Hier wird mit leichter Hand das Image des langweiligen Museums widerlegt.Die Vielfalt an notwendigen Taetigkeiten ueberrascht.Gefallen hat mir sehr das Aufzeigen der so verschiedenartigen Interpretationsstile,wobei ich die englische Art hier sehr passend fand,so auch den Blick ins Gesicht des Publikums.
More than once, the docents here use film to describe painting; so it is refreshing to turn it around and have painting describe film. At around 3 hours, Wiseman's rather subdued portrait of the National Gallery has an exacting, meticulous structure - light and form from darkness, to faith like a child, finances, lighting, high theory, before finding solace in the joy of art in all its permutations. Yes, even film.
‘So that all the work that he does, the tens if not hundreds of hours that go into restoring a picture, the next time it’s cleaned it comes right off. The basic principle of modern conservation is that anything that we do should be reversible, that the next generation can reverse it very easily.’
The method apparently keeps up the same - in and out of the space under observation, with a shot-countershot between public and private spaces - but the editing system, hélàs, it is trivialized and the sharpness in the observance softened, as if it was an official film promotion of the museum space. What positive thing can we say about the dance between Titian's "Metamorphoses"?
3.5 stars. It's nice to see the meaning behind several artworks, the restoration processes, and all of the behind-the-scene activities that you do not usually see when you visit a museum. This almost-three-hours film can be interesting for someone who is really interested in the topic; other wise, the duration might be too long and it can get a little bit boring.
There's a meticulous and fascinating dissection of this enormous institution, as well as an exploration on the necessity of narrative in art and life, but reaching at 180 minutes it's impossible not to say that there are a lot of redundancies and flat moments within. (2.5)
Parallels made between a painting subjects' look, gallery-viewer's gaze and the film's audience initiate questions about the contemporary state of cinema. Placed within the conversations to combat a museums' dying attention span, Wiseman articulates a vital entry into the contemporary conversation about the medium with an interesting position of cinema receding into the fine arts it's fought to be with for so long.
The paintings which may have seemed insignificant at the beginning of the film come to life in the moving last sequence as we've now realised the patient, devoted and ultimately ephemeral work that goes on behind the scenes to rightly honour this art of another time.
The trans-codification, applied with the dancing couple, conjures the compenetration of actuality (historian) and timeless mimesis frozen in a suspended climax (aesthetic). The backstage activities (both economical and restorative) animate the museum compound, assigning to people the role of passive actor: the gallery as a giant canvas framed by walls.