Ohjaus:
Peter WebberKäsikirjoitus:
Olivia HetreedKuvaus:
Eduardo SerraSävellys:
Alexandre DesplatNäyttelijät:
Scarlett Johansson, Colin Firth, Tom Wilkinson, Judy Parfitt, Cillian Murphy, Essie Davis, Joanna Scanlan, Alakina Mann, Rollo Weeks, Anna Popplewell (lisää)Juonikuvaukset(1)
Eletään vuotta 1665. Griet (Scarlett Johansson, Lost in Translation) on köyhän hollantilaisperheen 17-vuotias tyttö, joka isänsä sokeuduttua joutuu elättämään perhettä menemällä piiaksi taidemaalari Johannes Vermeerin (1632-1675) (Colin Firth, Rakkautta vain) taloon. Vähitellen kaunis Griet valloittaa itse mestarin mielenkiinnon. Hän herättää kuitenkin Vermeerin perheessä niin epäilyksiä kuin suoranaista mustasukkaisuuttakin. Myös taidemesenaatti Van Ruijven (Tom Wilkinson, Tahraton mieli) on iskenyt silmänsä tyttöön. Värikkäiden tapahtumien kautta Griet päätyy lopulta Vermeerin kuuluisimman maalauksen "Tyttö ja turbaani" (1665-66) malliksi. Mestariteoksen hinta on kuitenkin kova - muutenkin kuin rahassa mitattuna. Elokuva perustuu Tracy Chevalierin samannimiseen romaaniin ja se oli Oscar® -ehdokkaana parhaasta kuvauksesta (Eduardo Serra), parhaasta lavastuksesta (Ben Van Os) ja parhaasta puvustuksesta (Dien Van Straalen). (SF Film Fin.)
(lisää)Arvostelut (5)
An illustration of the novel. What is usually a disadvantage is a great advantage here, thanks to the camerawork which has nothing to do with the works of the Old Masters. With regard to the novel, it is a shame they left out the description of the routine and customs of the everyday life of a burgher’s family, religious differences, as well as ignoring the storyline with Griet’s brother and parents. On the other hand, it was extremely pleasing that they suppressed the “feeling of arty soft porn" and ignoring the “several years later" epilog.
()
Colin Firth excels in vain and Scarlett Johansson is unnecessarily made less attractive. As a result, the viewer is deceived by overrated deception with beautiful but meaningless images and a progression leading nowhere. The third star is for the emotions that the main duo was able to evoke all on their own, even in such a minimal screenwriting space.
()
Maybe some people see the art, the beauty, the pretty story, but I just don't. For me it was a bore, where nothing of substance happened, where nothing caught my attention, made me watch the screen. Someone who loves the painter, someone who loves art will probably love this film, but I'm a total barbarian in this field and I don't mind staying that way. For me, an unnecessary film that I will quickly and soon forget.
()
An all-encompassing magnificent visual experience. It captivated me, sat me down, and slackened my jaw. I'm probably going to watch all the biopics about classic painters. :) Or I'll stay grounded, thank the ever-improving Colin Firth, move on to another overrated Scarlett Johansson performance, and enjoy one of the many child roles of the now-discovered Anna Popplewell. That's how I like it. Later, I’ll grab a Tracy Chevalier novel, which is written in the first person and is therefore a deeply visceral experience.
()
A decent and gentle film that for the most part feels empty, and that is the main stumbling block. The form, on the other hand, is absolutely stunning, with excellent contrasting lighting, brilliant and beautifully colored cinematography (unusually detailed), costumes, production design, and even the simple musical motif appealed to me quite a bit.
()
Mainos