Le peintre des vanités

Tulipmania is one of Europe's weirder historical events. Unfortunately, the movie barely touches on the tulip market craze, except as a deus ex machina to bestow sudden wealth and/or loss on characters who we barely care about and who do nothing to deserve it.

The main problem with the film is that the love triangle that is supposed to be the main story appears out of nowhere -- one of the characters simply looks up pensively, as if he just solved a riddle, and declares, "I'm in love!" Up until that point, he had shared maybe 60 seconds of screen time with the object of his affection. How can we care about the contrived swings in fortune of such shallow people?

Making things worse, this love triangle movie has five main characters, leading to underdeveloped characters, repetition of ideas and unnecessary subplots.

I loved the sets and I thought that Christoph Waltz, Holliday Grainger and Jack O'Connell did great jobs with the little they had to work with.

I had the privilege of seeing this film in preview in the famous Tuschinski theatre in the heart of the canal district in Amsterdam. Having enjoyed the novel whilst living there in 2011, I have watched as it's release dates have been continually changed giving all the signs of a production in distress. Early rumours of poor test screenings can be damaging whether true or not! Like another reviewer I found the opening narration at odds with the images and consequently confusing. The first 40 minutes edited in a pedestrian style merely to tick off necessary plot points, and without any sensitivity to mood or place, so prevalent in the novel. Strangely, the movie seemed to be both full of beautiful 'pictures', historical detail, visual treats and mood, and yet at the same time, the continued use of one street set left it feeling small and enclosed and almost like stage set. Little sense of Amsterdam as a City State enjoying a glorious rise on the world stage. At that point (after 40 minutes) having laid out the plot points and established the characters, the film starts to build, thanks to the real tension in the original story, a good script and some fine performances. I got over a niggling feeling of disappointment at the 'smallness' of the set production, and instead decided to enjoy the abundant visual detail and the way the story started to rip along. Ultimately the great story rose above the shaky first reel and the production design above its limited scale. I was with two friends who hadn't read the book, and we all three came to really enjoy the film, despite the confused and hurried beginnings. It deserves to rise above its production history and be widely seen and enjoyed. It doesn't quite reach the heights of the source material, but it's far from a failure with much to enjoy.

A love story (actually two of them) play out amid the backdrop of the famous tulip mania of Amsterdam, ca 1634. Both love stories hinge on wild improbabilites that are almost laughable. The story is based on a novel so we can perhaps blame it on that. Regardless, the movie is vastly entertaining (but not in the so-bad-it's-good category. There is a lot to like.) As we are told Tulip trading was rampant and "fortunes were won and lost" all because of a "beautiful flower."

Sophia (Alicia Vikander) is an orphan under the care of a convent that specializes in providing care and education for such unfortunates. She is appropriated by a wealthy nobleman (Cornelius Sandvoort) in Amsterdan who wants to marry and sire an heir. Historical context---keep in mind that Henry was fairly recent history at this time---can make this a daunting task for a young lady but Cornelius turns out to be a saint, an anomaly for one so powerful in such times. He has a love for his young wife and by and by he hires a handsome young painter (Dane DeHann, who bears a rather strong resemblance to a young Leonardo DeCaprio) to paint a portrait of he and his wife. Uh oh.

Meanwhile Sophia's servant, Maria (Holliday Grainger) is carrying on with a fishmonger (James Dryden), who wants to marry her and due to his low station tries to strike it rich with tulips. Complications ensue whereby Sophia and Maria concoct a scheme which might be termed the Mission Impossible of 1634 that strains credulity but can be overlooked with effort. Alica Vikander, the main heroine, agrees to some clandestine sittings for her young painter and in the doing is mind-stopping beautiful. (Vermeer would have loved her. She would not need golden earrings). What happens besides sitting and painting in these sessions is easily surmised.

Judi Dench is the Mother Superior (or whatever her title might be) but not per the usual, she is capable of the nod and the wink and can speak quite plainly not to mention her business acumen. You see, the convent grows, buys, and sells tulips and they need a shrewd-y to handle all that ... Judi does just this with aplomb all the while maintaining at least an appearance of piety. (Although if I remember correctly she actually hits somebody over the head with something.)

Another character is old Amersterdam, or the depiction of it. Swarming denizens bustle about in droves along streets and waterfront fulfilling the need for historcal context (along with the tulips, of course).

I loved it. After reading the reviews of other users, I had no expectations from the movie. But, I was very surprised after I finished watching the film that I actually thoroughly enjoyed it. The plot itself is very intriguing and forces the viewer to enter a game of guesses and speculations on what will the characters dare to do next. It's a wonderfully playful and thrilling love story that I would recommend everyone to go and watch.

How could such a beautiful looking movie fall so flat? Sumptuous filming, a stellar cast, with brilliant period sets and costumes are not enough to disguise the fact that Tulip Fever (2017) drowns under the weight of its own plot contrivance and melodramatic performances.

Set in 17th Century Amsterdam, it tells the story of an orphan who "arrived barefoot and left in a carriage". Selected to marry for her great beauty, Sophia's (Alicia Vikander) sole purpose is to bear a child for wealthy merchant Cornelius (Christopher Waltz) whose first marriage was barren. Cornelius commissions struggling artist Jan (Dane DeHaan) to paint their portrait to celebrate his wealth and her beauty but the artist immediately falls under her spell. While the affair progresses, her maidservant Maria (Holliday Grainger) falls pregnant to a fishmonger and the two women concoct a subterfuge whereby Sophia pretends to be pregnant to keep Maria's secret. As a background sub-plot, Jan seeks his fortune in the over-heated tulip market by purchasing the rarest of tulip specimens from an imperious nun (Judi Dench). Melodrama turns into farce as the multiple narratives interweave, tighten, yet ultimately go nowhere.

High visual production values do not make up for story implausibility. The months of unsuccessful mating between Cornelius and Sophia is portrayed as a bawdy comedy of nightly rituals where Cornelius struggles to perform his marital duties. The affair under her husband's nose, the fake pregnancy, and fake birth are all ludicrously implausible. The background tale of wild speculations on the fickle tulip market is a distraction rather than necessary for Jan's predictable investment outcomes. The script sounds unnatural and dialogue is delivered unconvincingly: many lines are spoken across class boundaries in ways that would have been unimaginable in that era. With a top- shelf cast, the acting is flawless although Alicia Vikander stands out for the way she plays the same Alicia Vikander that we have seen in several films. The chemistry with both husband and lover is of the barely flickering variety, and her impersonation of Mona Lisa is, as always, impeccable.

Does the film's ending justify the effort? Disappointingly, no. The fate of all the characters is disconnected from the narrative flow and the storyline threads remain dangling in the wind. For some audiences, the beauty of this production will be worth the commitment. However, after an hour and forty-five minutes, all we learn is that great beauty, wealth, greed, and deception, do not bring happiness; nor do aesthetics alone make a great movie.