Did anyone else feel disappointed that we didn't get to see the painting? The countess made a big deal about taking Alma and Johan to her room in the castle to see it, and we see them look at it, but the camera won't show it to us. I don't understand why, in a film about an artist, we don't see the art.
shareExcellent point...
I realize this film isn't for everyone... Including me.
I really didn't care for this film at all...
I mean sure it had some cool imagery, the acting was well done... You can tell the director knew what he was doing... But the film as a whole didn't do a thing for me. I wasn't depressed, frightened, happy, sad... This film was totally and utterly forgettable.
Now I know there will be some Bergman fans that will probably call me names and say something to the effect I should stick to "Transformers" movies or some such nonsense.
I can appreciate foreign movies, art-house films... I've seen many and I've enjoyed many.
This film (for me) just fell flat.
I will also say that this film was in the book 101 Horror Movies You Must See Before You Die.
I could have gone through two lifetimes and not ever seen this film. It's not a great movie at all... Let alone a great horror movie.
Trust me,
Swan
My, you're nosey, aren't you?
Some things are easier to leave up to the audiences imagination. The fact that the countess was hyping it up so much means that they would have to commission a pretty solid painting to live up to what the audience would be imagining.
shareThe idea is too see the painting through the expression of those looking at it. The work of an artist comes from the soul and affects souls so the idea is too see this effect. The actual painting doesn't matter so much. In a way Bergman was showing his art and the actors' art by means of their expressions.
This is not a signature!