Moça com Brinco de Pérola

Behind every picture there lies a story, and the film `Girl With a Pearl Earring' purports to give us the inside scoop into the making of Vermeer's classic painting of the same name. In the mid 1600's, a young, illiterate peasant girl named Griet came to live and work as a servant in the home of the promising, yet still financially struggling, Dutch master. Obsessed by her beauty, Vermeer insisted on using her as the subject for one of his works, much to the horror and chagrin of his jealous and shrewish wife. Despite the domestic havoc it caused, the collaboration between artist and subject resulted in one of the genuine masterpieces of the art world.

Visually, this film could not be more stunning. Thanks to luminous cinematography, art direction and costume design, the audience watching this film feels almost as if it has been transported into a Vermeer work. Director Peter Webber recreates every element of that world in loving detail, right down to his choice of actress Scarlett Johansson, who is a dead ringer for the model in the original portrait. Alexandre Desplat's score also captures the lyrical, haunting tenderness of the subject matter.

`Girl With a Pearl Earring' is a very fine movie in many respects, but it is ultimately unsatisfying because it cannot match in content what it achieves in style. Despite the exquisite look of the film, the characters seem strangely underdeveloped, most especially Vermeer himself, who remains frustratingly superficial throughout. Thanks mainly to his taciturn moodiness, we never get to know much of what he is thinking or feeling. The romantic moments between artist and subject are admirably restrained – and thereby all the more erotic in nature – but we do feel as if we would like to know more about him as a person. Griet is only slightly more fully developed, although, in her case, we can at least ascribe this lack of information to the restrictions placed on her by her station in life and the society of her time. Unlike Vermeer, Griet was conditioned by the world around her to be a passive observer. But Vermeer needs to be a more dynamic presence in the story.

One admires the fact that the filmmakers have remained truthful to the spirit of the enterprise, refusing to indulge in cheap melodramatics to make the story more salacious and scandalous than in truth it really was. Yet, in dramatic terms, such integrity comes with a price, for the film often has the effect of lulling rather than stimulating us, of raising our expectations then failing to fully satisfy them. Perhaps, in the case of this particular artwork, the story-behind-the-picture wasn't really all that interesting to begin with.

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-)

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.

I can't imagine a lot of people, especially anyone under 40, sitting through this extremely slow film....but I thought it was excellent. However, I am biased because I love great cinematography and stories about famous painters. Sometimes the cameras stay on subject longer than normal, affording the viewer time to really soak it up.

If you can stay awake, this film offers some of the prettiest images I've ever seen on film. Scene after scene looks like a classic painting come to life. Scarlet Johannson says very little but is fascinating to watch. For the first-time viewer, there a tension that builds throughout the film leaving wondering what bad thing is about to happen. The story is not an upbeat one, yet not depressing either.

One time, I watched this film very early in the morning, something I rarely do, and with the subtitles on. It wasn't a bad way to watch it - a quiet film in the quiet of the pre-dawn hours . The film offers another demonstration of why doesn't have to shed all their clothes to be erotic. This inspired me to read the book, and I enjoyed that, too.