By Chlotrudis Independent Film Society
Rating: 3 cats
Director: Peter Webber
Country: luxembourg, united_kingdom
Year: 2004
Running time: 95
IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0335119/combined
Hilary says: “The film is adapted from the novel by Tracy Chevalier, which creates a backstory for the Vermeer painting, ‘Girl With a Pearl Earring.’ As with most book-to-film adaptation, the timeline is condensed and little of the heroine’s, Griet (Scarlett Johanssen), history is included. The film opens with teenaged Griet in 1665’s Delft, Holland being sent to serve as a maid in the home of master painter Johannes Vermeer (Colin Firth). Vermeer’s wife (Essie Davis) is insecure, often pregnant, and constantly suspicious. The household’s real authority comes from Vermeer’s mother-in-law, Maria Thins (Judy Parfitt). Maria is always looking for patron Van Ruijven (Tom Wilkinson) to bring money to the over-growing Vermeer household. Van Ruijven is indeed rich, but obnoxious and oily, seeking out young women such as Griet to take advantage of.
“This must be a record: it’s only January and I already have a nominee for next year’s Chlotrudis Awards: cinematographer Eduardo Serra (WIDOW OF ST. PIERRE, WINGS OF THE DOVE). He employs a Vermeer-like sense of light, creating spots of lovely glow even in the darkest corners of the city. Interiors resemble still-life paintings: burning candles, bright blue & white Delft tiles, luxurious fabrics, large sides of bloody meat, even exotic birds, juxtaposing them against the dark wood of the dimly lit buildings. The film was shot in Luxembourg, which presumably bears a strong resemblance to 17th-century Holland.
“Although GIRL is beautiful to look at but works too hard at trying to be sensual without being erotic. This causes it to bog down in some frankly silly, overwrought moments. Firth is little more than a penetrating stare and scowl beneath a silly wig (several reviews have mentioned Pearl Jam’s Eddie Vedder). It was difficult for me to accept him as Vermeer, as I’ve gotten accustomed to his Mr. Darcy/Mark Darcy roles and he does so little in this film. Johanssen peeks out beneath a succession of head coverings, and too much time is spent establishing a fetish around her hidden hair, as well as her visible eyes and mouth. Vermeer’s seduction of Griet is heavy-handed so I’ll spare any descriptions of the paint grinding and ear piercing; they’re just too easy to comment on.
“Wilkinson nauseates and Davis works at the notion of hysteria a bit too hard, but Parfitt is a real standout. At times I found myself rooting for her in spite of myself as she schemed beneath her severe little black cap, attempting to rule the lives of all the people who came into contact with her.”
Bob G. says: “Peter Webber’s GIRL WITH A PEARL EARRING makes no attempt to hide that it’s as much about creating the mood and period of 1665, as it is about telling the story at the heart of Tracy Chavalier’s novel upon which it’s based. While it retains some well-known plot devices, at least it does so with subtlely. The film is *so* subtle in it’s presentation of the romantic and social struggles within Johannes Vermeer’s (Colin Firth) home that it sometimes threatens to evaporate into ether…. however gloriously that ether is photographed.
“Scarlett Johansson, as Vermeer’s maid/muse, owns this movie. Each time she is onscreen you have to remind yourself that there are other players around her, including the commanding Judy Parfitt, the sulky Colin Firth, and the great Tom Wilkinson, who appears to be having a grand old time with a role that is unapologetically ham-fisted in it’s construction (all the better, he’s the movie’s comic relief).
“But the movie belongs to miss Scarlet. Her very presence makes this film worth seeing. It’s that good.”
Michael says: “Hilary hit it pretty much on the head, in my opinion. I have a theory about those little best-selling novels inspired by art and literature. (We recently saw the film adaptation of BALZAC AND THE LITTLE CHINESE SEAMSTRESS as well.) Their stories are pretty trite.
“I was fairly interested in the film for the first third or so, but it quickly devolved into cliche. As Hilary mentioned, Serra’s cinematography is outstanding, and his name is already penned in my film journal for next year. I also loved his work in WIDOW OF ST. PIERRE. I was dazzled with a lush outdoor scene, saturated with golden sunlight as Greet and her young swain walked through the countryside. And the vivid colors of the paints were startling.
“Also like Hilary, I thought Parfitt was a standout here. I always love her work, and her black-clad dominatrix was chilling and fun at the same time. I thought Scarlett transitioned to period piece quite well, given the slightness of the script. Her body language, and sparse dialogue worked well, and I don’t think she has anything to be ashamed of in this performance, although unlike some critics, her work in LOST IN TRANSLATION was far more compelling.
“3 cats (largely for the visuals and the enjoyably watchable cast).”
Janet says: “Overstated, oversimplified, overscored, and overacted. The visuals are nice—lighting is great and the details seem meticulously researched—but the script is really bad. Griet’s point of view from the book is lost in this screenplay; the proud, sensible, tart-tongued maid is turned into a largely passive object (the movie’s tag line is ‘Beauty inspires obsession’) having very few lines, leaving agile Gertrudis winner Scarlett Johannson with little to do but stare, blink, and stutter. Yet powerful members of the household in which she works confide in her endlessly—because they need the audience to have certain information, get it? It’s too bad, because a number of Griet’s lines in the book would be memorable onscreen, especially the final line in the book. Colin Firth provides some tasty sexual tension, but many of the other roles are overacted, Vermeer’s wife (Essie Davis?) being the worst. Griet’s family situation is given short shrift as well. No nominations for this from me next year.”