MovieChat Forums > Girl with a Pearl Earring (2004) Discussion > Sadism of role played by Colin Firth

Sadism of role played by Colin Firth

posted 14 years ago by sidneywhitaker-1
4 replies | jump to latest

Seeing this film again, after some years, (and leaving the beautiful painting-like
settings aside), I was distressed by the cold cruelty of "Vermeer" as he studies the poor girl's face. She has to submit to his harsh, ambivalent scrutiny, a helpless victim. Admittedly the ambiguity (will he show pity, affection, violence? will she yield, turn away, break out in rebellion?) enriches the spectator's experience of the story; but the male is so hard in his posture, so brutal in his speech ("You'll find time [to mix my paints]!"), that it is little better than, in the prolonged tension, than seeing the worst happen. It becomes degrading to be a spectator. Does anyone agree?

[–] Moss-37 14 years ago

No,I bet mr V was a true gentleman and scohlar in real life and had a heart of gold.

[–] ceramic_leopard 14 years ago

He put her in a very compromising situation... there was so much risk for her especially but I think he was just so mentally alone and he'd found someone that saw the love of painting in it's true purest form. I think he was fairly tender but we are never far removed from the context of what it meant to be a maid. They all were harsh with her at times.

But really I think it was just his academic nature perhaps, he was looking at her as a subject then.

[–] AZINDN 14 years ago

I think there is too much of a post-modernist read to your post for this film. Historically, she is a servant and he is the master, but the wife runs the household. How servants were treated in 17th century Dutch culture may or may not be reflected in this film, thus, one is left with ambiguity and silences between characters. And, frankly, it would be a very dull film without the sexual tension between Colin Firth's Vermeer and Johannson's Griet. Degrading -- hardly.

-- If Ewan McGregor were a lollipop I'd be a diabetic strumpet --

[–] mixedmed 13 years ago

Seeing this film again, after some years, (and leaving the beautiful painting-like
settings aside), I was distressed by the cold cruelty of "Vermeer" as he studies the poor girl's face. She has to submit to his harsh, ambivalent scrutiny, a helpless victim. Admittedly the ambiguity (will he show pity, affection, violence? will she yield, turn away, break out in rebellion?) enriches the spectator's experience of the story; but the male is so hard in his posture, so brutal in his speech ("You'll find time [to mix my paints]!"), that it is little better than, in the prolonged tension, than seeing the worst happen. It becomes degrading to be a spectator. Does anyone agree?

Frankly, it was just like Vermeer's mother-in-law, Mistress Thins said in the movie, they were all trapped by Master van Ruijven's whims. Master van Ruijven was Vermeer's primary patron (this was also true in real life), if Vermeer wanted to make a living and be able to support his family, then he sure couldn't piss off his main patron. Vermeer was just as trapped in the situation as Griet was.

van Ruijven obviously wanted to take advantage of Griet the same way he took advantage of the previous maid. Vermeer protected Griet as much as he could by negotiating with van Ruijven to do that single portrait of her instead of the group portrait with him. If he didn't have some feeling for her he would have just done what van Ruijven wanted and he wouldn't have bothered doing two paintings.

And Vermeer's wife and mother-in-law (not to mention that snotty brat of a daughter) were often harsh with Griet as well. It wasn't unheard of for the masters and mistresses of the home to treat their servants harshly.