It has left me with a bittersweet taste, since for every point in favor, I found one against.
Let's go in order. First of all, I must applaud the non-verbal communication of the actors. Thanks to them, to the liveliness of the dramatization, they have managed to squeeze out every last feeling hidden in the script.
On the other hand, the mise-en-scène is magnificent: the clothes, the hairstyles, the sets, the scenery. It looked like a living painting.
Now some negative aspects. First of all, the script is a bit bland. Some conversations were a bit stilted and many times Hans (Matthias Schoenaert) doesn't fit in the scene (in Spanish it is funnier because "he doesn't fit" is said "no pinta nada", which means literally "he doesn't paint anything"). However, as I said before, the actors rose to the occasion.
On the other hand, being a film about painters, it is ironic that the blur was abused. Not that I'm against telephoto lenses. In fact, in some aspects, the scenes were artistically enhanced by the use of this technique, as for example, when Einar (Eddie Redmayne) begins to explore his body or when, through a short shot, we are shown how he tries to conceal one of his internal struggles. Bravo! Now, as I said above, it is ironic that, being a film in which the characters are painters, this technique is abused. I say this because painters, like cameramen, have to cut in a rectangle that part of reality that deserves to be immortalized, however, watching the film, instead of feeling like when I saw "Barry Lyndon", I felt myopic, and I had my glasses on. As in the previous point, it has managed to counteract, but in this case with the magnificent mise-en-scène.
All in all, the balance, in my opinion, analyzing the pros and cons, is balanced. And this is a pity, since it was a subject that offered many possibilities, especially at that time.
Review by AitorBlockedParent2021-09-07T12:33:38Z
It has left me with a bittersweet taste, since for every point in favor, I found one against.
Let's go in order. First of all, I must applaud the non-verbal communication of the actors. Thanks to them, to the liveliness of the dramatization, they have managed to squeeze out every last feeling hidden in the script.
On the other hand, the mise-en-scène is magnificent: the clothes, the hairstyles, the sets, the scenery. It looked like a living painting.
Now some negative aspects. First of all, the script is a bit bland. Some conversations were a bit stilted and many times Hans (Matthias Schoenaert) doesn't fit in the scene (in Spanish it is funnier because "he doesn't fit" is said "no pinta nada", which means literally "he doesn't paint anything"). However, as I said before, the actors rose to the occasion.
On the other hand, being a film about painters, it is ironic that the blur was abused. Not that I'm against telephoto lenses. In fact, in some aspects, the scenes were artistically enhanced by the use of this technique, as for example, when Einar (Eddie Redmayne) begins to explore his body or when, through a short shot, we are shown how he tries to conceal one of his internal struggles. Bravo! Now, as I said above, it is ironic that, being a film in which the characters are painters, this technique is abused. I say this because painters, like cameramen, have to cut in a rectangle that part of reality that deserves to be immortalized, however, watching the film, instead of feeling like when I saw "Barry Lyndon", I felt myopic, and I had my glasses on. As in the previous point, it has managed to counteract, but in this case with the magnificent mise-en-scène.
All in all, the balance, in my opinion, analyzing the pros and cons, is balanced. And this is a pity, since it was a subject that offered many possibilities, especially at that time.