| |
 |
|
|
Movies Forum Index » International Movies Forum » _Girl with a Pearl Earring_; paintings in films
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| septimus |
 Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2004 5:13 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I just saw _The Girl with a Pearl Earring_ on video.
I was going to see this in a theater because I heard
the cinematography is quite special. I didn't because
a critic wrote that, by making the lighting so uniformly
similar to Vermeer's paintings all the way through,
the film didn't do justice to Vermeer's vision. It
turns out the lighting is quite interesting, very
naturalistic in the indoor scenes (which is most of
the film). It reminds me of the harsh northern light
in _The Weight of Water_. (I mistakenly thought that
_Girl_ is based on a novel by the same author who
wrote _The Weight of Water_. I haven't read either
novel.)
But the film has very little to do with Vermeer at all.
The writing is incredibly slight, even minimalist. Scarlett
Johannson is much better here than in _Lost in Translation_,
partly because she seems genuinely interested in something
other than herself, and partly because she spends most of
her time acting in this demur, head bowed down way, which
I suppose appeals to sexist audience like myself. There
are a couple of scenes where she shows jealousy or pride
depending on whether Vermeer's attention is directed at his
wife or herself, and the acting there is very well done.
The tentative, halting relationship between the two
leads is also more interesting than in _Lost in Translation_
to me anyway. (Why isn't everyone lumping the director
of this film with Wong Kar-Wai and Sophia Coppola together
and claiming they all belong to the same school/generation,
or some such nonsense? 
On the other hand, this film is transparently weak on Vermeer and
his paitings, even to novices like me. There are only a handful
(less than 5) of his work shown throughout the film, I believe.
Not that Vermeer is all that prolific, but the film consistently
ignores the social and symbolic aspects of his paintings and
focus on the color and the lighting. Many of his paintings
depict (in more or less subtle ways) the virtue, desire, hypocrisy,
even lust, of the title characters. They are neither mere
portraits nor impressionist light-and-color extravaganzas.
The composition is not only beautiful in itself, it calls attention
to human traits and even the state of the world. This is completely
missing in the film, which is unfortunate because the paintings
could have been used to inform and motivate the (presumably
fictional) story about the forbidden relationship between
painter and model. Instead, Vermeer is portrayed as your
standard rampaging rock star who doesn't care about the content
of his paintings.
_The Girl With the Pearl Earring_ is one of Vermeer's most famous
work, so our glimpses of it in the film almost comes as an anticlimax.
But one function of these popular films should be to inspire, to make
the audience excited about the historical/artistic subject (Vermeer
in the case) and make them want to find out more about these paintings.
On this score, I think this film is an utter failure. When Vermeer
tells his wife that Griet "understands" his pictures, it shouldn't
be just the composition or color; it should also be about the social
and emotional commentary, and about the exquisite sense of time's
passage (the paintings typically catches their subjects while they
are waiting or anticipating something about to happen).
This brings me to paintings (and music) in cinema in general. In
particular, my thoughts wander to _La Belle Noiseuse_, which
famously denies us a glimpse at the painting the painter works
on all film long. At the time I thought it is a good idea, that
it doesn't detract from the psychology and character study that
seems to be the main point of the film. And the many drawing
sessions certainly pass my litmus test of engendering the
audience's interest in the subject (at least in drawing and sketching).
However, now that I think about it, the Emmanuelle Beart character
has something very specific to say about the painting once she's
seen it. She says it is something hard and dry, brings out her true
self, and her life is never the same after that. If that
painting is supposed to inspire such deep feelings, I think the
director has something specific in mind. (At least that's my
hope; otherwise it is an empty gesture, a fraud.) And if that's the
case Rivette should have the guts to show us that painting.
This goes back to my discussion with Monterone about Kieslowski's
_Blue_. _Blue_ portrays the "Concerto for Unification of Europe"
composed by Julie's dead husband as a masterpiece. In real
life fragments of that piece is composed by Priesner, so this
is quite a burden on Priesner's shoulder. But regardless of
whether you like what Priesner wrote, at least Kieslowski has
the guts to play it in its full glory, in the most dramatic fashion
possible. I think the film would have been fraudalent if that
music is not featured the way it is. And it certainly raised my
interest in piano composition, if only by a little bit. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Aug 30, 2008 3:26 am
|
|