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.
