MovieChat Forums > Mr. Turner (2014) Discussion > Disservice to an icon.

Disservice to an icon.


Mr Turner was a hash of events with no direction or structure. As if Leigh looked up ’20 things you should know about Turner’ on Wiki and made a hodgepodge of disjointed episodes based on them.
Then he went fishing for gratuitous cringes and wows. Cringes in lingering noisy death scenes, ongoing sick, wet noises from the bronchial tubes, a few big gorbies spat onto the canvas and the worst case of psoriasis ever seen. And Turner grunting out a Purcell song (his favourite composer did you know?) In a film like this, at least cringing ensures alertness.
Then for the wows. Some kicks for pseudo art snobs, whack in a cavalcade of 19th Century celebrities including Constable, Hayden, George Jones and Mary Somerville who gave us an interesting if completely irrelevant lesson on UV light. Oh heck, why not throw in Queen Victoria herself?
JMW Turner did not have the refinements of a gentleman, but Leigh unfairly depicts him as a man barely capable of a comprehensible response and a predisposition for frequent guttural noises as from a randy moose or a wounded warthog. Assumptions about his sexual techniques were also based on the former.
Spall’s performance is nothing special. It takes more than a few teary scenes and grunts to qualify for acting, as a human being anyway.
The good bits were the cinematography, the evocative city and rural scenes, the artworks of course, and the riveting performance of Joshua McGuire as John Ruskin, art critic, another blow-in celebrity.
Dragged out for nearly 2.5 hours, the film seems to be desperately seeking ‘epic’ status.
Ironically, Mike Leigh has just been awarded the BAFTA Fellowship. On the same night, Mr Turner, having been nominated for only four technical awards, won nothing.

reply

Glad,

Interesting pov, and I am also a Turner fan. My favorite painter of all time, actually.

But I think you are a bit harsh. The film does show more or less how Turner worked and lived amid his art world. And it is worth considering what the dynamic was between his personal life and his art. as the film I think at least achieved doing to a large enough extent.

reply

Haha
An excellent, take-no-prisoners review.

reply

I agree. The film was just plain dull. And I absolutely love Mike Leigh's last couple of films "Another Year" and "Happy Go Lucky", which had beautiful, rich, multi-layered characters, something sorely lacking here.

reply

Yes

It was a wasted opportunity and wasted on Leigh's personal brand of brutish domestic tragedy. That form that Leigh uses is useful in some situations dealing with social problems but not an biography.

I discovered nothing new about Turner, in fact I found a lot of it as tragically broken in favour of mundane sensationalism.

I am sure there was more to Turner than groaning and moaning a lot, the point of which is lost.

Sad to be honest. So much can be gained about a painter rather than portraying him as a brute. Yes, people have frailties but not everyone is famed for them - in fact, most people are not, so making a film about a man's frailties is embarrassing when we can learn so much from his glories.

reply