This is a long movie, and there is not much of what many would call action. Anyone who has an interest in art and about what it can depict, is not likely to regard this as a problem.
I learnt a few things while watching this movie. It had always intrigued me as to why there were so many studies of the female nude and almost none of the male. The classical and renaissance painters were only to happy to paint nudes, male as well as female, but they didn't do any studies. Da Vinci's studies, such as they were, are écorche like.
This has been a question that had intrigued me since childhood: the male body can be more physically perfect than the female one, so why not prefer the male nude? Unlike other higher animals, the male human form differs very significantly from the female one. The idealised human form with its sinews and muscles perfectly formed, is more male than female---just think of Michelangelo's brawny women.
Later on I began to realise that what makes the female form interesting is precisely this imperfection, inasmuch as it can be called imperfect. This movie has convinced me that this is indeed the true explanation.
Ms Béart is a beautiful woman, but her body is not perfect.
Watching her move and pose in the film demonstrates the complexities of the female form. There is a whole world of expression which is absent in men.
The film also raises an interesting question. An artist is committed to truth. He must present things as he sees them. In the beginning, Marianne agrees to pose primarily out of curiosity. After a while she begins to sense the importance of the work, and for a while is perhaps more committed to the work than Frenhofer himself. One learns that any work with a human subject is really a duet between the artist and the model: they must both struggle to find the truth. Sometimes the truth is painful. The painting may reveal something about the model that is devastating, hence Liz's admonitions to Marianne that Frenhofer values his work above everything else, and that he won't protect her. This is the central question in this movie. Must the artist reveal his work, even if it means damaging the person permanently? It seems that the compassion that an artist must necessarily possess should prevent him from doing so. So is it sufficient to wait till the model, and perhaps the artist too, are dead? Or must the work be forever hidden from view? A creation which reveals the truth, no matter how hurting to someone must be revealed to the public. Art is not art otherwise. Neither can one cannot accept the destruction of a work of art. The film leaves this issue unresolved, though the dénouement is rather pleasing.
If one likes art than one will find this film revealing and insightful.
I learnt a few things while watching this movie. It had always intrigued me as to why there were so many studies of the female nude and almost none of the male. The classical and renaissance painters were only to happy to paint nudes, male as well as female, but they didn't do any studies. Da Vinci's studies, such as they were, are écorche like.
This has been a question that had intrigued me since childhood: the male body can be more physically perfect than the female one, so why not prefer the male nude? Unlike other higher animals, the male human form differs very significantly from the female one. The idealised human form with its sinews and muscles perfectly formed, is more male than female---just think of Michelangelo's brawny women.
Later on I began to realise that what makes the female form interesting is precisely this imperfection, inasmuch as it can be called imperfect. This movie has convinced me that this is indeed the true explanation.
Ms Béart is a beautiful woman, but her body is not perfect.
Watching her move and pose in the film demonstrates the complexities of the female form. There is a whole world of expression which is absent in men.
The film also raises an interesting question. An artist is committed to truth. He must present things as he sees them. In the beginning, Marianne agrees to pose primarily out of curiosity. After a while she begins to sense the importance of the work, and for a while is perhaps more committed to the work than Frenhofer himself. One learns that any work with a human subject is really a duet between the artist and the model: they must both struggle to find the truth. Sometimes the truth is painful. The painting may reveal something about the model that is devastating, hence Liz's admonitions to Marianne that Frenhofer values his work above everything else, and that he won't protect her. This is the central question in this movie. Must the artist reveal his work, even if it means damaging the person permanently? It seems that the compassion that an artist must necessarily possess should prevent him from doing so. So is it sufficient to wait till the model, and perhaps the artist too, are dead? Or must the work be forever hidden from view? A creation which reveals the truth, no matter how hurting to someone must be revealed to the public. Art is not art otherwise. Neither can one cannot accept the destruction of a work of art. The film leaves this issue unresolved, though the dénouement is rather pleasing.
If one likes art than one will find this film revealing and insightful.