Das Mädchen mit dem Perlenohrring

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.

"Girl with a Pearl Earring" tells a fictional tale about how the title painting by 17th century Dutch painter Vermeer might have come to be. Outwardly, the film is a story about the painter and a household maid who becomes the subject of the painting. Inwardly, the film is about the unspoken but palpable feelings between two people of very different stature and station which may or may not be forever cast in the crazed pigments of the masterpiece. Those who can tap into the subtle human emotional undercurrents will find this film far more satisfying than those who cannot. Regardless, all will find "Girl with a Pearl Earring" a masterpiece of filmmaking. (A-)

Young woman in Holland circa 1665, innocent and wide-eyed but hard working, leaves home for job as scullery maid to a painter named Vermeer and his family; soon, she becomes the artist's secret assistant and muse, eventually posing for Vermeer's famous title-named portrait. Stunning art direction, lively pacing and an absorbing narrative all make up for a few key performances which seem too modern, and minor instances where the editing isn't as sharp as one might hope. The maid's many entrances and exits are repetitive, but Scarlett Johansson proves to be an intuitive actress who excels in a role with very little dialogue. Quite good overall, and with a finale that smartly leaves the breathless viewer wondering...asking...wanting more. *** from ****

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.

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.