The last line on David Tripe's reviews of Brother Sun, Sister Moon gives him away immediately. Talking of the "ordinary working masses" of the 14th Century he says of their choice between St Francis and the Pope "They might be better off if they got rid of the whole system". Naievity of this sort can only belong to the Editor of the People's Voice or a 'university marxist' who like most of his sort forgets once in a while to relate his comments to concrete conditions which is the well known condition for concrete analysis. There are two ways you can take this statement: The first is that it is 14th Century Italy that the film is about. In which case the whole system he talks about is feudalism and the only real choice open to the masses then was within the church for existence without ordained Roman Catholic religion was unthinkable and unliveable. This is why St Francis had to go to the Pope for acceptance. As a heretic he would have lost his followers as they feared their 'eternal souls'. Removal of feudalism was offered neither by St Francis's mysticism or the mainline church but the development of a mercantile class which eventually toppled the Church, becoming the new ruling class with the rise of capitalism. Under the Holy Roman Empire both spiritual rule and temporal rule was in Rome. With large influences of wealth the Church's riches became embarrassing and St Francis wanted only the spiritual to be the concern of the church. This offered no real solution apart from offering the merchant class a free hand. Zeffirelli's options were roughly the only options open to the people then and divisions (surface) did not appear along these lines.

However these are not the only options open to the working masses today and the second way to take the film is as an allegory. In fact just about everything that could be changed while still retaining the historical period was changed by Zeff the biff who wanted the film to be more relevant to the contemporary scene. So we have the soldiers returned from a useless and costly crusade. Francis is one of them and turns mystic etc etc and the others follow him one by one. They end up as overstereotyped hippies-all hardship and happiness etc. Given the period he chose Zeffirelli could not have changed it any more without losing the historical context of the film yet this is what was needed to avoid the pathetic ending he was forced to adopt. Here Tripe again misjudges the options opened up by the film. Zeffirelli constricts choice of period and does not let his allegory develop past superficiality and therefore does not allow the destruction of the whole system. At first you thought he could make something of the film by developing its references to Vietnam veterans, radicalisation etc but here he falls flat on his face offered a nicely manufactured solution. It is a cowardly film that could only convice the Children of Crud of its realism. St Francis in the end is like a young 'live off the land' type who is going to Norm Kirk to get a Kibbutz licence...when he goes to the pope asking for acceptance as a valid part of the RC Church. What Tripe should be attacking is the purposeful narrowing down of options that Zeffirelli indulges in because he is too scared to admit the possibility of real change of people seizing control of their own destinies.

Fransesco offers only rehashed mumblings of the new testament and simpering innocence of spirit (and politics) which is not really the reflection of a cinematic genius. All we are left with is a paper thin lily growing in a WW2 bomb crater and a Zeffirelli with his pockets full and definitely not throwing it away to anyone.