Despite the fact that considerable technical skill went into the recreating of Vermeer's lighting, there is virtually no evidence of Vermeer the painter in GIRL WITH A PEARL EARRING.
Instead of exploring the work of this genius, the master is trivialized with a dull, uninspired melodramatic story. That one should spent the length of a feature film considering the superficialities of the relationship between Johannes Vermeer and his wife, his maid, and his patron is evidence to me that, despite all of our electricity, we are living in a truly dark age.
In 1977, a Dutch director, Jos Stelling, made a film, unjustly ignored, about Rembrandt. His work, REMBRANDT FECITE 1669, re-created more than the artist's lighting, he re-created the man's soul. The camera moved in accordance with the painter's sensibilities, the story moved similarly. This film was a meditation on the man's work, a true attempt to re-create the time in which he lived. Vermeer deserved but has not received the same treatment.
The fundamental problem with GIRL WITH A PEARL EARRING lies in its presumption that Vermeer's personal genius had something to do with the man - as a husband, a lover, a son-in-law, or whatever the hell else he was. What is missing entirely is that Vermeer had a talent and sensibility for capturing the most ineffable qualities of life - his was a gift of observation, not participation. What happened in the artist's personal dramas is completely irrelevant to the more lasting sensation of his method of observing.
It should be about how he saw things, not what actually happened.
Instead of exploring the work of this genius, the master is trivialized with a dull, uninspired melodramatic story. That one should spent the length of a feature film considering the superficialities of the relationship between Johannes Vermeer and his wife, his maid, and his patron is evidence to me that, despite all of our electricity, we are living in a truly dark age.
In 1977, a Dutch director, Jos Stelling, made a film, unjustly ignored, about Rembrandt. His work, REMBRANDT FECITE 1669, re-created more than the artist's lighting, he re-created the man's soul. The camera moved in accordance with the painter's sensibilities, the story moved similarly. This film was a meditation on the man's work, a true attempt to re-create the time in which he lived. Vermeer deserved but has not received the same treatment.
The fundamental problem with GIRL WITH A PEARL EARRING lies in its presumption that Vermeer's personal genius had something to do with the man - as a husband, a lover, a son-in-law, or whatever the hell else he was. What is missing entirely is that Vermeer had a talent and sensibility for capturing the most ineffable qualities of life - his was a gift of observation, not participation. What happened in the artist's personal dramas is completely irrelevant to the more lasting sensation of his method of observing.
It should be about how he saw things, not what actually happened.