When I learned that a film about the painter Gerhard Richter was released, and it was made by Florian Henkel von Donnersmarck, the director of "The Storm", I was looking forward to it. Sadly, a movie that was over-expected.
It is said that the character prototype Gerhard Richter was very dissatisfied with the film. I don't know if he thought the physical scenes were too much and stupid, or that the imitation props were too low-level, especially the clumsy imitation. Nude girl going down the stairs. I prefer to believe it is because the movie completely distorted his life, his art.
Richter was my favorite artist and still is. Chinese painters who grew up at the end of the last century and the beginning of this century must love and hate him, because too many people have learned from him and copied him, but they have avoided mentioning him directly, because there was a time when they were said, "This Isn't it a Richter?" has become a standard swear word, calling you incompetent, incompetent, and ignorant. Whether or not Richter's true value should be an example of the human nature of East and West Germany, the Nazis, and even post-war society varies from person to person. But from my point of view, I think the ponderable value of his life course is far greater than these historical issues that seem to be quite big and deep. Many times, a person's real mental journey is far more important than the background behind him.
There are two laughable places in the film, one is the portrayal of the character Joseph Beuys (the professor with the round-brimmed hat), and the other is the iconic blurred photo of the gynecologist seeing her son-in-law Richter Frightened performance when sweeping the style. First of all, Beuys is not a funny and slightly warm image. He is the war warehouse and godfather of post-war Germany and even European art. He is very tough and extremely ethereal. A large number of video records can show what kind of master he is. , When someone who has studied him a little bit sees such a fake Boyce appearing, the sense of laughter is tingling. Second, as far as I can tell, the script exaggerates Beuys's relationship with Richter, which is unnecessary for a film based on the artist's real experience, especially a living artist. Again, if Richter's paintings are astonishingly presented in a so-called "authentic" and nostalgic way, then it means that the director did not take the time to really understand Richter's art and this person, or It's just that because of the attributes of popular art, Richter's characteristics are deliberately simplified and grounded and "grabbed", then I think it's even more boring. Anyone who has a little knowledge of contemporary art knows that Richter's motivation for dealing with photo paintings stems from Duchamp's "ready-made" art, Beuys Nam June Paik's crazy Fluxus and American Pop Art. The key words in this book are not about love, hatred, hatred for the country, hatred for the nation, perishing, human nature and kindness, but non-art, selective, meaningless, pure sensory, and personalized imagery. This creative intention is full of interest in photography, painting, art The multi-dimensional thinking of art and non-art, meaning and meaninglessness, tradition and consumer society is accompanied by strong playfulness and provocation. "This is the most 'unartistic' step I can take," Richter said in 1978: "I want to create paintings that have nothing to do with 'art,' so I paint photographs." This depth, immediacy, and provocation The essence of sex is not addressed and developed in the film at all, and even the opposite is intended. In fact, the film finally treats Richter as the image he least wants to be, a realist artist with a tendency to praise positive energy, similar to Soviet Russia or my country, which is almost the most unacceptable. Deal, although Richter's paintings have been exhibited in the National Art Museum of China, he is not such a character at all. If you pick out an original quote from Richter in the 1960s and compare it with the sentimental temperament of the film, you will find that the film is very embarrassing - in the 1960s, Richter found that the first batches he encountered were rooted in "copying" of American Pop Art, he mentioned that in this day and age, his joy was: "To discover a stupid and absurd thing, such as copying a Take postcards for painting and then paint freely in whatever way you feel happy, stags, planes, kings, secretaries. There is no need to innovate in vain and forget about any intentions of your painting. In a 1972 interview he mentioned: "I don't trust pictures of reality...I have not made reality clearer than my relationship with reality, I have dealt with images indistinct, uncertain, and fleeting." , unfinished, or other similar characterization, doing so with an ambitious goal. The researcher Huberts Butin continues: "Richter's photographic reflection of artificial nature through a variety of pictorial mediums calls into question all visual representations and claims of truth. The renowned Richter expert Dittma Rubel wrote more directly: "With Richter, nothing should seem obvious, neither propaganda nor sentimental, not even in any way of humor. can be pursued. "
Presumably that's where Richter's dislike and anger at his biopic stem from—a downright ironic embarrassment.
Immediately, the profound German romantic tradition, the sublime and complex spirit of German contemporary art, and the reflexivity and provocation of postmodern art were crushed flat by the film. At the same time, there is no mention of the pure abstract works that are completely stripped of the theme throughout Richter's creation, which essentially obliterates his own artistic qualities as rich and varied as Picasso. Do you have a feeling when watching the movie that this is just a one-dimensional little painter who is bitter and hated, like a devout believer?
I don't know why, the skilled Donnersmark has become a ... guide ... eye who is keen to write the pioneer gangster into a soulful nostalgic little fresh.
A movie, a narrative movie, a movie based on a real person, if the understanding of the character archetype is inaccurate and unrealistic, or even put contradictory genes in the "portrait", I think it is the next one. .
This raises a question about filmmaking - to what extent can a story's dramatic conflict, distorted character and event properties be exaggerated for the sake of viewing, entertaining, and interpretability?
It is extremely difficult to make a painter’s film. I have said this several times before, because this group of people is too special, too specific, and too academic. If it is not done well, it will become vulgar, one-sided, and hypocritical. However, these are exactly what “artists” are. The most inappropriate expression of this group. Check out the best painter movies, Maurice Piara's Van Gogh, Mike Lee's Mr. Turner, Ed Harris' Pollock, Jarman's Carava Joe" and Peter Watkin's "Edward Munch", their valuable value and extraordinary height lies in the author's complete understanding of the "artist" group, at the same time, without being vulgar and subservient, and faithfully depicting a true plump person .
There is a good point in the film, that is, the study of "I" is mentioned, which points out the key and interesting core of modern art and contemporary art. But this time, it can really be said that the research is careless, ambitious, delicate, and extremely subjective, which is too disappointing. The director is my favorite director, how solid is the delicate and moving "Eavesdropping Storm" - or is the topic and protagonist set completely wrong this time?
View more about Never Look Away reviews
