WHY did they make this movie?
this was like THE most boring movie i have ever seen. it wasn't vaguely interesting or amusing at all. why did they make it? WHY?
shareRead the 262 comments.
Do you like paintings? I guess not.
MovieChat Forums > Girl with a Pearl Earring (2004) Discussion > WHY did they make this movie?
I really worry about the intellectual decline in America. This is a stunningly beautiful film, boasting a brilliant recreation of life in 17th Century Holland and at the same time creating a fictional story involving one of history's most compelling and remarkable painters. I pity your lack of curiosity and capacity to embrace the beauty of worlds and sensations outside your Wal-Mart existance. I don't mean to single you out or insult and if I have I apologize.....there are millions more just like you and unfortunately they post on IMDB far to frequently. There was a time in America where people embraced new experiences, immersed themselves in artistic challenges and would gather socially in libraries or homes and share their opinions but never letting go an appreciation. As evidenced on IMDB everything either Rocks or Sucks or is Boring..........
sharewow, that was extremely presumptuous and insulting, obviously you meant to be extremely insulting. wow.
truth hurts.
share[deleted]
Revisit it when you're older. You may look at it different.
shareLet's face it: great art is hardly meant for 17-years olds. Don't take this statement personally, because I don't know you, and I know all too well that not all 17-year olds are alike.
The 'Guernica' was not meant for people your age. Gaudi's 'Sacrada Familia' was not meant for adolescents. Mozart did not write his 'Requiem' with a view to distract 17-year olds. And neither was Cervantes' 'Don Quichot' adressed to a pubescent readership.
So the fact that many 17-year olds are 'bored' and 'unimpressed' by great works of art is in itself not alarming. It is to be expected, actually. There are shiploads of works of art that *I* did not understand nor value when I was your age. And I wasn't 'wrong' in 'not getting' it at that age - it was simply impossible, and I could not help it.
As a 17-year old, you have years of great opportunity ahead of you, during which you will discover great art *and* your personal relation to it. It takes an open mind and some perseverance to take great steps ahead. The fact that you're posting about this problem is an indication of an 'above-average' interest, so the stars are on your side.
From my (experienced) teacher's point of view, it is impossible to have class after class of 30 students 'enjoy' Thomas More's 'Utopia', Petrarca's sonnets, or Céline's 'Journey to the End of the Night'. I may tell a good number of good stories or anecdotes, which they'll appreciate; and I might awaken an individual appetite or two. And thank god, quite some 17-year olds are hungry for new information, new challenges, new horizons, new experiences. So *some* of them go to the library to check out that crazy book that this crazy teacher said something crazy about. It is the best I can hope for.
And then I hope they will take *something* of it during that first time, and that they will learn, and learn, and keep that open mind, and curiosity, and that they are able to grow, and grow, all by themselves. And that one day they *might* revisit Thomas More, and Petrarca, and Mozart, and Céline. And Vermeer.
'The girl with the pearl earring' is such a movie. Many qualities of this movie will elude people in the audience who know little about Vermeer, who know little about renaissance or 17th century (painting in) The Netherlands, and who know little about visual art & cinematography. It's a good thing in itself that not all movies are made to suit the taste & comprehension level of 'broad world-wide audiences'.
My concrete advice: get yourself acquainted with Vermeer, his life, his paintings. Of course get yourself acquainted with the background to this particular painting. You will get some historical and cultural knowledge about the renaissance, The Netherlands, Vermeer and his time in the process. Then you will watch this movie with different eyes. Yes, they are still your eyes, but your eyes have changed because your mind has.
Good luck!
P.S. sorry for my patronizing tone. I am totally aware of it - yet I'm a teacher and I can't help it. Call it a handicap, I'm 'educationally challenged'... :-)
I read Utopia for fun before I was 17.
share
For certain kinds of people this movie would be too boring. When I first watched it it did feel very slow and quiet but it was strangely attractive to me and so I watched it a few more times and read the book and now it is one of my favorite films. I am not really particularly interested in art or art history but I do love Vermeer and I do consider myself a cultured person but that's not really why I got into it. I love historical films where I feel like I get to know what it was like back then, and I loved the style and story of this movie and I thought the acting was great too.
Maybe you should watch it again and try to pay close attention to the plots and characters and script.
It's a great flick. Watch it again.
****************************
Nothing Gold Can Stay
Good call. Iive in the States and I see what you are talking about every day.
shareAgree with "flixspix" 100%.. it is a beautiful film in EVERY respect.. the set design and decoration, lighting, props, costuming, acting, dialog, score.. it just transports the viewer into 17th Century Delft, Holland..
I feel sorry for people who can't appreciate this film.. or this KIND of film.. they just live in a different world of the "MTV" sensibility: the attention span of a gnat, lotsa stuff blowing up, slice and dice, quick-cut Editing, and everything dumbed down sped-up, and the louder the better.. maybe with some more years of living, and some classes in Art History, the original poster might learn to appreciate why this film is so special..
I don't mean to wave my degree in Art History in anyone's face, but for me, this is simply one of the most gorgeous films ever made.. there've been a LOT of films made about famous artists (as I watch this, the classic Van Gogh biopic, "Lust for Life" is running on TCM).. IMO, "Girl with a Pearl Earring" is one of the best..
As far as sheer cinematic beauty, Kubrick's "Barry Lyndon" would be near or at the top of my list.. although it's also a period piece, and there's a lot of art in it, that film isn't about art, it IS art.. virtually any frame from "Barry Lyndon" could be clipped out, blown up, put in a frame and hung on the wall of a museum.. at almost twice the length of "Girl with a Pearl Earring", the original poster and those with similar sensibilities would absolutely hate it.. to me, that's just their loss.. maybe someday they'll grow into this kind of film..
[deleted]
"hrleser: degree in Art History and you "dunno" Vermeer "real" life story ?
You mention gnats while there is smell of a ... here."..
It's "Laser", not "Leser".. and yes, that's my real name..
Of course I know that much of "Girl with a Pearl Earring" was fictionalized.. no one knows who the girl in the painting really was, any more than anyone knows who posed for DaVinci's Mona Lisa.. it's been posited recently in the press that the Mona Lisa might even have been a self-portrait!..
Dramatic liberties were taken in the script, and the characters.. but I didn't think it was necessary to write a 2000 word introduction with Vermeer's life history, and how it varies from the film, as an intro to a reply.. that kind of information can be found in almost any competant review..
The same could be said of "Rhapsody in Blue", the 1945 George Gershwin biopic.. another one of my favorites.. all of his girlfriends in that film were made up out of whole cloth, or thin air (take your choice).. again, for the sake of putting some "romance" into the plot.. for me, that didn't lessen my love for that film, which I've seen dozens of times.. that film combines semi-fictionaliation with real-life people playing themselves (Oscar Levant, Paul Whiteman, and many others)..
My point was that I feel sad for people who can't appreciate some of these beautifully-made films, even if they DO take artistic liberties with reality), and think they're boring..
Hey, I enjoy a good action flick too, even when they're unbelievable or completely nonsensical and outrageously over-the-top.. Stallone's "First Blood", or Tarantino's "Pulp Fiction" and "Kill Bill", or Scorsese's "Goodfellas" and "Casino" and others.. watch enough movies, and over the years, one learns where and when to separate the gems from the crap..
If someone finds "Girl with a Pearl Earring" boring.. that's their right. It's still a free country.. I simply choose to disagree. I think it's a beautiful, moving film, historical innacuracies notwithstanding.. it wasn't meant to be a documentary..
[deleted]
Welcome to the world of politically correctness. Any lack of intelligence or interest must be tolerated. Everything in the name of diversity.
share[deleted]
Thank you! As a person who enjoys art, I can only appreciate this movie as a series of staged reproductions of beautiful paintings. The composition of the cinematography was excellent, but I would have preferred color filters over sepia-tone because at least it would have better paralleled Vermeer's style and palette. During the Indian Yellow discussion and the paint making session, I kept wondering what the colors actually looked like.
As far as the story goes, it was tedious and gave artists, patrons and their families bad names just to prop an anonymous girl. As far as the acting, was ScarJo's character supposed to look mentality defective?
i completely agree flixpix! ugh how are people so dumb and boring themselves as to not be able to appreciate this beautiful film? in fact, why were they made WHY???lol
shareI really worry about the intellectual decline in America. I pity your lack of curiosity and capacity to embrace the beauty of worlds and sensations outside your Wal-Mart existance. I don't mean to single you out or insult and if I have I apologize.....there are millions more just like you and unfortunately they post on IMDB far to frequently. There was a time in America where people embraced new experiences, immersed themselves in artistic challenges and would gather socially in libraries or homes and share their opinions but never letting go an appreciation. As evidenced on IMDB everything either Rocks or Sucks or is Boring..........
Dude, if you're going to take a bold stand and come off sounding like a condescending know-it-all, you absolutely HAVE to make sure there are NO errors in your post (spelling, grammar).
No one looks more ignorant than the pompous A$$ belittling the masses for their intellectual decline who then misspells "existence", and says "far to frequently" when they meant to type "far TOO frequently."
There was a time in America when people took pride in their editorials. I pity your lack of a dictionary or spell check. Thanks for your post, though. You totally rock.
-Jane
Okay wow, just because a person finds a movie to be boring is not necessarily indicative of their intelligence level. Sometimes a person just might not enjoy a particular subject matter or story of the rest. Moreover, personal opinions on such matters are never going to be right or wrong, they're simply opinions, nothing more so calm down.
While it may be a bit ignorant to start a thread such as this, it's equally as ignorant to assume that one person's opinion holds more weight against another's opinion.
@flixspix
^
Just because someone doesn't like this movie, doesn't mean it has to do with the "intellectual decline in America" as you say. The majority of the movies that I watch are of the "intellectual" sort if you will and even I did not like this movie. I actually READ the book "Girl with a Pearl Earring" and I thoroughly enjoyed it - however, I did NOT like this movie. While I wouldn't quite say the movie was boring, it was lacking something. It wasn't true to the book in many aspects, and for me that is why I did not appreciate this movie. It is not a matter of intellect or lack thereof. Quite simply, this movie lacked in many respects, and for me that is the reason I did not like it.
well that is a good point.. instead of lacking intelligence it would be better to say lack an artistic eye or lack a painter's eye. if someone is not artistically inclined i could see how they might not find it as engaging. while the actors did a great job.. & i don't really understand why their performances wouldn't be appreciated.. the look of everything is what does is for me. for me as an artist just looking at it even if there were no words in the entire movie would still keep it in my favorites.
share@flixspix
^
Just because someone doesn't like this movie, doesn't mean it has to do with the "intellectual decline in America" as you say. The majority of the movies that I watch are of the "intellectual" sort if you will and even I did not like this movie. I actually READ the book "Girl with a Pearl Earring" and I thoroughly enjoyed it - however, I did NOT like this movie. While I wouldn't quite say the movie was boring, it was lacking something. It wasn't true to the book in many aspects, and for me that is why I did not appreciate this movie. It is not a matter of intellect or lack thereof. Quite simply, this movie lacked in many respects, and for me that is the reason I did not like it.
Ad homnia: attacking a opponents character or personality traits instead of engaging in their argument.
Berating and pigeonholing someone who holds views that are not in line with yours is not how discussions should be conducted.
Generally i expect to be able to watch films 'cold' ie without reading about the events within the film i do this with most of the films that i watch, i expect most films to facilitate this, by not providing a brief background by choosing not to do this my viewing experience was adversely affected.
I found this film disappointingly average and i cared less and less about the characters as the story progressed, it presented an interesting and occasionally pretty gateway into the 17th century one of the redeeming features of this film was the symbolism.
The what did you expect ?
An action movie full of explosions and shooting ?
Maybe you're not the intended audience for this movie.
Signatures are dumb...
Yeah; I like “totally” hear you. They left out the half-naked vampires with Uzis and there wasn’t one velorapter or spaceship in the movie at all! What’s the film industry coming to?
shareNot everyone who disliked this film is a brain dead moron lusting after x-treme special effects. I thought the movie OK sort of kind of. The acting was very well done. But it wasn't a real good enjoyable film. I watched 'Heavens Fall' previous to the above flick and gave it a 10. Outstanding. But this flick got a 4. It was I don't know ya know...OK but not really.
shareI suggest that you watch Batman, Jackie Chan,Sylvester Stallone and Claude Van Damme action movies in future that impose little or no weight on one's intellect or require an appreciation of beauty.
share* Caution * SPOILERS
My goodness -- an intense star-crossed love/sexual attraction across religious and social class lines is just barely contained under impossible circumstances. A lowly but sensitive servant girl earns the love of a great artist who is financially compelled to help satisfy the debased lusts of an art patron who happens to be a crude, manipulative sex addict who is lusting over and determined to seduce the lowly but sensitive servant girl. The patron discovers the secret attraction of artist and servant girl and out of spite at being spurned by the lowly servant girl and looked-down-the-nose-at by the artist, sets a trap for the chaste lovers that he is sure will defeat their determination to keep their relationship platonic.
They teeter on the brink of losing what little relationship they are permitted to have and possibly losing their livelihoods and good names (maybe even families) as well, but each is determined to "save" the other from harm. The artist's mother-in-law struggles against the compulsion to serve as a pimp, the patron loses patience, assaults the servant girl and threatens to withhold payment that the artist's family desperately needs, unless his potentially degrading conditions are fully met.
And yet, at the last moment and against all odds, the lowly servant girl out-maneuvers the disgusting patron of the arts, saves her own good name and that of her platonic lover, and keeps his family financially afloat, leaving the disgusting art patron at the end of the film, foiled and frustrated, staring at the portrait he had expected to represent his moral triumph over the artist and the servant girl, and struggling to figure out how the two of them escaped his clutches unharmed. All this, in gorgeously framed settings, isn't enough to sustain interest?
Please read the post at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0335119/board/flat/99214094, and try watching the film again. This time pay attention to the facial expressions of the very fine actors and notice the seething emotions behind their characters' attempts to maintain social decorum. This film is a hot-bed of passion, power-struggle, lust, jealousy, and self-sacrifice, in which the least-powerful character defeats the most powerful character and virtue triumphs, even though at great cost.
What a fantastic post. Your reading of the film is thoughtful and perceptive. Thank you so much for elevating the discussion to an intelligent conversation- if only for a moment.
cheers
[deleted]
[deleted]
Why did they make this movie?
They made the movie so persons like the earlier posters can watch it and later say how great it was. So afterwards they feel pretty intellectual and sophisticated. What they don't understand is that a movie has not to be boring to be art. Now they go on feeling superior because you do not "understand" this movie.
Understanding this movie doesn't require anything "intellectual" or "sophisticated". All it requires is the ability to see what the characters are feeling or thinking but not saying, by watching the expressions on the actors' faces, their body language, and the tone of their voice. The actors in this movie are all very good at providing these clues. All you have to do is notice them and then ask yourself why the character would be feeling this way. All that is required is that you be interested enough in what's going on in the movie to pay attention and find out.
shareI agree with basically every thing that has been said in retaliation against yet another bigoted, narrow-minded IMDB user. This film is a work of art-no pun intended. Its a beauteous, refined, elegant, richly emotional, platonically sensual work of the highest sophistication! No wonder then that only sophisticated people can absorb it. This is why there is the art/non-art division in the film world-because some people just want to consume trash, and others want something much more.
"Always be a poet..."-Charles Baudelaire
pollywantsacracker - Why did they make this movie?
They made the movie so persons like the earlier posters can watch it and later say how great it was. So afterwards they feel pretty intellectual and sophisticated. What they don't understand is that a movie has not to be boring to be art. Now they go on feeling superior because you do not "understand" this movie.
Not the intended purpose of the filmmakers I'm sure, but an unfortunate by-product. People looooooove to jump at any chance to make themselves look superior by insulting someone's taste, and calling their intelligence into question based on nothing more than an opinion on a movie. Especially if that movie is seen to hold some sort of special artistic merit. Then the pretentiousness goes into overdrive.
What's funny is that the derisive comments usually lack any bit of wit or creativity. "You didn't like this movie? Go watch Tranformers, or Adam Sandler! errrr... MICHAEL BAY!!!" "I pity you and your Walmart existence, but I don't mean to be insulting." A bunch of poseurs that can't handle a differing opinion, stroking each other off.
You saw Dingleberries? share
[deleted]
Don't get me wrong, I loved this film...but the pretentious commentors on this board are annoying. So what if someone doesn't like your film? Taking it personally and calling them names just reflects how 'sophsticated' you are NOT. I'm giving you guys so much side eye judgement right now.
Rant aside, I liked this movie...I gave it 8 stars.
Uh, well perhaps they made it because some of us didn't find it boring?
And I didn't like it just because I want to feel superior to everyone else. You can hardly feel superior just because you've got different tastes from other people. I just enjoyed the movie, simple as that.
Fair enough if you don't like it, but it's a bit odd to question why they made it. Surely it's obvious that they knew there'd be many people out there who would enjoy it.
[deleted]