AN EXTRAORDINARY STORY FIT FOR AN EXTRAORDINARY ARTIST - "MR TURNER"

I am SO glad I caught this one. In an awards season characterised by biopics, Mr Turner should have been in its (his) element but it was curiously passed by… The one mention I remember of it was from several different critics tearing out their hair when the BAFTA nominations came out this year about Timothy Spall’s perceived snub in the Best Actor category. I say perceived simply because I had not perceived it myself at the time. It then got nominated for four Oscars, in fields such as Cinematography, production design, Costume Design and Original Score. Now these categories are more than worthy – not least because the film is a visual feast more than worthy of an artist such as Turner. But they are not the categories that get the massive headlines and the endless discussions on various film related talk shows that emerge around the time… Anyway, as you will have noticed, as the DVDs hit the market here in the UK, I have been scrambling to catch up and keep up with cinematic output. I am rather pleased my progress so far. So, long story short I got round to perceiving this little number. Consider this film a belated rant about why this film didn’t get the attention it deserved – it has the makings of a huge masterpiece.

This is the life story of British painter J.M.W. Turner (Timothy Spall). We specifically focus on the last 25 years of the great painter’s life. He is now a celebrated painter, but his celebrity has come at a price. And the price has a lot to do with Turner’s own rather difficult character. While Turner is personable (if a little eccentric) in public, in his private life Turner’s relationships are marked by his cantankerous nature – and more often than not breakdowns and arguments. Leigh takes a sensitive look at what makes Turner tick as an artist, but also, what gives him peace…

Leigh’s Turner is a complex and fascinating character. Clearly a very accomplished artist, Turner has revolutionary ideas about painting (I know. It’s a little hard to imagine a household name like Turner as a revolutionary painter whose works weren’t always well received, but there you go… ). He experiments with his art, he is in the heart of “the in crowd” in the artistic circles of his time, he is an active (if not always easy to get on with) member of the academy and his works are almost a given in the Great Exhibitions over the years. He is without doubt a businessman and makes his living, in the true sense, with his painting and with his business sense.

What Turner cannot seem to take too much of is the personal relationships this kind of life requires. For most of his life the only people who can truly tolerate him are his doting father and their long-suffering maid Hannah Danby (admirably portrayed by Dorothy Atkinson – don’t you be fooled, she is more than just “the help”). He is estranged from his wife and his grown children, has few friends outside of business circles and is all in all quite difficult to get on with if you were to approach him as he seems to have a minimal interest on getting on well with you if it was not for business reasons. However there is more to Turner than a cantankerous recluse from the world. What he actually wants is to live a simple life, by the sea, make sketches and have the love of an honest woman (as opposed to a “London lady”). Spall handles this duality of Turner’s character quite beautifully. He is unapologetically terse and sometimes quite difficult to watch throughout, and yet ably portrays the softer side of Turner’s character that is harder to come by, barely seen but still very, very much present – and of course a great part of his art and his work.

Leigh has, it is quite clear, paid close attention to the fact that this is a film about a painter. Turner’s muted tones and colour scheme dominate the film, as does a lack of close-ups or extreme close-ups, thus the film mirrors the style of the painter it depicts throughout which brings us one  step closer to the inner world of the artist.

The honesty of the physical depiction also rather beautifully continues through into the way the entire story is told. You will look in vain for the clear blacks and whites of normal popular and mainstream films. Every single character is beautifully developed and come together with extraordinary harmony to tell the story of a rather extraordinary man.

Of course when the awards seasons come around we look for something a tad more grandiose. We need jazz hands and technical gimmicks, a classic true story of extraordinary people overcoming difficulties or, perhaps, a rather more dramatic insight into debilitating illness (now I come to think of it there is a little sub-theme of disease running through this awards season too, no…). The British costume drama is seen as just the tiniest bit twee as a genre. But if the genre is considered twee, this does not mean that the combination of a visionary director, talented cast but perhaps more important than all of them the enigmatic and extraordinary artist J. M.W. Turner at the centre of it all make for a truly extraordinary film in this case… 

ESSIE SPEAKS OF ART - PART 2 - RECREATING A UNIQUE MASTERPIECE IN "TIM’S VERMEER"

Art and science. In our modern day, they almost seem like two polar opposites. It is rare to imagine anyone doing more than dabble in both – if you’re actually good at one or the other,  that means, well… You’re either “scientific” or “artistic” you can’t very well be both… Or can you?... Tim’s Vermeer is all about art and scientific method coming together, forming a rather beautiful whole – or several beautiful wholes that adorn the walls of the world’s museums today. As the makers of the documentary point out on numerous occasions, there was a time when science and art were not so sharply separated, and that inventors and artists were essentially the same person. I mean, think Leonardo Da Vinci, inventor, anatomist, painter and sculptor. And in a funny kind of way, while the artist who also invents is “multitalented” the inventor who wants to dabble in art is a kind of cheat. You know, he or she is not “creating” it from the gut; he is probably using “inventions” and things so it “doesn’t count”. Well, Tim Jenison is one inventor who asks the question “well why the heck not?”

Tim Jenison  is a scientist and technician in every sense of the word; he has built entire businesses on the back of his ideas and won awards for his inventions. Given this context, it may seem a tad odd that Tim wants to paint a Vermeer. But he does.  And I don’t mean he wants to take art classes and paint a copy of an original picture. He wants to paint the exact same, identical thing. Why? Well… 

See, Vermeer’s painting techniques have been a matter of excited discussion in art history circles. The way he captures light; the fine detail present in his technique that is not present in the work of any of his contemporaries… The way he did it is widely discussed. There are some that claim he was merely talented, that he picked up a brush and paintings came forth as we know them today naturally.

Well that’s one possibility. But there are several schools of thought that point out that as a wonderfully romantic idea as this may be, there is a greater possibility that Vermeer had a significant amount of ocular and technical help in composing his paintings. Now Tim’s no “pick up a brush and create a masterpiece through inspiration” kinda guy. But if there is a technical riddle to be puzzled out, well… Now you’re talking. With his close filmmaker friend Penn Jilette looking on (thorough his lens, obviously)Tim begins to puzzle out how on earth Vermeer achieved what he achieved. He is very strict about how he does it – nothing short of 17^thcentury technology is allowed. Tim even grinds his own pigments and makes his own paint when the time comes to actually start on the work itself. But will Tim be able to “recreate” a Vermeer? And if he does, what does this say about the nature of this theoretically “inimitable” work of art?

Now first of all, rest assured. If Tim wasn’t a multi-millionaire with nothing but time and money on his hands, this endeavor would not be possible. So there is no danger of the mystique of the arts being dissipated through the mass reproduction of the work, down to the original pigments. I think there are two issues here. And this is one of them. Art and artistic creation is by nature surrounded by a certain “mystique”. But the question is why should it be? Anyone who has truly got stuck into any creative endeavor will know that like any craft they all have their hard and fast rules, techniques to learn. Of course there is a certain “je ne sais quoi” added by the artist and that makes an artistic craft different from, say, carpentry. But if an artist is good at their craft, yes techniques have been learnt. Yes there has been blood sweat and tears all over the “boring stuff”. So why, on earth should the idea of hard work and technical advancement coming together with art be such an alien concept? If you find the idea that Tim has almost “recreated” a Vermeer strange and bothersome, do bear in mind that it is a “recreation”. Not a creation. Tim is not trying to “be” Vermeer. He is not trying to claim he is “better” than Vermeer or that Vermeer was some sort of cheat. He is exploring the technical aspects of the artistic work of Vermeer. You know the old adage about creation being 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration? Yep. It’s that 99% Tim is looking at. If it weren’t, if you think about it, Tim would be a painter by trade not an inventor.

And then there are those that take offence at the claims that Vermeer used anything other than raw talent to paint his pictures. By “anything else”, don’t get me wrong, I mean hand ground lenses, camera obscuras and mirrors (it’ll make more sense when you watch the documentary) . Somehow, again “it is cheating” if he didn’t just pick up a brush and the painting didn’t just flow out of it as it were. Ok, you may subscribe to this point of view. I would respect you for it. But I would like to point out that you are opening a whole can of worms here. What of, to give but one example, graphic designers? Yep, those guys creating beautiful works of art using computers. Are we going to say they are NOT artistic or creative because they use computer programs?   Ok, take it one step further – photographers. What will we do about them? I mean sure we all have cameras but even if we learnt the nitty gritty of the machines involved, would we have the dedication and inspiration to get the same results as an award winning photographer? Yeah, I don’t think so. I mean sure, you could RECREATE a picture. Could you create an equal but different one from scratch? Yeah.  I’m not even getting into the whole concept of cinema and, God help us MOVING pictures… Try and create those with no technical help if you can – and let the rest of us know if you succeed!

And another thing – ok so Vermeer used lenses and mirrors etc. to create his works. His ability, through the use of these techniques to capture details (he could even zoom in on details ladies and gents! Yes he could!) was unparalleled in his day. His ability to capture the subtleties of light and shadow are second to none, they are that close to reality. To the best of our knowledge (after all the actual details of these techniques were closely guarded you need to remember) it was his use of mirrors and lenses that made his perception so sharp, so close to real life… Much like… A camera. Vermeer, the 17^th Century photographer? Take a minute to think about it… It’s not as nuts as it sounds… 

OH THERE'S LIFE IN THE OLD DOGS YET! MEET "THE MONUMENTS MEN"

When I first saw this film I wasn’t entirely sure I wanted to see it. I mean come on; it’s yet ANOTHER heist type movie where George Clooney is the ringleader of the gang. You may love George Clooney but don’t try and tell me it’s an original idea an entire “Oceans” franchise later. But then again, as you know, I love to keep a movie or two just for “take your brain out and relax” purposes so Monuments Men went onto that pile. It has, much to my surprise, thrown up a number of rather deep questions. It’s partly the film and partly my weird mind. But hang on. Let me tell you what the film is about first.

The Monuments Men. Otherwise known as Monuments Fine Arts and Archives. A division not quite like any other seemingly composed of the ones the regular army rejected. Older men, men with birth defects – heart trouble say – and their jobs as art historians, curators an architects don’t seem to prepare them for their roles in the war either. But you see, this a division not quite like any other. Their duty, should the army chose to accept it (or not) is to find the great works of art the Nazis have hidden somewhere behind enemy lines and when possible return them to their rightful owners. The war is raging on despite the fact that everyone seems to feel it’s winding down, so the Monuments Men face many real difficulties. Not least among them is the fact that they find it hard to get the Allied Forces to actually take them seriously. But the Monuments Men are deadly serious. As their superiors and the Nazis are about to find out…

I mean it is what it says on the tin. George Clooney – albeit not so much the handsome rogue but a middle aged and wise curator – leads a group of disparate (brilliant enough to make this elite force yet, naturally, sorely in need of a leader) individuals. He has a right hand man (Matt Damon) who fills the quota of the “heart throb of the film” an archetypal, Muppets style grumpy old man (Bob Balaban) and the slightly younger men who gets a kick out of teasing him (Bill Murray) forming the bickering couple (oh come on, you HAD noticed there always is a bickering couple. Yes you had.). There are the obligatory casualties (I will not be snide about this as not only does it represent real deaths but I actually welled up quite a bit while watching them). There is a moment when you think that the whole affair will be in vain. There is a chance breakthrough and, at one point a race against time. Oh and a love triangle. Yeah. Original it is not. But perfectly executed it most definitely is. Don’t expect any artistic revelations from this movie but of its kind it is a perfect example. And I mean, with a veteran like Clooney at the helm it’s pretty much a slam-dunk. If nothing else, he has been in enough of this kind of movie to be able to replicate it in his sleep. Plus he is a bit of a talent too, so yeah. Well and come on with that cast (And John Goodman AND Jean Dujardin)

But then again, I reckon the way this project got green-lighted was that it took this tried and tested frame to a touching and original story. It is not surprising at all that at 53 Clooney turns to a story that gives a band of seeming rejects a place in the lime light and in history. I mean, not that I’m for a minute implying that Clooney is headed for the scrapheap any time soon but age plays on all our minds constantly at the best of times but in ageist Hollywood it must be more in the forefront of Clooney’s mind than most. And I mean age is not the only thing that makes this group “rejects” – things like sickness plays a part also the fact that these men are not “manly men” but academics, artists, the sensitive ones, not the big “manly men”. Of course this is less of a stigma in the 21^st century but in the ‘40s this was a whole different kettle of fish. And of course the army is the army at all times in history so the Monuments Men have the added duty of proving to the people who should be on their side that what they were doing was… Well, worth doing. And I’m pretty sure that also appealed to Clooney the artist.

In closing I just want to express my surprise at the partly coincidental influx of films speaking of the efforts to hide artworks from Nazis in my life. They are not all new films, the topic has cropped up in some of the older films I have watched (I am being a very good girl and keeping up with watching my older movies as well as my new ones). I do wonder, in this age where the digital melds with the classic art forms, what our reaction would be to a similar invasion. Would we desperately be trying to secret great artworks from our enemies? I mean, would we be doing it as desperately as the films tell us were done? There’s part of me that would say no. But then again, our whole concept of art has changed a lot too. I was watching a show by the Japanese group Siro-a the other day (check them out Here if you haven’t heard of them). It’s a wonderful visual performance combining computer generated imagery with theatre and dance. I mean just by his poise and the way he held his hands I’m pretty sure at least one of the performers I watched was classically trained. Yet the whole amazing performance would not be possible without heavy digital intervention. I’m pretty sure the older generation would say “Oh that’s not art”; but is that fair? Is it even true? What would we try and hide if World War 3 broke out? And would the new Monuments Men include, in part at least, hackers? Take a minute to think about it… It’s not as crazy an idea as it seems…