Directors' Cup - Film Analysis: The Hypothesis of the Stolen Painting (1979) by Raúl Ruiz

Well, if the paintings are completely made up for the film, I think that diminishes the film a bit.

Why?

Then again, maybe the whole film is just an elaborate satire of art criticism.

That’s my favorite way of looking at it

@Riss

I guess I feel that way because if the paintings are not real, there’s less of a chance to assess the validity of the interpretation. On the other hand, if the entire film is primarily a joke, then the “realness” of the paintings don’t really matter.

I guess I feel that way because if the paintings are not real, there’s less of a chance to assess the validity of the interpretation. On the other hand, if the entire film is primarily a joke, then the “realness” of the paintings don’t really matter.

Exactly! The fun of it is realizing that the joke is on you. ;)

I’m late to the party on this, but I am posting more to try and get a fix on this elusive film. From what I have read, K. and Ruiz discussed the film then K. left for Italy and another film leaving Ruiz holding the bag. He has said he was in a hurry to finish the film and left unfilmed some scenes. I am beginning to suspect that Ruiz botched the film in the sense it doesn’t make sense. OK…we have six paintings and a novel that describes the action in which L. is taken to a residence to perform in a forbidden ritual which is interrupted by the police who arrest the persons involved and L is hanged in his cell. Yet the 7th painting, the stolen or missing one depicts a scene from K.‘s Le Baphomet while Ruiz’s film and the 6 paintings reflect the roman à clé which have nothing to do with the action of Le Baphomet’s prologue but do resemble it. Anybody?

…botched the film in the sense it doesn’t make sense
What do you mean by botched?
I suggest figuring what it is about first.
David E suggested this: an elaborate satire of art criticism as well as cryptogram about the Templar Knight

Once you get an ‘aboutness’ you might realize there is nothing to be solved….i.e. don’t try to reify the mystery.
Look at the structure of the mystery to realize the elaborate satire of art criticism,

Once you get an ‘aboutness’ you might realize there is nothing to be solved….i.e. don’t try to reify the mystery.

Thanks for your interest. As for as any tenuous notion that the film is about art criticism , well one can speculate until the cows come home on that. What I am talking about is continuity: we have the events described in the novel and then out of the blue the camera pans down from a cross stripped of its Jesus, down to a metallic mask where the tabernacle would be on an alter, to the suspended body of a male with very long hair. Unless one had read Le Baphomet this would be baffling as it was to me at first viewing. A cryptogram ? Right. What Klossowski had in mind I can’t say nor what Ruiz was up to. Yet.

David is a critic so his POV reflects his interest.
I’m interested in the perception of the experience of the structure/form.
In most of the Ruiz films I’ve seen there are aporetic gaps.
Those gaps, when perceived cause mysterious thoughts, the kind of thoughts that open the film up.
The gaps aren’t meant to be closed – they are meant to be perceived:

What the film demonstrates is that this empty space, rather than being a lack, is precisely what generates the endless theoretical speculation about the paintings, the ceremony and their inter-relationship that the paintings provoke.

Good luck trying to figure it out….

“I am beginning to suspect that Ruiz botched the film in the sense it doesn’t make sense.”

Jean Reno is not best amused:

Ruiz (discussing Ce jour-là): “… pulling out essential elements is actually part of creating the film. Those important elements are still present as holes. Like ghosts in the film. They’re there. They’re present. More present than if I had left them in… that has a cinematic effect. It provokes cinematic emotion, this absence.”

In any other director/film these are known as pot holes. Ruiz gets a pass I will agree UP TO A POINT. From what i have read the 7th painting was Ruiz’s idea to commemorate. the missing Klossowski and perhaps to lengthen an already short film. Given that both gentlemen are now “breaths” all we can do is speculate.