double sided kandinsky

I finally watched the film last evening, and loved it. I think the Kandinsky represents the 2 sides of Ouisa. The painting was described as one side relaxed and free (my rewording) and the other more rigid and geometrical. She was very frivolous and shallow until Paul came along. She ended up showing deeper thoughts and feelings, and realized who she had been was not who she really was.

I think the double sided Kandinsky has many significant symbols that reflect our lives. It represents how we appear, and how we really are. When Flan keeps spinning the painting and Ouisa keeps saying, "Chaos, control. Chaos, Control." It's showing with a simple flip of the wrist or otherwords a simple twist of fate how our lives can go from being what we deemed controlled to a chaotic mess. Paul uses the reference to the painting because he's showing how he's what everyone, including himself, wants him to be like, not necessarily what he really is. He makes a good point when he's talking about his thesis, that you'd have to be the "worst kind of yellowness...to not to face yourself", but in actuality everyday people are afraid to face theirselves, let alone their demons. Paul wants Ouisa to help him start a new life, one that he only barely tasted through the act of being a fraud. Ouisa makes a point about how you keep the memory of certain experiences vivid, and alive without making it sound like a anecodote. Well, that's what I feel it implies to the story...what do you think?

I think Ouisa and flan are the kandisky. She represents chaos, he represents structure. At the end she realises they are both too different to be combined...in a way they are each painted themselves on a different side of a canvas, their marriage being the canvas. Like someone said here, contrast is good, but I guess it can be too much ;)

Loved the movie btw, should be in every dvd collection ;)

Ivan

Ok the Kandinsky is double sided because of the a trend in philosopies of the time that chose to illustrate the world in opposed abstract concepts (Kandinsky being recognised as one of the leading exponents of Abstraction). Hot Cold Light Dark Life Death yadda yadda yadda. However in the context of the film its probably used as an analogy to the two caracters that smith plays; the bum and the prep boy. Who he is and who he wants to be, his name dropping, public school boy act is the originality, the pastiche the post-modern character that Ouisa is attracted to.

One good lie is worth a thousand half truths and it his (Pauls) lie that is, I guess, used as metaphor for the art world. but I could be wrong. Nah thats entertainment, a lie that is.

I don't think this is a theory, I think this is the main intention of using the Kandinsky was a main symbolic device in this piece. First of all, you can think of both sides as sheer works of art, both geniuses, as is the entire piece, as we can see as Flan, the art expert gushes over it and shows a great amount of pride in owning it.

The two sides from one perspective can represent the two world that the two main characters Flan and Paul (Donald Sutherland and Will Smith). Flan is controlled and geometric (a little ironic in so far as he is an art dealer) and Paul who is charismatic imaginative and above all else chaotic capable of anything.

From a social narrative this painting symbolizes how power that of chaos and sheer survival (Will Smith) can be used to create destruction and that of order (Donald Sutherland) can be used to create order and beauty.

However I think the ultimate use of this symbol is for the character of Paul. He is the ultimate encapsulation of this painting. Paul is basically a genius. He is capable of such chaos (being a con man) when his talents are used nefariously. But he is also capable of such brilliance like being able to move people, even the most influential and intellectual with his thoughts, philosophies and perspectives. Much like the Kandinsky he is capable of both chaos and order. But it is only at the end of the movie, when Ouisa allows him to potentially become their protégé that we see this other side of the painting in the character of Will Smith. Of course by that time it is too late, his fate is sealed and Paul is swept away by fate, a confused genius who is the victim of society, a tragic hero.

This reply is a little on the late side but I'll soldier on since I found this particular point to be the crux of the movie.

First, the "chaos/control" bit is repeated twice during the film, once at the very beginning and then during the retelling at the wedding reception. And I believe at one point during the discussion of the Kandinsky after dinner they stop calling it "chaos/control" and refer to it as "geometric and random". It's the randomness that's the important part as it seems to be underscored in several different scenes. Ian McKellen calls the Kitteredges randomly, the Mary Beth Hurt couple walks out of the Roxy just after the Utah kid jumps from the roof, etc.

Second, Paul's last words to Ouisa as he's being taken away in the police car are "The Kandinsky has two sides" or "is painted on both sides". Something like that.
I took this as a portent.

Then in the next scene, at the luncheon at Kitty Carlyle's house, Ouisa has her breakdown- or more probably- her breakthrough. At the end of her anecdote monologue she describes hefself as feeling all random. Then she leaves. They fight and we don't get to hear their final words, those spoken outside under the awning, and she walks away in a seemingly dejected mood.

Next she randomly stops to ponder a flower arrangement in a window and sees Paul in the reflection of the glass- I think it's important that this is a reflection and not just her remembering the police incident- and again he says "the Kandinsky has two sides".

I think, and this is an inchoate hypothesis at best, that she comes to understand that she is like the Kandinsky; that this was Paul's point. Both chaotic and controlled- each backing the other up and neither able to be viewed, or experienced at the same time.