Peter Greenaway, a film director, is the narrator of this film. Many films he has made are focused on Renaissance and Baroque painting. Some of the traits of his films include scenic composition and illumination, which are prevalent in this film. His story is believable because he is a notable art filmmaker and attended an art college. It is very clear he knows what he is talking about because he was educated on the subject in school. Also, one of Greenaway’s focuses is Baroque painting, a category that Rembrandt falls under.
I think Greenaway chose to discuss one painting for the film because there is so much to this single painting. There were so many mysteries presented that it could be a film. It was effective, but it gets a little boring at parts because you keep looking at the same thing over and over. People who are very interested in art and spend a lot of time looking at paintings may find this more effective than me.
The storyteller probably chose to use dramatic lighting and reenactments to help tell his stories because it was supposed to seem dramatic and mysterious. Greenaway also did a lot of talking himself and did things like highlighted parts of the painting as he talked about them. His most effective strategy was the reenactment because it brought each mystery to life.
Question: Which of the mysteries do you think seems most believable/true?
No comments:
Post a Comment