Scarlett Johansson in Girl with a Pearl Earring
With Colin Firth nominated for an Oscar tonight, I’m reminded that I’ve been meaning to write something about one of my favourite films of his – Girl With a Pearl Earring, directed by Peter Webber. I’ve actually watched it twice since starting this blog, but failed each time to write a full review, and now my memories have faded slightly again. So this will just be a short posting about a couple of the main points which struck me, and an excuse to post pictures .
For me this is one of the most breathtaking historical dramas to watch, with the colour, lighting, costumes and Eduardo Serra’s cinematography working together to create the atmosphere of the 17th-century Dutch paintings by artists like Vermeer perfectly. I have read and liked Tracy Chevalier’s novel, but this is one where the adaptation appeals to me and sticks in my memory more than the book. I first saw it at the cinema - since then I’ve seen it on TV and the effects still work very well, but it was best on the big screen.
Scarlett Johansson is excellent as the heroine, Griet, forced to go and work in the painter’s household when her family falls on hard times. I thought the scenes of her doing housework and shopping for household provisions, meat, fish, etc, are so beautifully filmed that they make all these tasks seem almost like works of art to put alongside Vermeer’s paintings. This at times means the film skates over the real drudgery involved in all these domestic tasks – but it balances this out by showing how Griet’s whole life is taken up by her work and how difficult it is to find any time for herself at all. She is drawn by Vermeer’s art and yearns to learn its mysteries, but all she can attain is to learn to mix his paints – and even that is something which causes jealousies and turmoil within a household built on hierarchy.
Colin Firth as Johannes Vermeer
Although Vermeer and Griet are in the same house, there is an unbridgeable gap between them. Both actors do a great deal with their eyes, expressing how each of them longs not only for each other (although sexual tension is there, a feeling that in another world and at another time they could have been together) but also for what they believe the other one has. Griet can only dream of having the freedom to work as an artist, while, ironically, Vermeer feels hemmed in by all the edifice of domesticity he has to support with his paintings, and sees her as more untrammeled. Firth is always great at saying more with his expression than he can in words, and he certainly does that as Vermeer, while Johansson also expresses the silent battles Griet is waging with herself.
The whole film is suffused with yearning – not only the yearning of Griet and Vermeer for one another, but also Vermeer’s wife, Catharina (Essie Davis), ground down by her life with a new baby each year, longing to enter her husband’s separate world and understand him – and also longing for him to see her and paint her as he sees and paints the maid, Griet.
Cillian Murphy and Scarlett Johansson
I also think Judy Parfitt is excellent as mother-in-law Maria, standing behind her daughter all the time, and Cillian Murphy is perfectly cast as young butcher Pieter, who woos Griet on her visits to the market. But Tom Wilkinson’s character, lecherous rich patron Van Ruijven, seems a bit caricatured and less subtly-drawn – or painted - than the other characters.
Essie Davis, Tom Wilkinson and Scarlett Johansson
I must confess I have twice watched about three quarters of this film but have never watched it through to the end. I enjoyed the book and there were many aspects of the film which I liked. The cinematography was impressive but after a while I began to feel that the action was frozen into a frame.
Colin Firth was excellent. As you say he conveys so much with just an expression or a gaze. Watching him act is akin to mind reading. I read a very good review of his acting style by David Thompson just last week which remarked upon just that. Even in his more shallow roles he gives a sense of the inner life of the character he is portraying, such that it never appears that he is actually acting. He just is which is why he really really deserves an Oscar.
Scarlett Johansson however did not impress me at all. Sadly it was her lack of acting that finally frustrated me so much that I gave up upon the film. I did not feel as though her quiet manner concealed a turbulent inner life. It appeared to me, most of the time, that nothing was passing through her mind at all. Perhaps it was just that her’s was a character that I could not relate to though I did not have that problem with the book.
I agree that the supporting cast gave stellar performances, especially Cillian Murphy whose character I felt quite sorry for.
I will make the effort to watch the remainder of the film now having read your review.
Janette
Thanks for commenting, Janette. I think this is a film which works best on the big screen because the cinematography is so dazzling – sorry to hear you didn’t like the movie so much, but maybe it will grab you more on another viewing. I sometimes find I just have to be in the right mood for a film or mini-series. Must say I really liked Scarlett Johansson’s restraint in this, the way she was so quiet and held back so much – but I do like her as an actress anyway.
I couldn’t see it at the cinema and I watched it on Tv, satellite pay TV , few years ago. But I loved it. I especially liked the interaction between young Scarlett Johansson and fascinating Firth /Vermeer.
Glad you liked it as much as I did, Maria. I re-watched this around the same time as watching ‘The Impressionists’, and thought they were both movies which really felt like paintings!
Not one of my favourites I must confess. I found it very long and drawn out and hard work, takes a while to get into and get it, but once you do, it ends. I too watched it three quarters of the way through once and as a result thought I’d give it a second chance and watch the whole thing but only because it was on the telly. Love Colin Firth though, just not the story.
Sorry to hear you didn’t like it so much, Jules – I’m glad you do like Colin Firth, though, as I think he’s a wonderful actor. Hope to write about more of his movies here in the future.
I’m amused when you speak of trying to recall the details sufficiently in order to write a review. Now, I don’t feel so alone in wondering how I could forget so much about the films that I’ve enjoyed!
I remember being fixated by Scarlett as Griet – mesmerized by her just as I’m drawn to that Vermeer painting! I much prefer it to the Mona Lisa! I wondered too after seeing it how much of it was based on fact and wondered what the true story behind the painting really is…
Thanks for your post Judy!
Ah, so it’s not just me, then.:) I should really write reviews right away, but don’t often get round to it.
I believe the story of Griet is completely fictional, but that the film fits the facts of Vermeer’s life as far as they are known.
Thanks for clarifying that Judy! I do like to know how much of it is close to the facts!
Thank you for remembering this film so well. I’ve only seen it the once and when it first came out. I’ve read the book, and for me the tone of the book is quite different from this movie because the book is so centered in Griet’s mind and sensibility. The movie takes into account a number of the characters. I remember thinking Firth was excellent (as usual), this time as a withdrawn man, so absorbed in his art. Not easy to do (as the suicidal Single Man was hard as it was undercut with comedy, self-deprecation). The parable did seem to emphasize how he got to spend his life in art while the women around him spent theirs in accommodating him (sexually) and caring for his physical comforts (rather like Mary Reilly where the staff is busy 23 hours a day for one man).
I like best the scenes on the water. I remember them best, beautiful portrait like paintings. The film-maker must’ve loved that — he was competing with Vermeer.
Ellen
Thank you for commenting, Ellen. I loved the scenes on the water too and agree with you that the film maker is competing with Vermeer.:) I don’t remember the book all that well but know I liked it and enjoyed its delicate descriptions – I didn’t remember the difference in focus, with the book concentrating more on Griet’s sensibility, but am sure you are right. I had the feeling nobody in the film was really happy – Vermeer is free compared to the women serving his needs, who have no lives of their own at all. He has his world of art to escape to, but he feels he isn’t free to concentrate on it and has to support the household financially, painting pictures he wouldn’t choose to paint – so he is trapped too, even if there is a bit more space in his trap.
Fabulous review! I agree with every word! Vermeers paintings have a kind of stillness, a quiietness and intimacy to them. Each frame of this film is like one of his paintings. The lighting is amazing – I was absolutely stunned by it. Johansson is breathtakingly beautiful and the relationship between Griet and Vermeer, is fascinating. Firth did say when interviewed about Pride and Prejudice that the hardest part of the acting was actually doing nothing (or words to that effect). He conveys so much with just a look. thanks for this review – I want to get it out and watch it again now! the book is good too!
Thank you very much – glad you love this film too. I like your description of Vermeer’s paintings. I did like the book too but the movie even more. Thanks for quoting that P&P interview, which is interesting – I think Firth is great at conveying emotions with just a look.
This film is one of my favorites, and I’ve watched it many times, each time seeing some little thing that I missed before. The cast is stellar, all around, and I thought Scarlett’s portrayal of Grete was superb. The costumes and sets are breathtaking – scene after scene looking as if it came out of a 17th century Dutch painting. We have no known picture of Vermeer himself, but if you look at his painting, “The Procuress”, the man to the left, looking at the viewer with a smile on his face, is believed by many to be Vermeer.
Thank you very much, Hans – I agree that each time you watch there are more things to spot. I’m very interested to hear that a figure in ‘The Procuress’ may be Vermeer and will definitely have a look at the painting. Sorry to be slow in replying, but I have only just got back from holiday.