by Allan Fish
(UK 2003 100m) DVD1/2
Yellow, blue and grey
p Andy Paterson, Anand Tucker d Peter Webber w Olivia Hetreed novel Tracy Chevalier ph Eduardo Serra ed Kate Evans m Alexandre Desplat art Ben Van Os cos Dien Van Straalen
Scarlett Johansson (Griet), Colin Firth (Johannes Vermeer), Tom Wilkinson (Peter van Ruijven), Judy Parfitt (Maria Thins), Cillian Murphy (Peter), Essie Davis (Catharina), Joanna Scanlan (Tanneke), Alakina Mann (Cornelia), Chris McHallem (Griet’s father),
There’s something about paintings and great art that has often daunted me, made me feel somehow insufficient, not merely my obvious inability to match the genius of the artist but perhaps not even perceptive enough to perceive his purpose, his intention. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but the same is no more true of paintings than it is in the cinema, sculpture, architecture or any of the other arts. And Vermeer is one of those painters I have always admired most because he was fascinated with the same thing that fascinates film-makers; light. With the arguable exception of that other Dutch genius, Rembrandt, no other painter has so influenced cinematography since its inception than Johannes Vermeer. A daunting subject then, and made perhaps even more so by the success of the historical fiction it was based on, Chevalier’s immensely popular novel. I have to confess I have never read it and will probably always struggle to find the time, but if fans of the book have found the film less interesting – they always do, don’t they? – it remains a magnificent, seriously underrated achievement.
It’s 1665 in Delft, and a blind former tile-maker’s daughter is hired out of charity by the household of painter Johannes Vermeer as a housemaid, but she soon attracts the keen eye of the master. His motives seem ambiguous initially, there’s an undoubted erotic chemistry between them, but there’s something deeper, something misunderstood by harpy wife Catharina and gossipy housekeeper Tanneke. Griet is fascinated by what drives the master to create his paintings, and he sees in her a more than willing pupil to be his assistant and inspiration.
Some called it a still life, and one cannot deny it moves slowly, but so does the creation process. Vermeer, played by Firth as a sort of brooding 17th century equivalent of Byron, remains a cipher, for it’s not so much Vermeer as his genius that’s the subject, and he remains, in spirit and physically, in the background. It’s Johansson’s Griet who remains at the centre requiring a watchful performance of careful intensity and thoughtful composure. Eyebrows clipped, skin paler than alabaster, her eyes shot like pearls themselves with the camera seeking to replicate Vermeer’s steady hand.
Visually, as one might expect, it’s a triumph, with Serra’s photography worthy of a treatise in itself, a use of natural light that probably ranks amongst the greatest since Kubrick and Alcott’s Barry Lyndon. Ben Van Os’ sets are likewise stunning, a veritable feast for the eyes, a living, breathing city brought to life and worthy of all the praise that was justly heaped on it. And then there’s Alexandre Desplat’s score, its central theme reused on countless documentaries and intros since, capturing the mood of the piece miraculously without ever attempting to recapture the music of the period, an anachronism that perfectly illustrates the timelessness of the story. As for Griet, her fate is no happy ending, a couple of pearls for services rendered from a grateful artist to his one-time muse. Johansson herself looks uncannily like the immortal, unknown girl in Vermeer’s painting, but her greatest achievement is to make us see through her eyes, the beauty Vermeer has opened up to her. And then there she is, looking back at us from the wall, coming out of the gloom to look us in the eye and give Webber’s film the final masterstroke, both exulting the canvas and putting a mirror to it. To see a painting in a gallery, the lights are turned defiantly on, where to see a painting in a film the audience, too, comes out of the darkness, so that the girl comes out of the screen right at you in a way that even the 3-D tricksters of Cameron’s Avatar couldn’t dream to accomplish.
Click on names for archives
Writers/Founders
An interesting choice, certainly. It didn’t make much of an impression on me at the time – I thought it looked pretty but was relatively inert. I appreciated your final thoughts on the painting in the dark; I often feel that galleries don’t really do artworks justice…
The word you use to describe the film sums up my feelings about it perfectly– it’s “pretty”, and not much else. Maybe it’s because of the phoned in drama, maybe it’s because I’ve never given a damn about Scarlett, but to me it’s mostly a superficially attractive costume picture without enough weight or substance to lend any real insight or credence as to the period itself. Too bad, as the egfrastic subject matter has genuine potential. Milos Forman’s grotesque “Goya’s Ghosts” is an interesting partner-in-crime for this picture– interesting, but flawed in mostly opposite ways.
The film, which is good, is one of the few to be painterly without seeming to slavishly copy the compositional style or whole colour schemes of paintings.
It’s not claustrophobic or stuffy.
Scarlett Johansson is excellent too.
Excellent comment Stephen, I quite agree.
The film is also boosted by the great composer Alexandre Desplat’s best score ever, and some sublime lighting by Eduardo Serra.
The cinematography is compared, here, to that of BARRY LYNDON. That’s probably the highest praise one could ever achieve considering LYNDON is one of the ten truly great photographed films in cinema history. I liked this film; but, then again I’m biased because of my talents in fine art (drawing, painting, sculpture, graphic design-i majored in comic book illustration at the Philadelphia College of Art and Film). The thing that Allan, rightfully picked off is the notion of not being about the artist but that burning sensation that drive the artist to create. Its like starvation fueling the hunt, it just is. Colin Firth is underrated here, always a good performance. Johannsen? To me, up to and including MATCHPOINT, she really showed a quiet intensity before she became the regular mistress of Woody Allen (how he romances girls like this still amazes me). I like the methodical pacing, like a simmering pot getting ready to boil over. Good solid film.
I’m so glad to see you pick this film, Allan, which I agree is seriously underrated. I have actually read the book but this is one where I think the film is more memorable. This is a fine review and I especially like the points you make in your final paragraph about the use of light and the fact that all she has at the end are the two pearls as a keepsake – I suppose she has the pearls and the rest of us have the painting, which that ending leaves us with.
I recently reviewed this film at my Costume Drama Reviews blog (the link to the site is costumedramas.wordpress.com) , and will just quote a bit here:
Scarlett Johansson is excellent as the heroine, Griet, forced to go and work in the painter’s household when her family falls on hard times. I thought the scenes of her doing housework and shopping for household provisions, meat, fish, etc, are so beautifully filmed that they make all these tasks seem almost like works of art to put alongside Vermeer’s paintings. This at times means the film skates over the real drudgery involved in all these domestic tasks – but it balances this out by showing how Griet’s whole life is taken up by her work and how difficult it is to find any time for herself at all. She is drawn by Vermeer’s art and yearns to learn its mysteries, but all she can attain is to learn to mix his paints – and even that is something which causes jealousies and turmoil within a household built on hierarchy.
Johnasson is indeed terrific Judy, and your response here is equally great and passionate. Here is the link to Judy’s piece at a blog I didn’t know existed. I will add it to our blogroll tonight!
http://costumedramas.wordpress.com/2010/03/07/girl-with-a-pearl-earring-2004/
Thank you very much, Sam! Much appreciated.
Oddly enough I know the painting in question and I’ve always thought that it looked like Johansson (a strange brain lay-off I never put two and two together that this is what the film was about). I had never really heard anything about this film either way, and always confused it with the one Johansson was in with Portman, and Bania that was also a costume drama a few years back. Now with this review I’ll have to check this out, as I enjoy films about painters.
Reviews like this is actually one of the things I like most about WitD; there are many posters here that like much art I do not (but do respect) that get me to think differently/give stuff like this a second (or third, or fourth) chance. Things like pre-1900 painting, romantic poetry, and opera where all things I wasn’t the greatest fan of… but now I take more of this in and like much more then I ever had. Somewhere my painting professor in collage (who loved naturalism at the expense of my abstract love) is yelling “I told you so!”
thanks again guys, good review.
Great review and comments – I loved this film although I don’t remember it in a lot of detail now. Will have to see it again soon.
Sorry, that comment was supposed to be about Allan’s review of Gosford Park – I don’t know how it ended up on this thread, some gremlin at WordPress, maybe.