Favorite Films: About Art & Artists

La Belle Noiseuse is often cited as the greatest film about art ever made.

There have been many attempts by the film industry to make movies about artists and their art. Many of them are boring or preaching. Most lack the impact and inspirational power of the craft or the artists profiled. Almost all but a few have failed. Case in point, Jacques Rivette’s exceptionally slow but much revered film La Belle Noiseuse — about a painter’s relationship with his model — fails to inspire anyone who’s at least somewhat familiar with the process of making art. Even the recent Loving Vincent, which was meticulously rendered in the style of Van Gogh’s paintings, isn’t able to hold one’s attention for long. But here is a selection of films about art that I think do excite and inspire us as creatives.

Pollock (Directed by Ed Harris)

I love Ed Harris’ portrayal of iconic modernist painter Jackson Pollock. The film has a great energy to it. Buoyed by Jeff Beal’s inspirational score, Harris’ Pollock (the director himself plays the title character) feels completely believable. We witness the rebel-like attitude of the action painter pioneer as he battles through his desires and fears, including both his envy of other artists (note his disparaging remarks about Picasso and his slight jab at friend and fellow contemporary Willem deKooning) as well as his existential dread (he’s fully aware how fleeting success is and how luck has such a large part to play as he openly acknowledges that he’d be nothing if not for wife and painter Lee Krasner who was his biggest supporter and promotor.) The film travels through the most inventive years of Pollock’s life — his meeting Krasner, his introduction to and relationship with critical figures such as millionaire collector Peggy Guggenheim and influential art critic Klem Greenberg, his shocking car accident that would end his life at only 44 years of age. Whenever I watch Pollock I feel the urge to paint. It isn’t a film that glorifies the painter but it moves you which is what art is supposed to do.

Shine (Directed by Scott Hicks)

Scott Hicks’ 1996 film Shine is a story about redemption. Based on the true life story of pianist David Helfgott, it follows the life of a child prodigy whose upbringing and circumstances lead to a gradual psychological breakdown and eventual seclusion inside a mental institution. Less a film about music itself, it nonetheless captures the deep psychological challenges each artist faces in living up to his talent and destiny. In David’s case, we witness a young shy boy who’s tormented by the strict parenting of his obsessive and even abusive father played with piercing intensity by Armin Miller. Growing up to become an artist is always scary despite even obvious talents. In Hicks’ film, we witness the harshness of that reality both for the artist and his family, which is poverty stricken and desolate. When David finally makes it to the Royal Academy of Music, much to the dismay of his father who cruelly disowns him, he suffers a terrible and dramatic mental breakdown. What follows is what happens to David after he’s already spent much time institutionalized. The much older David (played by Geoffrey Rush) is brought out of the clinic due to the kind generosity of a nurse/caretaker who takes him in, exposing David again to the outside world. It is there happenstance gives rise to David’s second chance at growing up. Of course, he can’t fully do so but nonetheless arrives at a place of joy and maturity to rediscover and reclaim his excellence in his craft. Shine is wholly inspiring — it moves the heart and gives hope to all of us who might have experienced a less-than-ideal upbringing that redemption is possible. The music, of course, is wonderful and made me a lover of Rachmaninov’s powerful compositions. Geoffrey Rush’s wonderfully accurate and transformative depiction of the real David Helfgott is amazing and is most deserving of the Oscar for Best Actor.

Midnight In Paris (Directed by Woody Allen)

I love this film. I think it’s one of Allen’s most charming and creative. More about art’s influence rather than about an artist’s work, Midnight in Paris stars Owen Wilson as a Hollywood screenwriter who’s on a trip with his wife Inez (Rachel McAdams) and her family. Wilson’s character, Gil Pender, is rather unspectacular. Married to a picture-perfect wife with money to spare and a secure if not inspiring career, he’s lost. He wants to be a real writer but no one seems to care or want him to deviate from his “stable” life. In Paris, he begins to discover himself. And it all begins on a solo midnight stroll where he happens upon a vehicular carriage that takes him back in time — a time of the Golden Age of French creative and social life, the 1920’s. There he meets the heroes of his dreams — Ernest Hemmingway, F. Scott and Zelda Fitzgerald, Gertrude Stein and even artists like Picasso and Salvador Dali. He even finds himself falling in love with the beautiful Adrianna (Marion Cottilard). Unfortunately his magical road trip occurs only at midnight and ends with him back in the present time (2010) where life is back to the banal. Back in modern reality Gil is trapped — accosted by his wife (who believes Gil has lost his mind) and put down by her parents and mocked by Paul, a pedantic critic whom his wife Inez is absolutely infatuated with. Midnight in Paris is, in its totality, funny, original and magical. Wilson is terrific in his role and at the end, it seems we do learn something; it’s easy to think that the past was better than the present but like Gil says at the end to Adriana after having arrived at another time-transported age: “we’re always gonna think there was another Golden Age better than the one you’re in… you see what I’m saying? These people didn’t have antibiotics!”

Dreams (Directed by Akira Kurosawa)

Dreams is not a film particularly about art or artists — although one of its stories does feature the painter Vincent Van Gogh (aptly portrayed by legendary director Martin Scorcese) — but about the visions artists have. It’s a strange and almost disjointed movie, composed of eight vignettes, each one a dish that illuminates the imagination. Apparently based on actual dreams the director had himself, they come across as mythic — one about a soldier’s terror from the past, another about a boy’s visit with Shinto-like Fox gods, and even an apocalyptic vision about a nuclear meltdown. Each story in Dreams is magical and gorgeous to look at it while carrying with it a harrowing sense of both existential wonder and terror. The film feels like a series of living illustrations that moves through the seasons of nature and that of our hearts and minds, allowing us as viewers to both witness and participate in — it feels less like a viewing and more like an experience. Kurosawa doesn’t use any of his familiar actors here, so in that sense the film is lacking in character performance. Fortunately, that’s more than made up for in its stunning compositions and powerful mood, representing again the true power of the film.

8 1/2 (Directed by Federico Fellini)

Federico Fellini’s glorious epic 8 1/2 can be both hypnotic, dizzying and confusing. Beautifully shot in black in white, it captures the dream-like atmosphere that often exists in the mind of the artist. In this case, the artist is film director Guido Anselmi (played by Marcello Mastroianni) which makes this film somewhat autobiographical in many ways, as Fellini, a successful pioneering director himself, was arriving at his own creative crossroads. It’s a film filled with rich imagery intertwined with issues and themes about ego, sexual desire, ambition, and existential plight. When watching 8 1/2 one has to be immensely patient; there often seems no logic at times, as characters shift in and out of scenes leaving the viewer’s grasp on what’s real versus what’s imagined uncertain thus echoing the protagonist’s own dilemma. And that’s the beauty of the movie. The characters seem to be buoyed by their own fantasies and it even looks that way, as the pioneering cinematography makes the characters seem to float and dance on the sets rather than walk in them. The opening scene (where Guido escapes from his vehicular gridlock and literally floats into the sky) foreshadows what we’re about to experience but we don’t realize the depths and psychological impact of it until the last scene; once we arrive there we begin to understand that life is beautiful and that it’s meant to be celebrated no matter how little sense any of it actually makes.

To see more Favorite Films go here.

Art, Craft & Technology

“If the technical innovation of the impressionists led merely to a more accurate representation of nature, it was perhaps of not much value in enlarging their powers of expression.” — Edward Hopper, Artist

These wonderful preliminary sketches were key to Edward Hopper’s most famous paintings.

As cited before, I love technology. It can and has been a miracle. Adventures in science have led to great advances in medicine, construction, transport and communication whenever and where ever it has been allowed to flourish. It has also allowed for tremendous developments in expression, offering new tools and techniques for artists to explore and create.

“The medium is the message … We shape our tools and thereafter our tools shape us.” — Marshall McLuhan, Philosopher

However, it’s always tempting to allow our focus on technology — the medium — to override the reason for its existence (which is to make things and life better). In art forms such as animation or architecture the development of CGI is beginning to do just that. Already we’re hearing strong encouragement for using ready-made tools, imagery and photographic reference. We’re more and more obsessed with duplicating what we think is real or natural. The focus has shifted from learning from and expressing thru the craft to making the craft work faster to get results. We’re hearing that drawing is no longer needed or important. Artists now spend more and more time secluded to the limited visual scope of a computer screen. We’re also witnessing work that is commonly just a digital copy or repetition of what has come before. Vision — the birthing of something new and exciting — is often missing, as computer artists manipulate, alter and tweak pre-existing ideas, images and performances. What’s gone wrong?

Controversial work by Thiery Guetta aka Mr. Brainwash, an artist birthed and made famous by the Banksy documentary Exit to the Gift Shop.

This can not be blamed on the computer or technology. The sole responsibility lies with the artist. If he refuses to take the care to research, explore and discover the true and new, then by default, he will not arrive at anything original or exciting. The analog process — seeing, hearing, touching and doing — enables a deep learning process that’s not easily explained or even understood. It’s not intellectual but rather experiential and even ethereal. It’s akin to going to a real library versus researching online or drawing/painting from life versus copying from photos. It’s sitting and absorbing in awe the wonder of a sunset versus merely taking a selfie in front of one. We live and learn by doing and feeling in real environments. Attentively working with pencils, paints and other tactile tools engages our entire being and help us absorb the experience as well as the intricate intelligence tied to the experience.

My old colleague and master character sculptor Andrea Blasich talking here about his work on Tonko House’s Dam Keeper.

Digital technologies such as computers often bypass that process including the process of learning the skills of the craft and the very perception of it. Sometimes even the joy of creating is eliminated when we work so “mechanically.” But the biggest problem perhaps is when the CG artist becomes negligent of the one big illusive truth of his craft; he forgets that it’s not real. He loses site of the reality that that CG puppet we call a rig doesn’t really exist; he cannot touch, smell or see it in actuality. So by default, he is not cognizant of the fact that that it’s just a bunch of digits in a computer and that, at the end of the day when it’s all rendered onto film, it’s the choices he’s made regarding his use of shapes, lines, colours, movement and placement (composition and choreography) that matter. What’s actually being seen and created with those elements is what makes the art ‘work’ and make the work ‘art’.

What do we really mean here? In plain talk, what I’m saying is that when we’re given a CG puppet to work with, we assume it already has weight, volume, and depth because our eyes and brain deceive us. And it’s that assumption-deception that makes the animator sloppy and inattentive with regards to those issues. The classical, hand-drawn animator is much more aware. He KNOWS that all he is making — and hence has any control over — are shapes, lines and movement. So he both develops and uses his knowledge and skill with those basic elements to create weight, volume, depth and, with thoughtfulness and some good fortune, an emotionally convincing performance. The same applies to the astute stop-motion animator who, despite his handling of actual 3 dimensional objects, is always aware that he must manipulate it VISUALLY (by changing its shape or replacing various parts) in order for his animation to be both physically and psychologically believable. When the film is rendered and processed, the end product again, is just shapes, line, colour and movement. After all, those are the tools of our craft.

A selection of the many “heads” of Jack Skellington used for the character animation in the stop-motion picture masterpiece Nightmare Before Christmas.

The other major problem common among digital artists is the tendency to “flavour” the work after it’s been mostly done. What do we mean here? Simply this: he copies his reference dutifully, then afterwards he “tweaks” it or “touches it up.” In his delusion, he thinks that by doing this he can make the work more appealing, or worse, actually believe he can now correct for any lack of weight, depth or volume. Unfortunately (or fortunately) this kind of work process often yields work that is both mechanically unsound and devoid of any charm or beauty. The reason for this failure is that art principles that help us to create mechanically sound and visually harmonious animation are not being adhered to during the process. Creative principles must be held in mind while we create not after. We can’t just copy reference and apply creative concepts afterwards. Creating and copying are not the same. Furthermore, the personal element is also bypassed when we work so mechanically. When we copy, our minds go dull; the focus is only following and duplicating. When we create, we filter information through our minds and our senses. It tests our vision. It tests our skill. This is why drawing is so powerful. The artist needs to make a choice when he draws (hence the effectiveness of planning and thumbnail sketches). He must bring the same mindset when he works digitally.

Model sheet of Mickey Mouse. How is it that these Freddy Moore sketches still have more charm and appeal than almost anything done today in our so called massively “advanced” CG animation?

The power and usefulness of drawing is terribly underestimated today. Not only does drawing force us to think, it makes apparent, in the most simple fashion, what we really understand about our art or don’t. When recently asked about what was wrong with 3D animators today, master animator Eric Goldberg replied: posing. In other words, today’s computer animators aren’t showing that they understand the most fundamental principles of artistic design. And this isn’t just happening in animation or architecture where digital technologies have dominated the production process (and even close to replacing all work done by hand), the same has been happening to painting. The late modernist Ellesworth Kelly was asked a few years ago if he liked any new painters. He sadly responded “artists today can’t draw and they don’t know colour.” Although I’m sure he was half-joking and not meaning all modern artists when he said what he said, it’s still a monumental statement about how the craftsmanship of being an artist is no longer being taken seriously. The most famous and best selling modern artists today don’t even sketch, plan or lay as much as a finger on their “art.” Instead, they only dictate to a crew of dozens or even hundreds of lowly paid artisans to create and do the work.

Ellesworth Kelly’s 1957 “Scultpure for a Large Wall.”

In summary, this essay was not written as a criticism of our current industry nor is it a denial of technology. Rather, it’s a call for artists to pay attention to what’s happening. We must know that our technical tool is powerful and influential in ways that we tend to forget; namely, that its convenience and power, which is so alluring, can make us forget about the artistic principles of our craft. I read somewhere — I don’t remember who said it — but when we understand how easily our brains are fooled we are nudged towards a bit more intellectual humility and empathy. I feel that it is this very humility and empathy that enables us to learn.