Niko Pirosmani (1862 - 1918) was a painter, who posthumously rose to be considered one of the most important artist figures of his native Georgia. He lacked formal training, and sold his works on cheap prices to bars and restaurants, where they hung and gradually made people more interested about the painter behind them. This is a film biography - "biopic" would fail describe it - about the artist and his work, as well as his home country and the times he lived in. It is the fifth directorial work by fellow Georgian Giorgi Shengelaia, and possibly his internationally most famous one. Shengalaia had actually begun his directorial career with a document about Pirosmani (1961), so coming into this film he already most definitely knew his stuff.
And there is a documentarist touch to this film. Every now and then we, as the audience, are shown a Pirosmani painting, without it having nothing to do with the narrative. "Narrative" may actually be a poor choice of words to use about the contents of this film. It is very freely constructed and lacks discipline, just as the paintings of the artist do. Calling this an artistic mood piece would not be far off, since the scenes we witness form a very loose whole, at best.
But this is also a visual triumph, and a well made film. For myself, Pirosmani's paintings possess a haunting quality. I think it's the way the eyes of the people and the animals gaze at the viewer. The paintings are simultaneously life-like and from a dream. I am obviously not an art historian, but I see a very recognizable touch in his works. The film pursues these visuals and becomes a painting itself. I thought the Georgian locations and people of the film were depicted very much in the spirit of Pirosmani, and a well-constructed narrative probably would not have been the best way to depict his world.
As a film, this is pretty slow and experimental, but a visual experience, it rewards you.
And there is a documentarist touch to this film. Every now and then we, as the audience, are shown a Pirosmani painting, without it having nothing to do with the narrative. "Narrative" may actually be a poor choice of words to use about the contents of this film. It is very freely constructed and lacks discipline, just as the paintings of the artist do. Calling this an artistic mood piece would not be far off, since the scenes we witness form a very loose whole, at best.
But this is also a visual triumph, and a well made film. For myself, Pirosmani's paintings possess a haunting quality. I think it's the way the eyes of the people and the animals gaze at the viewer. The paintings are simultaneously life-like and from a dream. I am obviously not an art historian, but I see a very recognizable touch in his works. The film pursues these visuals and becomes a painting itself. I thought the Georgian locations and people of the film were depicted very much in the spirit of Pirosmani, and a well-constructed narrative probably would not have been the best way to depict his world.
As a film, this is pretty slow and experimental, but a visual experience, it rewards you.