Wednesday, December 17, 2014


I consider Mike Leigh to be one of the greatest active filmmakers working today (along with Michael Haneke, Claire Denis, Bruno Dumont, Olivier Assayas & Carlos Reygadas) so I had a feeling his latest film Mr. Turner - a bio on the romantic painter JMW Turner, would be great, but I honestly didn’t expect to enjoy it as much as I did. I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t really know much about classic art. I was worried I wouldn’t fully appreciate Leigh’s film due to my lack of knowledge on the subject.
I remember sitting in a sold out theater at the Film Forum a few years back watching Todd Haynes’ I’m Not There and feeling left out because I knew absolutely nothing about Bob Dylan (I didn't get the humor or any of the inside Dylan references) and I couldn’t fully appreciate a film that was directed by one of my favorite filmmakers (I consider Safe & Poison to be two of the greatest modern films ever made). This bugged me. I knew most of these Bob Dylan fans I was surrounded by weren’t familiar with Safe or Poison. They didn’t earn the right to enjoy Haynes’ work if I couldn’t. I know that sounds elitist & selfish, but that's how cinephiles get sometimes (I'm also an only child, so sharing doesn't always come easy to me).

Ever since Secrets & Lies, Leigh’s work has quietly “crossed over” into mainstream cinema without any compromise of style or subject matter. With the exception of All Or Nothing & Another Year, every post-Naked Mike Leigh film has been nominated for some kind of mainstream/”major” English-speaking movie award (Oscars, Golden Globes, etc). Movie awards mean very little but at the same time they do, to a certain extent, represent the fact that a film has kind of reached a wider audience. These days, by the time most great modern art-house filmmakers gain any kind of mild mainstream attention (Haneke/Amour, Lars Von Trier/Nymphomaniac, Todd Haynes/I’m Not There, Olivier Assayas/Carlos, Leigh/Vera Drake, etc) their earlier work (which is usually better) still goes unseen, which brings on a lot of resentment inside of me because I have to share one of my favorite filmmakers with a bunch of newcomers who not only suddenly think they know something about film simply because they’ve seen Vera Drake (Leigh), but put no effort into seeking out their earlier work.

I didn’t want a repeat of I’m Not There. I wanted to be prepared for Mr. Turner so much that prior to seeing it, courtesy of a sneak preview at The Museum Of The Moving Image, I looked past the simple Wikipedia bio and sought out a book on JMW Turner’s life ("JMW Turner: A Bio") months before seeing Leigh's film. I didn’t doubt that Mike Leigh would leave things out or misrepresent the life of JMW Turner - I just wanted to be a little more knowledgeable on the subject.
Now...did reading the JMW Turner biography enhance my viewing experience of Mr. Turner? Not really. I'm still not even that crazy about classic art (although I've always appreciated & respected the craft). But that's a good thing. It speaks volumes about a period film when you can truly enjoy it without having to know any kind of history or back story.

Like Bird, Ali, Che,& Camille Claudel 1915 (pictured clockwise above) and a small handful of other semi-recent biopics, Mr. Turner is successful because it doesn’t try to cram an entire lifetime into one film (Mr. Turner makes up for the mild disapointment that was Abel Ferrara's Pasolini, which did follow the same format as other good biopics but came out feeling a little flat & underwhelming). To this day, certain specifics are unknown about the early life of JMW Turner. There is no confirmed birthdate listed, his early paintings don't have any specific dates and certain facts about his family are a little cloudy. Delving in to this part of his life would only lead to speculation on Leigh's part. Instead, Leigh focuses on the latter part of Turner’s life where he deals with the death of his father (whom Turner was not only very close too, but also served as his studio assistant). We also see JMW Turner fall in love as well as battle depression and harsh critics of his art (Leigh leaves out his drug use, grazes over/lightly touches on the fact that he probably fathered two daughters that he clearly didn't care about, and does speculate/get liberal with a few small facts here & there).
Mr. Turner is also a success because it paints a complex portrait of the artist. Instead of making him out as this incredibly wonderful human being that's dedicated to his art, the film shows him as a frustrating and kinda grumpy person (Timothy Spall plays the title character with a distinctive grunt). But I think it's been documented at this point that a lot of talented/brilliant/geinous artists, from Miles Davis to John Cassavetes (and everyone in between), straddled the line between pleasant & unpleasant.

Leigh’s exploration of JMW Turner and his art reminded me of Peter Greenaway’s exploration of "the frustrated architect" in The Belly Of An Architect (complicated, angry, happy, sad, frustrated, etc).
And like Greenaway did with the architecture in his films, Leigh represents Turner's art in a respectful & organic way...

However, Mr. Turner is not a reflection of Leigh's own life in the way that The Belly Of An Architect kind of was/is for Greenaway (although there is a scene in Mr. Turner that, just like in Chef, is clearly a jab at critics that has to represent Leigh's own personal view of some critics).

And I know this sounds a little cliché but certain shots in the film (courtesy of Leigh cinematographer Dick Pope) look like the kind of landscape paintings that Turner would paint...

The cinematography in Mr. Turner (which is bound to be downplayed & overshadowed by the bells & whistles of the camerawork in Birdman & Interstellar) is probably my favorite thing about the film next to Spall’s lead performance (probably the best thing he’s done since All Or Nothing). Besides Vera Drake & Topsy-Turvy (which Mr. Turner is closest too in terms of tone), Leigh has never done a period movie. Mr. Turner is, in my opinion, the first Leigh film to be shot the way it was (rich colors, beautiful landscapes, etc). It’s pretty great to see a veteran like Mike Leigh step outside of his comfort zone and try something new (…and succeed at it).
The film is unique in that it's bound to attract post-Vera Drake Leigh fans (who for whatever reason feel as if they're aficionados of his work because they've seen that & Happy-Go Lucky), but it'll also please all the diehard fans as the film fits in perfectly with the rest of Leigh's work and features plenty of his regulars (in front of & behind the camera) like Timothy Spall, Shirley Manville, Ruth Sheen & Dick Pope.


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...