Qui a tué le chevalier?

A truly bad movie, from a generally good director like Jim McBride (I loved "Great Balls of Fire"). Based on a novel from Perez Reverte, this film is dull and uninteresting, and the only thing you can recommend from it is a nude scene from Kate Beckinsale (48 minutes after the start, so press your fast forward button in your video).

A young art restoration specialist based in Barcelona is retained by an art gallery to restore a 17th century Dutch Masters paainting that has been in a private collection since it was created. The painting depicts an elderly nobleman playing cards with a younger man, while a noblewoman watches in the backgrounnd. All restorations include an xray, and this image reveals an underlying original painting on the same two men playing chess instead of cards. On the lower right, in Latin, are the words "Who Killed the Knight." The film reveals the names of the people in the painting, their relationships to each other, and how they relate to the current owners.

This is a reasonably suspenseful film with qhite a few surprises. The performances are ot bad, although Kate Beckensale's inexperience is glaring. The story, however, more than compensates for this modest short coming, and the sight of the scantily clad beautiful English actress at age 21 is quite breathtaking.

"Uncovered" is based on Arturo Pérez-Reverte's novel "The Flanders Panel". Julia Darro, a young art historian and restorer from Barcelona, is working on a fifteenth-century Flemish painting called "The Game of Chess", when she discovers a painted-over message reading "Quis Necavit Equitem?" (Latin for "Who killed the knight?") Julia begins to research the painting's background to discover the meaning of this inscription, and discovers that it relates to a 500-year-old murder mystery. She realises that the solution to the mystery is connected to the chess game being played in the picture, and knowing little of the game herself recruits Domenec, a talented local chess player, to assist her. Julia and Domenec, however, realise that they are in danger, as several people connected with their research are also murdered.

The central mystery is an intriguing and ingenious one, and well developed, although I could spot the identity of the murderer well before this was announced on screen. There are no really outstanding acting performances, but the lovely Kate Beckinsale makes a charming heroine (although I could never work out why she sneezes so much). Kate is one of the few actresses who can get away with wearing her hair boyishly short and still look strikingly beautiful.

One criticism I have heard is that although the main characters are all supposed to be Spanish they all speak English without foreign accents. This, however, is not something which has ever worried me. The use of native British or American accents to represent foreigners' use of their own native languages is something I find perfectly acceptable. Charlton Heston's El Cid, for example, was also a Spaniard, and nobody complains that he speaks English like an American rather than like Manuel in "Fawlty Towers".

This is one of the few films to take an interest in chess and art history, two rather intellectual pursuits, and it does so in such a way as to make both those subjects seem interesting, even glamorous, featuring a romance between a beautiful young art historian and a handsome chess genius. It makes good use of its setting, with some wonderful views of the city of Barcelona, especially the architecture of Antoni Gaudi. (One of the characters lives in an apartment in Casa Batlló, and Julia and Domenec first meet in Park Güell).

Although this film was an Anglo-Spanish co-production, and stars a well-known English actress, it is curiously unknown in Britain. Although it is nearly twenty years since it was made, I have never seen it on television here, and it is available on DVD in the US but not in the UK. Yet it is, I think, a film which deserves to be better-known. 7/10

This is a worthwhile experience, despite all the many flaws the film has. It's a weak work in most of the skills you may think of, related to film technique, and film expression:

The acting is childish, this applies to practically every participant. Exception made to Beckinsale, she moves around in a naive boyish manner, but she distills sex, she is that character who concentrates attentions, without being excessively aware of that. She does it well. The rest of the acting is weak. The editing doesn't help as well. The premises for the montage work in a film such as this one weren't so hard to follow. They just had to tell physical actions, linear and common. Yet there are transitions, basic continuity problems that aren't solved, expressions in the faces that change, and so on. The music is also not well placed, it's a bad soundtrack in its own musical value, but above all in the mood that transmits. The tribal references weren't needed, and in the kind of story depicted, noir influenced, it would have been nice to have the music link the sets and evolutions in the story line.

But there are three things for which i think this is worth taking a look. One is the narrative structure, how the story moves on. This is based on a novel by Pérez-Reverte, the man who also wrote Ninth Gate. So we have a merging of art and life, the story happening in front of us was "written" or at least determined many years ago, buy an artist, in this case a painter. The first scene is masterful in transmitting this, really it was one of the most economic and meaningful first scenes i saw ever. It basically starts with a closeup of a hand in a painting (a hand as a synonym for power, ability to do things), and the camera moves away from the painting (it moves, it's not a zoom out)and we get to see the border of the painting fully merged with the "real" environment surrounding it. This illusion of merger works for a few moments after which we get into the environment and momentarily forget the painting. This really works.

Other thing is the use of House Batló, by Gaudi. It's interesting how the camera (and the editing) lies about the building, to enhance it's qualities. It's not a particularly brilliant exploration of the space, but it's quite competent: what happens is, we get Beckinsale going up the stairs that lead to the first floor, she rings the bell in that first floor. These stairs are beautiful, they curve like the back of an animal, you get the sensation of elevation, instead of going up. Than this is edited and the inner space we get is from inside the attic, which is built with bows that remind an animal spine and bones. Later in the film, we have an outside establishing shot that leads the camera, from the outside, all the way up to the attic. We understand that the character lives in the attic, not in the first floor. This was interesting and showed a specific interest in playing with the house. A side note is that this film is a good opportunity for you to check the great ground floor of the house, which is today polluted by the bars which conduct the tourists, and the tourists themselves, lining up to get in, and filling the sidewalk around. Pity. I have a theory that tourism is literally killing and sucking life out of our best places in the world, but this is another discussion.

Anyway, the touristic gaze can also be seen in the shots that depict the city. Here we also get lies, usually related to the intention of getting the establishing shots. Here i think they messed up. They didn't have to show all the known places all the time. There are fantastic relatively hidden places in that city that show more of its mood and life than the monuments. One of those places is actually used, the St Antoni market (the protagonist lives in front of it). The place is alive, and they use it well in some scenes. But than they lie about the city, so we have her going from Batló, to Rambla, to the Temple, to the market as if they were close enough to walk to, one after the other, sequenced like i said. It's a lie, i have nothing against it, but i have against making the postcard taking nothing useful out of it. A good use of common architecture is the one made with Beckinsale's house, especial its central stairs, and central lifter. The use of Park Guëll is not particularly interest, except for some movement between columns, but that's it. And in that movement, they inserted some staged flirting between couples. Very poor, very artificial, they didn't need to do it, the park has an interesting life on its own.

My opinion: 3/5

http://www.7eyes.wordpress.com

Julia (Kate Beckinsale) is a restorer working in a five hundred years old painting, which theme is a chess game: there are two men playing chess and a woman watching them. This painting will be sold in an auction after the restoration, and the amount will be split among the owner, an old man who lost his wealthy, Julia's best friend Menchu (Sinéad Cusack) and her partner. Max and Lola, relatives of the owner, are very interested in the selling. Julia has no family and was raised by Cesar (John Wood), who has a fraternal love for her. Cesar is also homosexual. Julia finds a hidden message in Latin in the paint, an after some investigation, she finds out that the translation would be `Who killed the knight?' Soon, many characters are associated to the pieces of the chess and are killed, following the movements of the game in the painting. This incredible and complex plot is a great disappointment. One of the attraction is Kate Beckinsale in the beginning of her career, with a beautiful body and breasts, but with a rough and common face. Presently, nine years older than in this movie, she is very gorgeous, very well produced in her films, with a delicate face, thin nose, beautiful and long hair and wonderful costumes. My vote is five.