El Bosco. El jardín de los sueños

I expected a detailed analysis of this masterpiece and what I got instead was way too many people, all unknown to me, telling their "feelings" about the painting and a couple of them even singing (?)

Not only most of the remarks were totally subjective, but the whole documentary seemed chopped together unevenly, jumping from the historical background and the few known facts about Bosch to Oriental scroll painting and the hippies at Woodstock. Even that approach might have worked with a bit more structure, but the editing was bad. In fact, the historical background in the Netherlands and how the painting ended up in Madrid was interesting, I wanted to know more about that. Not everyone has a knowledge of how the Netherlands and Spain were connected.

Also, Bosch's skills and techniques were acknowledged very quickly by the few experts interviewed, while the rest of the people - I guess famous in Spain - kept yapping nonsense. Very unfocused production and dissatisfactory.

When commissioned by Madrid's Prado Museum to make a film about Hyeronymus Bosch and his work, famed cinematographer-documentarist José-Luis Lopez-Linares proposed to the curator not to deal with the artist's entire work but to concentrate instead on one of his paintings, "The Garden of Dreams", only. A bold gamble knowing that the finished film would last about eighty minutes. But Lopez-Linares knew what he wanted and thought he would be able to capture the viewer's attention throughout: relying on art historian Reindert Falkenburg's original idea, he would have the triptych opened before our eyes at the outset of his documentary and then ask personalities in various fields to each express their own feelings and interpretation. Among them there would be writers (Orhan Parnuk, Salman Rushdie), musicians (Ludovico Einaudi, William Christie), artists (Miquel Barcelo, Max), scientists, art specialists and historians and even a philosopher (Michel Onfray). Their words would be accompanied by varied (and original) music pieces or songs (Arvo Pärt, Bach, Verdi, but also Jacques Brel and Lana Del Rey). The daring project was okayed by the Prado and the other producers (including France's Stéphane Sorlat), which proved a right move, for the finished film does live up to its concept. Indeed however long "The Garden of Dreams" is and although it focuses on a single work, the viewer (informed naturally, but who chooses to watch such a film if they are not informed) is never bored. Exploring the painting in detail, all the more through the eyes of the brilliant commentators, is indeed an enlightening experience. What is Bosch's message when he paints such or such vignette ? Is this the fruit of the arbutus or only a symbol, or also a symbol ? How come this cloud of birds fly through a ring of stone? And why are these animals larger than the humans represented ? Etc, etc. The questioning is endless and despite the various - and varied - explanations or mere assumptions, mystery seems to add to mystery, which results in "The Garden of Dreams" being even more cryptic and enigmatic at the end of the projection than at the beginning. And which adds the film-produced fascination to that of the triptych itself. A rare experience indeed you'd better not miss out on.

There are two things to be distinguished here : the painting by Hiëronymus Bosch on the one hand and the documentary about the painting on the other hand.

The painting is endlessly challenging and fascinating, not only from an aesthetic and cultural but also from a theological viewpoint. I remember discussing the painting in class, as an adolescent. One of the things that struck us pupils the most was the "Garden of Eden" segment in which God/Christ introduces Adam to Eve. With the panel, Bosch seems to suggest that violence was present even in the Garden of Eden, either in potentia or as a reality. Hence two questions : 1) if God could not predict the emergence of evil, does this make Him less than omniscient and 2) if God could predict the emergence of evil, why go ahead with Creation ? Does this mean that God does not care about humans, or about all humans ? Or does He want humans - again, all humans ? - to enjoy an even more satisfying paradise, to wit a paradise they earned through hard work and steadfast hope ? As any true mountaineer can tell you, the supreme joy comes not from reaching the top, the supreme joy comes from knowing that you reached the top on your own steam, after days of perilous and painful enterprise.

But then the images of animal violence on that panel could mean something else entirely : for instance, that God does not mind violence in animals but that He minds violence in humans, who were given reason and religion in order to control their instincts. The painting is not only superbly beautiful, it is so multi-layered and symbolically charged that it becomes a source of unending study and speculation.

Now on to the documentary. To begin with the good, "El jardin" offers the viewer fine images of the painting, complete with delicate details or underlying drafts. This provides one with an unusually intimate look at the thought process of the painter.

The documentary also assembles a whole army of writers, artists and experts, many of whom are pretty intelligent people who have something deep or original to say. This is a fine concept but unfortunately the documentary jumps from one angle to another, meaning that the topics can only be discussed in the most superficial of ways. A slower, more selective approach might have done wonders here.

Still, I was very intrigued by the comparisons to the hippie movement, in which young people tried to regain a sense of innocent enjoyment and guilt-free sensuality - or, in other words, in which young people tried to regain a paradise lost. (Whether Bosch would have considered such an attempt as feasible, healthy or permissible is quite an interesting question.) It is tempting, here, to picture a Charles Manson in the form of a grinning serpent slithering through the rose bushes...

But to return to "El jardin", it would have been better if all the speakers had simply spoken their own native language, with the various contributions then subtitled in a single language (for instance Spanish for a Spanish version). Now there was a lot getting lost in translation - or even double translation.

In conclusion : a well-intentioned documentary about a stunning painting, but not as good as it could or should have been.