Girl With A Pearl Earring
Grade:
|
 |
Painting is a blind man?s profession. He paints not what he sees, but what he feels, what he tells himself about what he has seen. -- Pablo Picasso
Plot Summary:
A fictitious tale about the back story behind an actual 17th century painting entitled "Girl With a Pearl Earring" by Dutch painter Johannes Vermeer. Based on the book by Tracy Chevalier, the 'girl' is a young servant named Griet who goes to work for the Vermeer family and develops a bond with the artist himself leading her to become the model for the famous painting.
Opinion:
"Girl With a Pearl Earring" is a
A movie with a
C ending, and thus averaged together gives it a
B overall. What it does right, it does very well. You probably won't see a better
looking movie all year--the cinematography and scene composition is first rate, and coupled with the rich soundtrack it all gives the movie a classy, artistic atmosphere which is befitting the subject matter. The acting is also well done, including up-and-coming Scarlett Johansson who as the servant Griet, doesn't have many lines but who's non-verbal acting skills are quite impressive.
The problem, as mentioned, is the ending (stop reading now if you don't want to know ANYTHING about the end ahead of time)...or the lack of one, essentially. The end of "Girl With A Pearl Earring" has a curious lack of conflict, which is surprising because the movie itself is rife with the seeds of conflict: the Vermeer family's precarious financial situation, their only client being a lecherous old man who has unhealthy sexual obsession with young girls, Vermeer's wife feeling left out and forsaken by her husband when it comes to his work, etc... It all seems to be building to something, but then...the movie just ends with all the principal characters in pretty much the same state as when the movie started. Now, I'm not saying movies all need to have a 'dramatic' ending where most of the characters end up dead
Hamlet-style, but "Girl With A Pearl Earring" ends with a whimper instead of a bang--where the preceding scenes throughout the movie seem to be leading up to something decisive happening...but nothing ever does. The final scene with Vermeer and his wife where she sees the titular painting for the first time is a good scene as a lead-in for a future crisis, but in retrospect is kind of weak as a 'final showdown' for the movie, which it ends up being. Ditto for the conflict between Griet and Vermeer's daughter, or to the family patron who wants a physical relationship with Griet (with or without her consent)--neither of these amount to anything at the end either.
The movie is still worth a recommendation simply for its beauty and artistic value alone (plus, it's a welcome change of pace from your average Hollywood flick), but it just seems...incomplete, somehow.
Content Analysis: (2-2-2-0 on the Baron's scale, mid-to-light PG-13)
"Girl With a Pearl Earring" is a fairly light PG-13--where the rating is earned almost entirely by a scene where Griet is almost raped by her host family's patron. (You might think that violates the definition of
light right there; if so, touch?..) It's not graphic, mind you, but like serial killers, any movie that has an attempted rape will never, ever get a PG rating. Two characters have sex off-screen which might be unrealistic given the more religious and conservative culture of 17th century Holland--but, then again, immorality has been a constant throughout all human civilization since the beginning.
An interesting (and, in a very real way, 'erotic') scene happens two-thirds of the way through the movie where Griet shows her heretofore hidden hair in preparation to being painted. With the artist (and the audience) looking on, Griet reveals (briefly) her gorgeous, long, red flowing hair, made all the more attractive by the fact that it had been hidden for so long (you feel like you're looking at something forbidden--which, in a sense, you are...) This scene serves as a reminder to Hollywood that you don't need gratuitous nudity or explicit sex scenes to be
romantic or even
erotic--in fact, it's usually more effective to show
less. Roger Ebert once said, in fact, "Sixty seconds of wondering if someone is about to kiss you is more entertaining than 60 minutes of kissing."
In-depth Analysis:
Near the end, Vermeer's wife complains to him that he seems to get great pleasure from painting other women (like Griet), but refuses to paint her. The implication of her words is that Vermeer is essentially being 'unfaithful' to her by painting other women. While I'm not entirely convinced Vermeer should be considered an 'adulterer' due to his choice of painting subjects (and he's never shown to have had--nor attempted to have--a physical relationship with any other woman), the concept is worth exploring--being 'unfaithful' to your spouse in ways other than having sex with someone else.
In Matthew we read:
Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. -- Matthew 5:27-28
Clearly, here the Savior is saying 'adultery' can include not just the physical act, but even the thinking about the act with someone who's not your wife.
But what about situations where sex isn't involved at all? Is there a concept of
asexual adultery and if so, how can we define it? Most people would agree a husband probably shouldn't be going out to eat with another woman--just the two of them--even though there may not be a physical relationship between them at all. Is it 'adultery' when a husband or wife tends to talk to a friend of the opposite sex, or do things together, more often than with their own spouse? It's no sin to have friends of the opposite sex, but where do you draw the line on things that are appropriate for you to do together?
D&C 42:22 says:
Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and shalt cleave unto her and none else.
Clearly, the ideal is that husbands and wives have more than just a sexual bond--they have a responsibility to be 'one flesh'--that is to be a single indivisible family unit in all areas. Perhaps constantly doing non-sexual things with another person of the opposite sex is not a 'sin' in absolute terms, but it's certainly going in the wrong direction. If a husband/wife finds that he/she enjoys the conversation and/or companionship of someone other than their spouse in some or all areas, what does that say about the strength of the relationship? (Not to mention that many physical affairs start out by 'just being friends'...) I think
asexual adultery is real--and can be just as damaging to relationships as actual adultery.
Random Notes and Comments:
(1) The movie was originally going to star Kate Hudson and Ralph Fiennes as the servant girl and artist respectively. Delays in production led to both going on to other projects, and Kate Hudson was replaced briefly with Kirsten Dunst before finally going to Scarlett Johansson.
