Das Mädchen mit dem Perlenohrring

I have just seen "Girl with a pearl earring" and I am already willing to see it again. The feeling is very much the same as wanting another tour in a gallery of paintings of old Dutch masters, to enjoy repeatedly the beauty of light and shadow and colours. Scarlett Johansson is both very pretty and talented and the camera lovingly moves around her, searching for her beautiful eyes and puffy lustful lips, very much reminding me of Bertolucci's love for the beauty of Liv Tyler in "Stealing beauty". Colin Firth is again producing a most powerful impact by his tall dominating figure, deep beautiful voice and reserved yet sensual and passionate attitude. A strikingly good picture in the ocean of mediocre productions.

Is this an incredibly dull movie about a single painting - or is it a mesmerising and penetrating insight into art and a particular 17th century Dutch artist? It probably depends on your point of view.

Griet is a poor young girl who goes to work for the great Vermeer as a humble servant. She is pushed around emotionally by his overwrought and jealous wife, mischievous children and all-powerful lustful patron. Yet the biggest force in her life, gradually teasing out her own artistic sensibilities, is the Master himself. Griet becomes the subject of his most famous painting, lured by a mixture of dread and fascination.

For Vermeer the artist, his work is all-consuming. Every part of his world – the welfare of his family, his eccentricities, his whole energy and purpose in life, is concentrated into his work. That is not to say he lacks morals but simply that his work is his higher calling. To justify such a character, we could look to the role of art and its importance. Art can be worshipped for its own sake, like some wicked effigy, and used to excuse all manner of moral turpitude in its creator; or it can be seen as the entrance by which light can enter our soul, illuminate thought and our world in a way that cold logic alone would deny us, move us beyond the bounds of our immediate impressions and let us see the world about us in a new way, inspired and informed.

Griet carries this seed, to see beauty where others see only common place things, and it is a seed that the Master nourishes. There are times when Vermeer protects Griet from the people around he,r to whom she is so vulnerable, but is his concern towards her concern for her welfare, secret desire, or just a tool, an exquisite tool, of his trade?

Cinema is also being part of this artistic spectrum, if we allow it to be, affecting us in ways that let the viewer grow rather than just be entertained. Girl With a Pearl Earring certainly has sufficient integrity to do that, but if one just wanted to be entertained then it probably falls short. The art direction beautifully recreates Holland of the period and Scarlett Johansson gives a very well-tempered performance as young Griet. Costumes, music and overall cinematography are accomplished and haunting without loss of subtlety, producing a memorable film for lovers of art and cinema; but if paintings don't do anything for you, this film might not either.

While one of the major characters in the film is Jan Vermeer and the film is about one of his most famous paintings, my calling the film an artistic triumph is NOT because of this. No, it's because the people making the film have managed to create an amazing work of art in this film. The colors, the set design, the costumes and the entire look of the film is like a Vermeer painting come to life--especially in the set that is Vermeer's studio. If you are unfamiliar with his work and the historical setting, you might not recognize this--but the filmmakers did a brilliant job in creating the look of the period. It is, simply, a triumph in design and cinematography and I am surprised that the film didn't win an Oscar in any of these artistic categories. It did get nominated, but no more--losing to films like "Master and Commander" and one of the "Lord of the Rings" movies. These two were wonderful films, but when it comes to Costume Design, Art/Set Decoration and Cinematography, "Girl with a Pearl Earring" is, to me, more remarkable. As for my personal reaction to the movie, I was so enthralled by the look of the film that I could easily look past any other shortcomings in the movie. It also helped that I have seen several of Vermeer's few extant paintings just over the last few months (in London, Edinburgh and Paris) as well as having seen them in New York and Washington in the not too distant past. They are fresh in my mind and the images in the film bring them back to me. The only other film that manages to convey an artist's work this well is the superb "Lust for Life" (that featured actors who were virtual duplicates of Van Gogh's subjects).

The story is mostly a work of fiction. Nothing is known about the subject in the famous painting for which the film is named--and the movie is entirely conjecture--what MIGHT have happened leading up to the production of this masterpiece. Now I am not complaining about this--it does make for an interesting sort of story. But I also am always worried that people will mistake it for historical fact--which isn't a surprising concern considering that I used to teach history. So, we don't know whether or not one of Vermeer's kids was a brat or if his wife was irrational or if the subject of his painting was his maid or if Vermeer was a horn-dog who liked to sleep with the subjects in his pictures.

When it comes to the acting, it might not be everyone's idea of a wonderful film. The acting is highly subdued--with a very, very narrow range of emotions. Considering that the story would have taken place during a very conservative time and place (17th century Holland) and the story centers on a lowly servant, this is probably reasonable--but still might irritate viewers who want action. So, instead of action, there are lots of knowing glances and nuances...not everyone's cup of tea! And, while the illustrious Colin Firth plays Vermeer, you never really learn much about him nor is Firth given much with which to work. Young Scarlett Johansson, however, is ALWAYS in every part of the film--and she manages to make quite a bit of what she is able to convey given the limited emotional ranges in the film. Overall, it's certainly not a film for everyone but a brilliant film nonetheless.

I can't imagine a lot of people, especially anyone under 40, sitting through this extremely slow film....but I thought it was excellent. However, I am biased because I love great cinematography and stories about famous painters. Sometimes the cameras stay on subject longer than normal, affording the viewer time to really soak it up.

If you can stay awake, this film offers some of the prettiest images I've ever seen on film. Scene after scene looks like a classic painting come to life. Scarlet Johannson says very little but is fascinating to watch. For the first-time viewer, there a tension that builds throughout the film leaving wondering what bad thing is about to happen. The story is not an upbeat one, yet not depressing either.

One time, I watched this film very early in the morning, something I rarely do, and with the subtitles on. It wasn't a bad way to watch it - a quiet film in the quiet of the pre-dawn hours . The film offers another demonstration of why doesn't have to shed all their clothes to be erotic. This inspired me to read the book, and I enjoyed that, too.

Johannes Vermeer was a silent man. Being equipped with immense talent, brush and palette, there really was no need for words. Such philosophy is greatly dwelt upon in Peter Webber's adaptation of Tracy Chevalier's novel.

The film is breathtaking alone in the fact that the production team, led by cinematographer Eduardo Serra, production designer Ben Van Os, and art director Christina Shaeffer, manages to capture Vermeer's filling, oil-based colors, and light into every scene.

The story is exemplary as well. We are taken into a brief era in Vermeer's life in 17th century Delft. Much of the film's premise is true: Vermeer was a reticent and brilliant painter who attempted to balance his genius and deep-rooted, innate calling to art and solitude with the often overbearing demands of a bourgeoisie, Venetian society, as well as the malignant pressures posted by a sadistic commissioner, and the pressures of being the head of a massive household (when he died in 1675, he left behind his wife and 11 children).

In 1665, however, he painted a mysterious masterpiece. It's mysterious because much scholarship has since been dedicated to uncovering the identity of the model who posed for it. It has been suggested that the subject is one of his daughters, although this theory is met today with much skepticism. And this is where the film spends most of its fictional focus: that of creating an imaginary story to help speculate on what we know as factual about Vermeer's life. Enter a young, beautiful servant girl, Grit (Scarlett Johansson), who through no fault of her own, finds that her classic beauty attracts Vermeer's sensibilities-as a man and as an artist-to such a degree that he has no choice but to capture her on oil and canvas.

Vermeer (Colin Firth) spends a lot of time in this film standing quietly in the shadows and peeking around corners. There's great symbolism in many of these shots-his body is often half-covered, half-exposed, representing the dichotomy he must have felt in his life-that of being in perpetual conflict with his spiritual, artistic longings and the more human qualities of a man.

Whereas Vermeer' silence is a result of his being reluctant to communicate with the external world, mostly due to artistic self-absorption, Griet similarly is cut off from humanity, but rather out of innocence, naivety, beauty, and the unfortunate side effect of being at the low end of a rather oppressive Delft caste system where she has little voice outside of the disturbance her beauty stimulates in others. Together, the two characters find an unspoken solace, a type of kinetic energy that can only be conveyed through Vermeer's art. Indeed, one of the film's more touching moments comes when the artist reveals his portrait of her and Griet replies, 'You've seen into me.' Another memorable moment, if not altogether breathtaking, comes when Vermeer is instructing Griet in how to hold her face at the proper angle in order to catch the appropriate reflection of light on her mouth, and also when he is instructing her in how to mix his paints and their hands, for a split second, brush together. It is in such moments that Firth brilliantly conveys the tormenting dissonance present in a man not in whose base desires are overshadowing his artistic being, but rather the opposite-as a virtuoso experiencing a rare moment of temporary carnal pleasure.

All philosophy aside, is the film any good? I'd say it's extraordinary, although if you're not one to gravitate toward the biography of an artist, this may not be the film for you. However, I do believe that the human story element her is valuable, entertaining, and worthwhile.