It talks about the Sistine Chapel. I didn’t watch it but some people said that the show claimed it has alot of mystery to it (bad ones about the Church), how the Pope forced Michaelangelo to paint the ceiling and such, how Michalangelo cursed the Pope thru his painting, etc…
Are any of these true?
Is it another of those ‘DaVinci’ lies read too much into the painting like The Last Supper?
Actually there is a famous movie (and I can’t think of the name of it right off - another poster will fill it in I’m sure) starring Charleton Heston as Michaelangelo, that pretty much depicts the same thing that 20/20 shows. (Actually, the owner of the copyright for the movie should sue for copyright infringement )
The relationship between Michaelangelo and the Pope was fraught with tension and animosity. Michaelangelo quit the project and was only lured back to finish it. The 20/20 program is nothing new though. Just trying to make a buck through the liberal media’s love of making up controversies where none exist.
The movie is The Agony and the Ecstacy starring Charlton Heston as Michealangelo …
There was more animosity with one of the other pre-lates … in fact he is shown being damned to hell … I forget his name but he complained to the Pope who would not make Michaelangelo change it …
Just because there was controversy does not detract from the beauty and impact of the work … The Church is a human institution - founded by Christ and protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching heresy [faith and morals] … the rest of her is very human, as history illustrates more than we would like at times:blush: …
Whatever might have been their faults, Renaissance Popes were anything but a bunch of ninnies. Nor were they surrounded by ninnies. Educated Renaissance people were very knowledgeable when it came to symbolism and insults. It is unimaginable to me that the Pope or members of his retinue would not have seen and understood any message Michaelangelo put into the painting.
Either the thesis of the program is overblown, or the Pope knew exactly what Michaelangelo was doing and didn’t care. Possibly he was amused. From what I have read, people in that era had a broader sense of humor than do the deadpan serious folks who make a lot of our modern documentaries.
While likely most of the following would have been late Middle Ages rather than Renaissance, I recall reading about the ribald wooden pieces in monks’ church stalls used to help them keep standing through long prayers. “Sedilla” or something, I think they were called. (???) Not really consistent with the grim-faced image modern society now has of them.
This is a topic of which I know little (actually, that is true for most topics), but I wonder if you are thinking of a misericord. The illustrations (and description) in the wikipedia article supports what you said. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misericord
I watched the last half of the show and , while I think there was a state of dislike and active displays of it at times, I am not sure there is any truth to the fact that there are hidden insults in the paintings…these men want to sell books just like the author of the DaVinci Code did, and scandal sells things
Michelangelo came under some scrutiny even during his time period for painting people nude in a church. But the Pope at the time was not displeased and did not have the paintings covered up.
By the way Michelangelo painted his own image on the flayed skin of St. Bartholomew! He did also paint one of his critics in hell, just not the Pope.
From what I read, Michelangelo seemed to have had mixed feelings about his patron. He was primarily a sculptor not a painter and he did not originally wish to paint the Sistine Chapel.
None of this information is new though. The only thing that sounds new is that Michelangelo somehow put a secret curse or insult to his patron in his painting. I really don’t see him doing that. From what I have read, the Pope would sometimes join Michelangelo in the Sistine Chapel, so he would have been able to view the paintings as they progressed.
I think that someone is trying to make money off this like Dan Brown did with the Da Vinci Code.:shrug:
I read up on Michelangelo and what you said are pretty accurate.
He was offered a commision from the Pope to do a monument for a basilica and it was planned to be a really great monument and Michel was really looking forward to the project and even started working on it, but, unfortunately, the Pope changed plan and insisted on the Sistine Chapel instead. He loved sculpturing more than painting so it was very disappointing for him.
But when the chapel was done, he did not regret that he had taken on the challenge.
There was a cardinal who criticized about the nudes not being proper for the chapel and so Michel took revenge and painted him in hell. I thought it was humorous !
He had a lot of stress and pressure on the project and hearing such critic was the last thing he needed I guess.
If one reads about his life, one would not say that he’s a bad person but would sympathize him.
The gift of sculpture/paint, he gave glory to God thru his work. That was what important to him.