MovieChat Forums > Desperate Romantics (2009) Discussion > For the whiners on this board, who wante...

For the whiners on this board, who wanted a documentary, and don't ...


... read books

http://www.bbc.co.uk/desperateromantics/paintings/

For those of you enjoying the "inventive spirit" of this series
I suggest you do not listen to the commentary on the painting "Beata Beatrix".
If like me, you are not aware of what happens to the characters,
the commentary gives too much away.
The painting will feature in episode 6.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

:)
I really enjoy this series, it's fun and a bit silly with some sex, which is very welcome on a tuesday night :) I don't take it too seriously, which is why I'm able to get pleasure from it.

If I wanted to ACTUALLY know about the brotherhood, I would (and have) read books about them, or look up documentaries, or actually go and see the paintings! As an Art History student, I am a little bit upset about how little they focus on their acual art and its influence, but it was clear from the first episode they were more interested in presenting their lifestyles/lovelives, which I'm fine with.

Just shut up and enjoy it! It's only a laugh!


reply

"Artists always were and always will be rude arrogant drunken bohemians."

Thank you for getting that! I myself am quite loaded, and it's barely half noon on a Sunday.

I will readily admit I don't know much about the Brotherhood or their work. As movements go, I'm more drawn to the surrealists. But I am enjoying this series immensely, primarily due to the similarities I can see within my own corner of the artistic community, especially those of us who try desperately to balance our traditional moral values with our inherent iconoclastic natures. I am thinking of recommending it to my friends, colleagues, and former professors for exactly that reason, regardless of its arguable historicity, which is already excused in the disclaimer at the beginning of each and every episode.

Perhaps the series is an "inside joke"? Those of us who live the life will laugh knowingly, whilst the critics stand outside and shake their heads at our childish behaviour?

As far as how well it's written, directed, and acted, well, that's down to opinion, which can only ever be your own.

reply

[deleted]

I think many of you are missing the point - the PRB story needed no embellishment, it is quite remarkable enough without. I am an artist, married to an artist and was also an artists' model so I can assure you that I am definitely NOT a repressed stuffed shirt. This programme, whilst beautifully costumed etc is just not very good. The facts seems to have been changed merely to fit in with the 'Moll Flanders' style sex romps - and please remember, this is supposed to be based on fact not fiction - the art itself is sadly lacking and when it does make an appearance has obviously been recreated by amateurs and not very good ones at that. Dates and events don't tie up (I won't bore you with the details here, but trust me, they don't) and some very important events have been omitted all together changing the sense of their lives and art. Yes Lizzi died of a laudanum overdose, but not primarily because of Rossetti's womanizing, but mainly because she had a still-born daughter the previous year, an event which also had a very dramatic effect on Rossetti himself.

I love Aidan (Rossetti) though - what a fantastic 'Heathcliffe' he'd make.

reply

[deleted]

Loved Charlie Brooker's review of it -

http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2009/aug/15/charlie-brooker-screen-b urn-desperate-romantics

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

I agree the Beeb has to reorganize its channels, and be firmer with where and when things should go. This is more of a Beeb3 production, it is art history for yoof, but as such it does well, its open, engaging etc.

Greer's article was lazy lazy 'establishment' 1st year art history essay stuff - the PRB were earlier than the Impressionists, and if anything taught the Imps, some of whom spent time in London how to 'get' the big, institutionalised salon. The Imps are like the PRB, known for a certain style and subject matter - fields, cafes, etc, just as the PRB did Arthur, which was Greer's big gripe. It was the boring establishment view that British art is all rubbish - the underlying thread of Greer's article - and the French always pushed the envelope. Fortunately this is being challenged these days, but it still gets repeated like a sermon whenever anyone sticks their neck out and praises - or even highlights - British artists.

Yep, Charlie B got it much more right, as always.

reply

[deleted]

The Glasgow School with CR Mackintosh? Aubrey Beardsley? Burne-Jones also seems to have started a craze for figures walking down stairs. Mackintosh in particular was ignored as too 'avant garde' for Britain, but was huge in Turin.

To be fair, Turner was one of the most important artists of all time. Millais in particular has suffered from the ... 'This is all very good for a genius. But why aren't you an art god like Turner yet?' syndrome. The Impressionists could stand back a bit from this, and learn from Constable's pastoralism and Turner's sketchiness.

reply