When visiting Haugesund and The International Norwegian Film Festival there, we saw the film 'The Mill and the Cross' ('Brueghel, le moulin et le croix') by Lech Majewski. In that film we 'enter' the painting and get to see how it was made and who the different characters are. As Brueghel we saw Rutger Hauer, far from the psychotic and troubling roles he often plays.
In this film we also get to enter not only one but several paintings and in the end the question could be summed up as: Who has painted or made the painter?
Before this we are presented one single painting.
We see a castle, flowering gardens, a threatening forest (why are forests so threatening?) but the painting is not finished.
In this painting three different kinds of people are living with different degrees of completion: It's the 'Toupins' who are being finished in their entirety, the 'Pafinis', not entirely finished as it's still some colours missing and lastly the 'Reufs' only being sketched so far.
This creates a struggle for power where the 'Toupins' regard themselves as the superior part of 'the population', chasing the 'Pafinis' out of the castle and using the 'Reufs' as some kind of slaves or servants.
At this point in the story we get to meet Ramo, Lola and Plume ('Pafinis') who are all convinced of that only the painter is able to restore the harmony by finishing his work.
They therefore cross the 'dangerous' and very living forest and all of a sudden they are at the end of the painting, jumping out from the very same and into the painters study or studio. Unfortunately they also jump into another painting and another, hereby experiencing more adventures and more places than they've ever could have imagined.
During this 'excursion' the questions multiply: What has happened to the painter? Why has he abandoned them? Why has he started destroying some paintings? Will they ever find him and unfold his secrets and thereby bring peace to 'their world'?
There were many children in the cinema theatre and I'm not quite sure they understood all the subtleties in the film.
It's not only the question about the painter but of course seen in a more universal perspective the question of The Creator, the human beings as creators not only of art but of artefacts, the world around us, the lives to come etc.
It's also the question about sovereignty and subordination in a society and the often stupid reasons for the one or the other.
We also got to see a scene where a woman is trying to cross the forest and the plants surround her and make her relax in a way that was clearly erotic: The living forest, it's plants being equipped with stamens and pistils and often resembling human parts of the body, not seldom genitals.
It's however a very thought provoking film, very beautiful and almost thrilling.
Questions about responsibility and the fact that if one has started something, one most often have to finish it. The consequences of not doing so and thereby assuming ones responsibility as a 'maker', could be disastrous.
Director: Jean-François Laguionie.
In this film we also get to enter not only one but several paintings and in the end the question could be summed up as: Who has painted or made the painter?
Before this we are presented one single painting.
We see a castle, flowering gardens, a threatening forest (why are forests so threatening?) but the painting is not finished.
In this painting three different kinds of people are living with different degrees of completion: It's the 'Toupins' who are being finished in their entirety, the 'Pafinis', not entirely finished as it's still some colours missing and lastly the 'Reufs' only being sketched so far.
This creates a struggle for power where the 'Toupins' regard themselves as the superior part of 'the population', chasing the 'Pafinis' out of the castle and using the 'Reufs' as some kind of slaves or servants.
At this point in the story we get to meet Ramo, Lola and Plume ('Pafinis') who are all convinced of that only the painter is able to restore the harmony by finishing his work.
They therefore cross the 'dangerous' and very living forest and all of a sudden they are at the end of the painting, jumping out from the very same and into the painters study or studio. Unfortunately they also jump into another painting and another, hereby experiencing more adventures and more places than they've ever could have imagined.
During this 'excursion' the questions multiply: What has happened to the painter? Why has he abandoned them? Why has he started destroying some paintings? Will they ever find him and unfold his secrets and thereby bring peace to 'their world'?
There were many children in the cinema theatre and I'm not quite sure they understood all the subtleties in the film.
It's not only the question about the painter but of course seen in a more universal perspective the question of The Creator, the human beings as creators not only of art but of artefacts, the world around us, the lives to come etc.
It's also the question about sovereignty and subordination in a society and the often stupid reasons for the one or the other.
We also got to see a scene where a woman is trying to cross the forest and the plants surround her and make her relax in a way that was clearly erotic: The living forest, it's plants being equipped with stamens and pistils and often resembling human parts of the body, not seldom genitals.
It's however a very thought provoking film, very beautiful and almost thrilling.
Questions about responsibility and the fact that if one has started something, one most often have to finish it. The consequences of not doing so and thereby assuming ones responsibility as a 'maker', could be disastrous.
Director: Jean-François Laguionie.
No comments:
Post a Comment