-Marie Patte as King Louis, the film begins with the death of Cardinal Mazarin, the incident which marked Louis' ascension to the throne of France. What follows is less an attempt to demystify Louis than a lesson in realpolitik. Rossellini draws parallels between kings and film directors, politicians and actors, and dwells on what he sees to be a widening gap between appearance – the calculated, outer face of power and politics - and everyday reality. And like Visconti's "political" films, "The Rise to Power of Louis XIV" is implicitly about the birth of the modern nation state, the decline of feudalism and the rise of the bourgeoisie, though unlike Visconti, who was prone to nostalgia, Rossellini adopts a more cosmic tone; he sees transience and inevitable decay in all things.
Rossellini's "Socrates" was released five years later, and focuses on the philosopher's later years. Comprised mostly of dialogue, all terse and to the point, the film is Rossellini's advocation of reason and intellect, traits which themselves land Socrates in hot water, as he is put on trial and sentenced to death for "corrupting youths" and "opposing the state". Released in the midst of both Vietnam and the Cold War (and the nuclear arms race, a new age of unreason), the film is both Rossellini's attempt to put hippies and activists in togas and sandals, and a call to arms; test the Gods with a hammer, question leaders and be warned that any state which craves power will stop at nothing to maintain its grip on such.
In 1972 Rossellini released "Blaise Pascal", his somewhat cold examination of the seventeenth-century scientist and mathematician. The film revolves around a court of judges, one of whom is Pascal's father, who accuse a servant of practising witchcraft. What Rossellini is really presenting, though, is the flip-side to "Socrates". Here we observe men of the state as they behave irrationally in the guise of utmost rationality. This is a cautionary tale about the death of enchantment, and the danger of cold, iron logic, which commits crimes in the guise of truth and denies a certain all-inclusiveness or subjectivity. Mirrrored to this tale is Pascal's own existential crisis, and fear of what he calls "the void of infinity". To deal with this void "we need a multitude of methods", Pascal says, which echoes the sort of "atheistic spirituality" Bergman was likewise dealing with at the time. For both directors, reason without spirit is as icy and destructive as spirit without reason (in interviews, Rossellini would cite "atheism" as itself a prejudice. What he strove for was what he called "knowledge without dogma"). The film ends with a brilliant sequence which strongly recalls Bergman's chamber pieces, Pascal "embracing" God on his deathbed, his room darkening whilst a maid lights a feeble candle.
Sandwiched between "Socrates" and "Pascal" was Rossellini's "Augustine of Hippo". If Rossellini's earlier "biographies" trace the formation of the modern nation state, the rise of the post-faith moment, the dangers of subsuming all things to post-enlightenment rationality, then "Augustine" takes the next step and critiques covetousness and the "logic" of a budding, 21st century capitalism. "Tear the greed out of your heart," Bishop Augustine of Hippone preaches, as he urges his listeners to turn their backs to the "cult of the senses" and the "worship of youth". Alongside this is the film's clash between Augustine's meek band of non-violent monks and the Donatists, a group of violent "heretics" who themselves become the recipients of violence when Rome Falls. At this point Augustine urges his followers to embrace and help their Donatist foes. By the film's end, Rossellini has captured an odd paradox; mankind both torn apart by Christian morals, and dependent on Christian morals for survival.
Rossellini released "Descartes" in 1974 and "The Messiah" one year later, one about seventeenth-century philosopher Rene Descartes the other about Jesus Christ, but both about quiet men of reason who advocate clarity and honesty in a world overrun by dogma. In "Descartes", such dogma spews, ironically, from men of science, all of whom are tainted by personal prejudice and bias. Science is the new faith, the new gospel, the new irrationality, Rossellini states, a problem with Descartes rectifies with his "twenty one rules", which replace Christ's ten commandments with a set of instructions designed to foster a methodical approach to testing which lessens errors, ulterior motives, preconceptions and prejudice.
Meanwhile, in typical Rossellini fashion, Christ is portrayed not as a deity, but a blank slate upon which his followers blindly project their burdens, wants and needs. Rossellini's Christ is a resonant tabula rasa, and it is ultimately others who turn him into the son of God. In this regard, Christ's followers are turned into a parody of irrationality, whilst those naysayers whom films typically show lambasting Christ as a conman and charlatan, are shown to be simply reacting against illogical, scripture twisting "Christians" who are, at worst, a dangerously irrational mob, at best, actual revolutionaries.
8.5/10 – Along with "The Rise to Power of Louis XIV", "Socrates" is one of Rossellini's better biographies.
The embodied reason
chaos-rampant20 April 2014
I have previously discussed Rossellini's work on metaphysics; Stromboli (suffering), La Paura (desire), St. Francis (selflessness - meant in the Buddhist way), Viaggio (memory and self).
All of them sparse, ascetic works that take a transparent look at what informs self and put him on my list of important makers. I turn to his historic work from a later period hoping to find the continuation of that journey.
The first thing to say is that Rossellini's turn from (all else aside) an aesthetic cinema to the encyclopedic mode shows an aging man's desire to educate. The loss is that we have the words, the lecture, but not the visual embodiment (not talking about conventional beauty) that in Viaggio paved the way for Antonioni.
The second is to see what the film isn't; there's no drama to speak of, no passion or anxiety that perturbs, it's a practical unfolding of one man's challenge to his own self to embody his beliefs. To clarify: it's not that there isn't drama around the man, it actually has the most dramatic conflict, the trial. It's that Socrates is not swept in it: and this is the point of the film.
In Anglo hands the film would be much like any of those on Jesus, with much torment and lachrymose redemption. None of that here; Socrates refusal to commute death for exile or escape from prison is not a mute idealism, he grounds why it's not an option as a practical matter: it makes sense. There's a funny scene where he's scolded by his wife for being a no good man-about-town who doesn't bring in any money.
Then to see what it actually is. It's a grounded search for reason, though the important distinction is made from mere intellectualism; not words on paper, dead language that you can't interrogate, but the living reason that is in touch with an 'inner voice' and actively searches for truth. An effort for relative truth, clarity as drawing limits on what we are able to say instead of presuming to say anything.
So not any reason, it's why Socrates rejects the orator who would defend him in court with flattery. It's clear that when he talks of knowledge he means skiing on what's possible to know and not just knowing trivia or nice expression. Rossellini grounds the questioning search in an embodied understanding of god as everything we see, which Socrates' opponents satirize him about as talking about the clouds.
All around him however we see tyranny, ego and ignorance, so how is any of this to take root in daily life?
The powerful admission is that you have to make life out of it, embody. Not just say things then when it's not convenient to follow through do something else, that way life becomes meandering rationalization. 'Make it, don't fake it'. No easy thing, therein lies the adventure.
All of them sparse, ascetic works that take a transparent look at what informs self and put him on my list of important makers. I turn to his historic work from a later period hoping to find the continuation of that journey.
The first thing to say is that Rossellini's turn from (all else aside) an aesthetic cinema to the encyclopedic mode shows an aging man's desire to educate. The loss is that we have the words, the lecture, but not the visual embodiment (not talking about conventional beauty) that in Viaggio paved the way for Antonioni.
The second is to see what the film isn't; there's no drama to speak of, no passion or anxiety that perturbs, it's a practical unfolding of one man's challenge to his own self to embody his beliefs. To clarify: it's not that there isn't drama around the man, it actually has the most dramatic conflict, the trial. It's that Socrates is not swept in it: and this is the point of the film.
In Anglo hands the film would be much like any of those on Jesus, with much torment and lachrymose redemption. None of that here; Socrates refusal to commute death for exile or escape from prison is not a mute idealism, he grounds why it's not an option as a practical matter: it makes sense. There's a funny scene where he's scolded by his wife for being a no good man-about-town who doesn't bring in any money.
Then to see what it actually is. It's a grounded search for reason, though the important distinction is made from mere intellectualism; not words on paper, dead language that you can't interrogate, but the living reason that is in touch with an 'inner voice' and actively searches for truth. An effort for relative truth, clarity as drawing limits on what we are able to say instead of presuming to say anything.
So not any reason, it's why Socrates rejects the orator who would defend him in court with flattery. It's clear that when he talks of knowledge he means skiing on what's possible to know and not just knowing trivia or nice expression. Rossellini grounds the questioning search in an embodied understanding of god as everything we see, which Socrates' opponents satirize him about as talking about the clouds.
All around him however we see tyranny, ego and ignorance, so how is any of this to take root in daily life?
The powerful admission is that you have to make life out of it, embody. Not just say things then when it's not convenient to follow through do something else, that way life becomes meandering rationalization. 'Make it, don't fake it'. No easy thing, therein lies the adventure.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
