Two movies
The Good Liar: Watched this because of Ian McKellen and Helen Mirren in the leading roles, and because the premise sounded pleasingly Thomas Crown (the original, I never watched the remake) like. Alas, while McKellen and Mirren are as good as expected, the film switches genre for its last act and goes grimdark. Not completely out of the blue - mid-movie, McKellen's character does something that's a clear indication the film intends to go darker than the caper/con man/trickster type of story it seemed to be so far - , but still. What the movie does there feels a bit as if we've been watching, hm, let's say, a 1960s sitcom, and then suddenly, we switch to a last act by Quentin Tarantino. And not in a good way.
Portrait of a lady on fire: this, otoh, was as good as advertised. I'm only sorry I couldn't watch it on the big screen, because of the beautiful cinematography. If you haven't yet, check out the trailer to see what I mean:
What I had known before: only this: romance between painter and model, both of whom are women, in a historic setting.
What I found out: the above is true, and the historic setting is vaguely the 18th century, but while the romance is really well done, and the actresses are superb, none of the references I'd seen to this film mentioned the two other women playing a role in this film, one of whom commissions the portrait that kicks the plot off and the other is Sophie the servant. And both are an example of how good this film is. Because in a lesser movie, the mother, who wants to marry her daughter off, would be simply the antagonist/villain without an inner life of her own, and the servant would definitely not do more than, well, serve and maybe provide exposition. In this film, however, the conversation our heroine, the painter Marianne, has with the Countess near the start of the film gives us the Countess' own tale and emotions (and why marrying her daughter is so important to her), and as for Sophie, she's the third main character, both women form a bond with her, and instead of devoting herself to the two leading ladies' problems, she has her own and they become supportive of her.
(Yes, this is somewhat utopian in terms of mistress/servant relationships in the 18th century, but not unheard of, and the movie only shows us about two weeks.)
Also, the way the film does the "artist falls in love with model" trope is superb: Heloise, the young nobelwoman for whose impending marriage Marianne is supposed to point the portrait, is never a passive recipient to be adored or captured. Her looking back and observing Marianne as Marianne observes her is quintessential to the plot and the creation of more than one painting; their creation becomes collaboration.
If I have one nitpick, it's that the style of portrait doesn't really feel 18th century to me, it feels a bit too 19th century, probably because when I think "18th century female painter", I think Angelika Kauffmann (see also her sketch of Emma Hamilton, though oddly enough, the new painting of Marianne's we see near the end of the movie, capturing the Orpheus and Eurydike myth which forms a red through the film, does feel period-right. But that's really just imo, and doesn't take away from the beauty of the film, and the wonderful way colors and, eventually, music are used. In conclusion, I really liked this film. This entry was originally posted at https://selenak.dreamwidth.org/1455303.html. Comment there or here, as you wish.
Portrait of a lady on fire: this, otoh, was as good as advertised. I'm only sorry I couldn't watch it on the big screen, because of the beautiful cinematography. If you haven't yet, check out the trailer to see what I mean:
Click to viewWhat I had known before: only this: romance between painter and model, both of whom are women, in a historic setting.
What I found out: the above is true, and the historic setting is vaguely the 18th century, but while the romance is really well done, and the actresses are superb, none of the references I'd seen to this film mentioned the two other women playing a role in this film, one of whom commissions the portrait that kicks the plot off and the other is Sophie the servant. And both are an example of how good this film is. Because in a lesser movie, the mother, who wants to marry her daughter off, would be simply the antagonist/villain without an inner life of her own, and the servant would definitely not do more than, well, serve and maybe provide exposition. In this film, however, the conversation our heroine, the painter Marianne, has with the Countess near the start of the film gives us the Countess' own tale and emotions (and why marrying her daughter is so important to her), and as for Sophie, she's the third main character, both women form a bond with her, and instead of devoting herself to the two leading ladies' problems, she has her own and they become supportive of her.
(Yes, this is somewhat utopian in terms of mistress/servant relationships in the 18th century, but not unheard of, and the movie only shows us about two weeks.)
Also, the way the film does the "artist falls in love with model" trope is superb: Heloise, the young nobelwoman for whose impending marriage Marianne is supposed to point the portrait, is never a passive recipient to be adored or captured. Her looking back and observing Marianne as Marianne observes her is quintessential to the plot and the creation of more than one painting; their creation becomes collaboration.
If I have one nitpick, it's that the style of portrait doesn't really feel 18th century to me, it feels a bit too 19th century, probably because when I think "18th century female painter", I think Angelika Kauffmann (see also her sketch of Emma Hamilton, though oddly enough, the new painting of Marianne's we see near the end of the movie, capturing the Orpheus and Eurydike myth which forms a red through the film, does feel period-right. But that's really just imo, and doesn't take away from the beauty of the film, and the wonderful way colors and, eventually, music are used. In conclusion, I really liked this film. This entry was originally posted at https://selenak.dreamwidth.org/1455303.html. Comment there or here, as you wish.
