Thursday 31 August 2017

Film: 'Final Portrait'

A rare event it is to see a film directed by Stanley Tucci, an actor I've long liked (he does 'camp' so well!). Sad that the result turned out to be this rather one-dimensional, over-prolonged tale which, despite its crisp 90 minutes' length, managed to outstay its welcome. 

It tells a story of Swiss artist Alberto Giacometti (Geoffrey Rush - almost unrecognisable with his rumpled, curly hair) in his final days attempting to complete a sitting portrait of James Lord (Armie Hammer), an American writer and art dilettante.
The screen caption tells us it's Paris 1964. As though that isn't sufficient to explain where we are we're serenaded by - guess what! - an accordian. (Good grief! Aren't we passed that cliche yet? Why not also have a moustachio-ed guy cycling along in a beret and horizontally-striped tee-shirt with a string of onions round his neck? - and with La Tour Eiffel in the background!)

Many of us will be familiar with pictures of Giacometti's sculptures of grotesquely(?) elongated figurines, perhaps less so with his paintings and portraits. 
He offers to paint a seated portrait of Lord, to which the latter is most pleased to sit for him, especially as he's told it won't take long at all, and he's due to return to New York imminently. One sitting expands to two, to three, several days.......more than two weeks. Lord is getting increasingly exasperated especially as he repeatedly has to keep re-booking his flight home - and he can hardly contain himself when, after well over a week of sittings, the artist in one of his fits of pique, paints over his work done so far and announces that he must start again. 

The dishevelled studio where the painting is done has an in-and-out traffic of a number of curious characters, some interesting, some irritating, but they just seemed to perform the function of padding out what would otherwise have been a slender story. If they were designed to hold the audience's attention, it only worked feebly.

The film is shot in very muted colours, which rather suits the artist's work - many of which were left in an uncompleted state as he was never satisfied with his 'accomplishments'.

Tucci himself, to his credit, never appears in front of the camera. The film was actually mostly shot in London for reasons of cost, though it did, for the most part, look convincingly like its Parisienne setting. (Was that supposed to be Pere LaChaise? I used to know that Paris cemetery pretty well because of my searching out the many notables buried there. The scenes in this film looked more like Highgate cemetery to me.) 

I believe that Stanley Tucci has wanted to make this film for some years, declaring his own passion for the artist's work.  It's disappointing that even though it's another brilliant performance from Rush, with a lacklustre script to fight against, any passion that Tucci does have doesn't readily show on screen................5.

6 comments:

  1. I went to see it last week and briefly mentioned it on 24 August.
    (I was in a strange mood that day because my partner of 34 years had just walked out on me). I enjoyed the film, and it was a little snapshot in time in two peoples lives. I like Giacometti and his work anyway and I generally like anything Parisian. I think it was different and that was why I liked it and it would not be for everybody
    And at times it was annoying me but on balance I am glad there are films like that, without a major drama or incident, just a bit of everyday life of, in this instance, a rather eccentric artist. Thanks for the review. I would rate it higher than a 5 in its particular slot in films.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pleased you even saw it, Rachel. I managed to get to one of only two individual screenings in Brighton, and despite that, it was only a modest-sized audience. I think its cinema release is being severely limited largely because the artist himself is hardly a household name.
      I'm glad you liked it so much. I'm not aware of any reviews that are much more than lukewarm. Maybe you've seen some.
      It was certainly 'different' - and that, coupled with your unfortunate situation on that day (for which, commiserations) maybe you needed something to perk you up, and this exactly fitted the bill. On the other hand, it may just have been that this really IS a good film. What do I know? ;-)

      Delete
    2. It is a good film in a stand-alone position but it would certainly not be everybody's cup of tea and I think it helps to know about Giacometti before seeing it. I had not read any reviews before I went, the subject was enough to attract me. The film has been on in Norwich everyday for nearly 2 weeks. On the afternoon I went the cinema was its usual empty.

      Delete
    3. I'm one of those who did know of the artist beforehand, Rachel - at my age it's hardly surprising - though knew next to nothing of his life.
      I never experience the same visceral 'punch' from the visual arts generally that I can get with much literature and music, so perhaps my not being able to appreciate Giacometti as much as, say, you do, I was at a disadvantage.
      But to play this film in a cinema every day for nearly a fortnight, God they deserve an award for sheer optimism!

      Delete
  2. I love Tucci, so I'm sad this didn't pass muster.
    And, well, do not get me started on the Armie Hammer charms.

    Still, when you said this:
    "Good grief! Aren't we passed that cliche yet? Why not also have a moustachio-ed guy cycling along in a beret and horizontally-striped tee-shirt with a string of onions round his neck? - and with La Tour Eiffel in the background!"
    It was everything!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was aware that Mr Hammer has quite a following, Bob, though he does little for me. Maybe it didn't help in this case, otherwise my verdict could have been different.

      As for your pulling out that extract - it was just my annoyance speaking, letting it all out with no holds barred! It just typifies directorial laziness and I don't take back one word.

      Delete