Contentar
Best movie of this year hands down!
CommentsXp
Best movie ever!
Teddie Blake
The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.
Gareth Crook
For a 3 hour documentary about the National Gallery, this is oddly compelling. I'm really not sure how this got on my watch list, but I'm glad it did. I first visited the National Gallery in my mid-teens. It felt stuffy and I got bored quickly. The art didn't grab me the way things did at The Tate, but I can still recall the feeling of looking at some of those masters and although not thinking 'that looks ace', it was impressive. It's nice to see here that there's voices running the gallery that want to open the gallery to appeal more to the public. This of course being 'proper art' that everyone can think 'well that's good, I can't paint like that', as apposed to the opposite reaction levied at modern art. Not everyone wants that though, there's still the undercurrent of an elitist element present which is frustrating. Some of the nicest stuff in this is the viewers stood looking at the paintings, you experiencing their fascination through their fixation. Especially the packed crowds for the Da Vinci exhibition. The hushed walla through the rooms, people gawking and picking apart the paintings as people have done for hundreds of years. There's some really cool stuff, artwork transferred into almost Braille like pieces for the blind to enjoy, absolutely fabulous! As is the tour guide down on floor with a group of really young kids, telling them about the paintings around them, bustling with energy and enthusiasm. Not least this works simply for the explanation of the exhibits. The stories behind them bringing them to life. The restoration stuff is mind boggling too and sadly isn't covered enough, it's also ironically very much all surface with little explanation to the process... although the X-ray stuff on a Rembrandt is cool and the stuff that's not explained is still very relaxing to watch. Instead there's some behind the scenes stuff which is exceptionally dry. Unedited meetings about how they deal with the London Marathon finishing on their doorstep and how they deal with charitable requests. It's stuff like this that pushes the duration to the 3 hour mark and it's far from entertaining, but it seems the choice has been made to put it all out there for the viewer to muse over... much like the art on the walls. There's some delightful bits though, the art historian filming a piece to camera talking about a Turner, the lighting experts talking about compositions dictated by natural light before we had electricity and the bloke struggling to talk about carving ebony picture frames that reminded Anne* of Porky Pig. Depressingly in another meeting there's talk of budgets, caps on spending, staff reductions and palpable concern over what the future may bring. The figures mentioned are pretty epic, but then as art institutions go, this one is epic. It's been a while. I think I need to go back and visit again.
Martin Bradley
As observational documentaries go, Frederick Wiseman's "National Gallery" is pretty close to sublime. In typical Wiseman style there's no voice-over and no score; he simply places his cameras and his microphones inside the buildings and lets us see the paintings and hear the words spoken by the staff, at meetings or in discussing the art with the public. It lasts for three hours and if you love great art you just might have an orgasm watching the flow of masterpieces lovingly framed and spoken about. However, if art isn't quite your bag this might be the most boring film ever made.At least Wiseman doesn't do it all in one continuous take, the way Sokurov did with "Russian Ark" whose roving camera induced in me a feeling of seasickness. Wiseman plumps for detail and how. The art is, of course, extraordinary but so too are the faces of the punters who come to stare. The screen itself becomes a canvas in which Wiseman's camera paints the faces of these onlookers and it is beautiful to behold. What's less beautiful are the commentaries of the gallery's guides as they try to 'explain' the paintings to the various tour guides. Love it or loathe it, it isn't like any other film about 'art' that you are likely to see which is some sort of achievement in itself.
pdxjasmine
This film is composed of snippets of life inside the National Gallery. There is no narrator or text to provide an overall chronology or identification of who's who and what's what. I found this to be a little distracting. I kept wanting to know more about the people and activities being presented. Who was that man speaking at the meeting? What was that substance the conservator was using? I would loose focus on the next scene while thinking about those questions. Overall the film was very interesting but not very informative. I like documentaries to be both. And I think documentaries are most successful when they are both.
slowcloud
For those who enjoy the experience of visiting art museums, National Gallery' is a must-see. The brilliant objectivist documentarian Frederick Wiseman captures the iconic British museum from every side imaginable. Over the course of three hours, he offers a grand glimpse of the museum's collection and temporary exhibits as others look or discuss them, from art historians to tour guides. Fixed history and interpretation are celebrated in both Wiseman's camera and the loosely strung scenes of people in the exhibition halls. The movie cuts to various perspectives of the museum, from details of paintings to entire galleries, as people gaze at works. But Wiseman also captures the people operating the museums during PR and budget meetings and, most intriguingly, at work restoring paintings. No one looks at the camera to explain their work and Wiseman never even uses superimposed title cards, yet you will come away enlightened.
