MovieChat Forums > Simon Schama's Power of Art (2006) Discussion > disappointing

disappointing

posted 17 years ago by granola357
11 replies | jump to latest

It's engrossing, but I wish there were more emphasis on the paintings themselves and less of this "real stories from the highway patrol"-style reenacting of the artists. It's cheesy and it adds very little to the presentation. We only end up seeing a couple of paintings because there's so much filler material. Why not just concentrate on the artwork? Sister Wendy's presentation was a lot more satisfying.

Schama, by the way, should stick to art history. His book on the French Revolution is absolutely terrible, and was totally panned by most experts of the subject.

[–] jaloysiusm-1 16 years ago

I have to agree with the problem of the reenactments. Not helpful. Although I enjoyed most of Schama's own commentary.

I thought Citizens was well received, at least among book critics. I don't really know about academic circles. It's enjoyed a long life in print for a work of history, at any rate.

[–] tsrts 15 years ago

I thought the opposite.
The reenactments were very well done and interesting to the whole story of the artists. The acting was surprisingly good for a documentary.
I thought they did spotlight the artist's works enough in the series.
These DVDs made art history entertaining.

[–] imwithid 15 years ago

I couldn't agree more tsrts.

[–] Wesz808 15 years ago

I have to agree with tsrts as well.

Although I can relate a bit to the topic starter as well. Wat I found dissappointing was the still shots of clouds, fields and cities which supposed to have a resemblance to the painting discussed. Well... all is fine but I don't the point to actually spend more time on those shots then on the paintings.

But I do like the fact that Schama actually put the work of art in a social context. If studied most of the works discussed quite well in the past. And I know a bit of the life-stories of the artists. But the combination and the way it is presented I find refreshing.

(sorry for the horrible english)

[–] ncbookworm 15 years ago

I agree that it made art history entertaining, this series is one of the reasons I took art survey my first semester in college!

You must be the change you wish to see in the world." Mahatma Gandhi

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] soupisgoodfood 14 years ago

That's the thing for me. It's supposed to be a documentary, isn't it? Not an artistic interpretation of someone. I don't care how good the acting is for a documentary -- if there is no evidence that the person behaved in that way, I don't care to see it. Perhaps if the acting was half-way decent, I might be able to get past it. I guess I just don't like too much artistic license mixed in when I watch an art history doco. If I want entertainment, I'll watch a movie.

[–] youresomodest 15 years ago

I rented this because Rothko was the first artist who ever got a physical reaction from me (at the Rothko Chapel). After that, I have read books and watched movies, and become quite obsessed.

I was excited to see this series and so I went straight to the Rothko program first. I was horrified to see black and white dramatizations of "Rothko" reciting quotations. How lame and distracting. It did not enhance my experience but rather it made me nervous to watch others in the series.

Also, I think the Chapel is more important than the Seagrams murals but I guess the rejection of that commission is more dramatic in the art > money picture.

[–] Bridgchick01 15 years ago

I think Simon picked the Seegrams murals because of his personal connection to them. Which is the crux of Rothko's work: how it touches you personally.

I also saw it as kind of a "*beep* you!" to all of Simon's critics, who think he editorializes his histories too much and pockets exorbitant fees from the BBC in the process. I could almost hear him saying, "What, a little too much of my take on things for your liking? Well here, watch me interact with the painting TWICE." The parallels he drew between himself and Rothko were subtle and powerful. Like the sequence of him cooking the chicken. In telling Rothko's story, he was telling his own, and it took the context of the Seegram murals to do that.

“The dove pursues the griffin, the mild hind
Makes speed to catch the tiger!”
--Billy Shakespeare

[–] markscosmiclight 14 years ago

"Disappointing" is only for the disappointed and the non-artist . . .

Are you an artist? As we are all born artists. Something to think about . . .

-Mark Seibold, Retired Artist-Astronomy Professor, Portland Oregon
(Google Mark Seibold)

Where money [or wealth] is desired, artistic vision is lost. -M 2009

Words and language are merely limited to definitions; where in visual art, a single artists brushstroke could provide for and change the world. -M 2009

[–] tinkerchel 11 years ago

I can't agree more with the OP. The reenactments are extremely distracting, especially in the Caravaggio episode. At least 2/3 of that one is over-the-top acting(and how about when an Italian guy talks in a cockney accent??). I really wish it'd focus on the artworks themselves more.

P.S. I might be alone in this, but I found the host extremely condescending to the viewers, and sometimes unnecessarily sarcastic. When it comes to history I'd much prefer an objective view.