 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
68.37.240.251
Two films last night.The first one - Girl with a Pearl Earring. A visual treat for anyone who loves Dutch paintings (that's me, alright...), but unfortunately not much more. One of those experiences that make you feel good while they are happening, but leave your mind completely clean and untouched, letting it switch quickly to something else.
There is no question about the degree of care the makers put into recreating the environment, the decors and the costumes of the period, and all that is fine and I am grateful to them for that effort... but all that also is completely superficial, as there is nothing beneath.
In that sense one is immediately reminded of another visual masterpiece - Barry Lyndon, except there, in additional to the impeccably done period images, there is great deal else.
As it is, the Girl squarely belongs in the "pleasant fluff" category. It's greatest benefit is in making you revisit the paintings of the period, look through some art books, close your eyes and remember things associated with them in your life... and that is plenty... rooms upon rooms of Dutch masterpieces in Hermitage, your youth and your discoveries. Is all that related to the original film objective?
The final images of the original work struck me as gaudy and unpleasant. That could not be real Vermeer, I mumbled, rushing to the library for a good reproduction of it. Sure enough, the film transfer doesn't do the picture much justice - the real one is several orders of magnitude more subtle, delicate and... just beautiful. What happened there I shall probably never know, but to my eye that last note sounded dissonant, and I was watching it on a good system. If that was the transfer artifact, then here I will give a nod to clark with his nagging claims that things should be experienced in movie theaters... except, as we know, that is not a guarantee of quality either, with projector bulbs aging, color calibration not done on regular basis, and projectionists generally not giving much shit about anything... given the audience and its expectations today.
The other film of the night was the 2002 "Dummy" on cable. I am not a fan of Adrien Brody, and I still remain in that camp, although he tried his near best in that silly commedy. And silly it is, but with a few good moments and some hearthy laughs, so I am not ashamed to admit that overall I felt like I spent good two hours.
The film is simple and unpretentious fun, with good script and several good performances. Milla Jovovich pleasant to watch, and Illeana Douglas not bad at all, creating an almost bizarre atmosphere where many good one-liners flourish.
Certainly not something you should rush out to rent, but if you stumble over it - you will not regret.
Follow Ups:
Basically we have the same view on this one, but one curiously totally opposed reaction as for the last picture show, I mean the original paintaing.
In contrast to the scenes depicted in the film, I found the original picture crying out loud of truth compared to the copied.
I suppose I was more modest and already satisfied with the difference....
Of course when you stand in front of the reel reel......
I suspect the problem with the DVD image was the transfer, perhaps it looked better in the theater... I hope, as that is one lovely painting!One thing for sure, Scarlett would not had been noticed if this was her first film... she is lucky she already had the Lost in Translation made!
(1) Girl with the Pearl Earring: I think I had the same reaction. Good looking film, but it was one of those films that I had either already seen, or one that I did not care to see in the first place. There seems to be this idea that persons in the "old" days acted differently. Maybe they did. But were they always so boring?(2) Dummy: I actually liked this film a lot, I think, because it stands out as being original, which, if nothing else, is a positive. It was not one that I had seen before, and how many good ventriloquist movies have their been?
hungry soon after. About "gaudy" master paintings: sometimes, it is the age of a work which has created a false impression of the original color: the Sistine Chapel, the Last Supper: both considerably "brighter" after restoration. I don't know if oil paintings several hundred years old have similar issues but I do recall hearing of the cleaning of several older masterpieces to remove coats of old protective oils.
is a very contraversial subject, and shall forever remain such. I remember all the heated debates before the Chapel was cleaned, but given the nature of dirt on top that was apparently a right desicion.Oil paintings are typicall protected by layer of varnish, and it becomes dark and opaque with age, so cleaning is normal practice. However, most artwork in good museums you see today would not have old varnish - universally they would have been cleaned before. So I suspect both the book reproductions and the film shot were taken from the same original.
The problem with that last image on DVD was not its darkness or even shifted colors, there was also a visible loss of resolution... you know, when an area insted of having several gradation of color becomes one solid blotch.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
