Goya

Life is but a series of fortuitous events called destiny. Francisco Goya lived a life fraught with fateful occurences which drove him to despair, and ended his days in Bordeaux. His three-times interpreter, Francisco Rabal, little knew as he made this film that he too would end his days in the same city. Such is the coincidence of life and death.

Goya (1999), made as `Goya en Burdeos', hints at these and other casualities in a refined genteel way, notwithstanding the sometimes temperamental mood of the Aragonés painter. The genius of this film is how Storaro's magnificent photography and Saura's gifted and inspired directing, actually brought to life so many of the painter's creations: paintings only seen in Madrid art museums or in books. It was a delight to suddenly recognize in scenes in the film some of these beautiful works, as if magically brought to life by technological tricks, but with so much care.

Rabal's interpretation is superb: it could not have been otherwise, this being the third and last time the old Murcian actor had to take on the task of being Goya. It is also worth mentioning Dafné Fernández, who gave an intelligently picturesque performance; as was to be hoped for after seeing her wonderful part as Fuensanta in `Pajarico' (qv) made one year earlier.

It cannot be denied that Storaro's photography frequently becomes one of the main protagonists in the film's telling. No doubt this is in response to the peculiarities of Saura's directing, and thus, for me, makes a near-perfect coupling. It must also be added that the music employed in the film has been exquisitely selected, first with Roque Baños' own composing beautifully intertwining with pieces by Boccherini, Couperin, Tchaickovsky and Beethoven, as well as by an anonymous 17th Century Spanish composer sounding very much like Luys de Narváez.

A serious film for those who appreciate excursions into historical cultural backgrounds balanced by a stately unhurried production.

As an art historian I found this film fascinating. It seemed to be true to its subject - a complex, gifted and liberal artist - and also an authentic study of the contrasts of late C18th Spain. It also provided interesting and accurate source material for anyone studying the art of the period and I use my off-air video of it to bring the life of this wonderful and under-rated artist to my students. It was a warm tribute to a man who was full of vigour even in old age, but did not over-romanticise him, showing us the flaws in his character as well as his innate humanity. The film worked well as drama, using good cinematic technique to underpin the story of an exciting and unusual life in a pivotal period of Western history. It also used the fantastic aspects of Goya's imagination to underline the paradoxes of his life. This is a typical European art house movie, of a type rarely made in the US or Britain, but non-specialist film watchers should not feel alienated by that. It is intelligent, witty, elegant, superbly acted (Paco Rabal in one of his last films is terrific - he was Goya to the inch), beautifully crafted, intense and dramatic. What more could we want from a movie?

A brilliantly rich expression of the medium of painting through that of the cinema, a rare if not a unique achievement. Another reviewer refers to the "moving painting" of Peter Greenaway, and this film does indeed call to mind The Draughtsman's Contract. The dying painter relives in pictorial terms episodes of his life, artistic, political and personal, in between asking himself the questions "Where am I?" ("¿Donde estoy?"), lost in the streets of Bordeaux at the beginning of the film, and "Who am I now?" ("¿Quién soy ahora?"), as he lies on his death-bed, the two Spanish verbs distinguishing between the physical being and the existential one. The film is articulated to a large degree by Goya's three sources of inspiration, Velázquez (space), Rembrandt (light) and the imagination, but more by Goya's apocalyptic portrayals of the suffering of the Spanish in the Napoleonic Wars after the disillusionment of the French Enlightenment. Goya en Burdeos is to painting what Babettes Gæstebud and The Dead are to the celebratory feast.

I do not know the price tag for this film, but my guess is that they could have used more dough. The Napoleonic Wars are hard to do on a budget. Tableau representations of Goya's works were charming. They went on too long and the acting added in was pure ham. The whole thing seemed a disjointed mess to me. I was reminded of Ken Russell's "The Music Lovers" in which Richard Chamberlain has a poetic delirium from typhus. Goya was obviously an accomplished political artist, yet the film portrays him as a narcissistic bumbler. As an American, I was impressed with all the overtly sentimental sexism and ageism at the heart of the movie. Old men obviously all dote and drool. Young granddaughters obviously grin and bear it. Wink. Wink. It was all too wholesome to be surreal and too surreal to be taken seriously as history. I had great hopes for it, but I was disappointed.

Peter Greenaway was the first to show us that film could be "moving painting" (as opposed to moving photography). The life of Goya is reflected to the screen through his paintings and it is very beautifully done.Saura is very careful to stress the "artistic" side of Goya's personality and all his love affairs, political views are secondary to it. You can get a clear picture of what kind of a painter this spanish was. A little too formalistic maybe...Good job anyway. Pleasure for the eyes..