Skip to main content

You can’t paint with light. You have to paint with paint.


Tim’s Vermeer
(2013)

In which a super-rich pal of Penn Jillette learns to paint like Colin Firth in that period flick. You know, the one where he gets all weak-kneed over Scarlet Johansson. Tim Jenison, inventor and founder of software company NewTek, developed something of an obsession with the (possible) methods Johannes Vermeer used to achieve such striking paintings. Having conceived of means by which the Dutch Master went about his art, Jenison decided to put his theory to the test; he would attempt to paint a Vermeer. This documentary is a fascinating account of Jenison’s mission. Whilst Teller’s telling suffers from a one-sided approach, the idea at its centre is such a compelling one it leaves the viewer thirsty to understand the potential repercussions of the inventor’s (re-?) discovery.


One can’t help wonder occasionally if the entire project isn’t an elaborate magic act courtesy of stage magicians Penn and Teller. After all, they are adept at apparently deconstructing their own craft only to reveal a Russian doll effect of deception beneath revelation. While this is evidently not the case, with art world luminary David Hockney weighing in and the project’s genesis resting with a book by architect Philip Steadman, which posited the idea that Vermeer’s photo-realism derived from the use of a camera obscura, Teller makes no bones about being fully on the side of Jenisen and his theory. In interviews, Penn talked about how it was initially conceived as a piece about “Penn and his pal Tim”, while Teller has joked the documentary would have been just as worthwhile if Jenison had failed. The result of such deliberations, and sorting through thousands of hours of footage of Jenisen’s painstaking painting, is to focus on the non-painter attempting to be a painter. Inevitably this comes at the expense of the debate it ignites, and it’s this that ultimately prevents Tim’s Vermeer from crossing over into something more expansive and insightful.


The kernel of the debate is retained, of course. That if an unrefined amateur like Jenisen can reproduce (in rudimentary form) a painting by the great Dutch dude then there can’t be anything all that special about what he did in the first place. Teller’s tack is to emphasise that the use of optical devices to enhance painting technique is an achievement in itself; that is, the artistic impulse is demystified in much the same way the duo suggest stage magic is not really all that amazing actually. Yet their act usually pulls back with a renewed “How did they do that?” Tim’s Vermeer relishes the idea that any laymen can paint like a Dutch Master if only they put their minds to it. Art is no longer the preserve of the creative genius, so it’s no wonder the reaction from some quarters has been apoplectic. They’re killing a sacred cow here.


Which makes for great drama, so it’s all the more disappointing that this side is left hanging. We learn from Hockney (who is quite open to Jenison’s notions) and Steadman that there was a swathe of indignation from art historians at the idea Vermeer could be anything other than a pure unvarnished virtuoso, but we don’t get to hear their side. What do they think of Tim’s mission? We don’t even learn much of the counterarguments to Steadman’s book that preceded Jenisen. The conversation doesn’t end with whether Vermeer used mirrors as an aid to reproducing reality (Jenisen goes through a series of modifications of theory before settling on a concave mirror reflected through a lens, ditching the camera obscura altogether); Jenisen comments that, with his technique, “You become a machine. Was Vermeer a machine?


The arguments against range from Vermeer’s skill with composition, to that of the core inner inspiration of the artist, and natural technique versus studied imitation, but they are mostly absent. Hockney labels the antagonistic stance, which announces that Vermeer wouldn’t have used optics as it would be cheating, a childish one. But it must be acknowledged; the cumulative effect of Teller’s documentary is to knock the artist from an unknowable pedestal (“He painted the way a camera sees”; essentially all he is doing is rendering very slow-developing photographs). It’s right there in Penn’s introduction, when he suggests the Vermeer effect is more than merely paint on a canvas; his artworks glow like the images on a movie screen.


When a brain-care expert is wheeled out to attest that the human cerebrum would not allow the eye to see the way Vermeer paints (i.e. unaided), Teller seems to have moved to the position of forcing rather graceless points. Now all possibilities of aberrantly gifted individuality are Tipp-exed away in order to seal the deal. A much more compelling argument is the discovery of “The sea horse smile” in the motif Tim is copying. He notes that it is curved due to the curve of the mirror reflecting it. And then he realises the motif it is also curved on Vermeer’s original. This seems like a “case closed”, and Teller certainly imbues the reveal with an air of vindication.


There are even avenues in respect of Jenison’s labour that deserve some elaboration but are left unexplored. He makes out that he is just a keen amateur, but there’s an element of “Try something new and succeed at it” from the man who invented the Video Toaster, the Electric Moth and the Lip-syncing Duck. He comments that the process was torture; he re-constructed Vermeer’s studio in a lock-up and set himself the task of using only materials available at the time, which required making his own lens, mixing his own paints and building a chair. The painting itself took 130 days to complete (and the idea took shape over five years prior to the events depicted). Yet the attention to detail involved on the part of Jenison is hardly dwelt upon. The whole business with the mirror, using the eye to blend the two images so that the paint (which has to be constantly altered to produce the desired colour tone) matches the reflection, is surely made to seem simpler than it is (certainly, as someone who has never found mixing of paints a satisfying experience). So when Jenison says “The process is objective. Any painter who uses it gets the same result” I wonder if he’s doing himself a disservice in terms of a certain skillset (which I’d define as a technical craftsmen of some dexterity, rather than necessarily an artist with flair to spare). Even beyond the conceptual leap Jenison makes in accounting for Vermeer’s facility with images, it’s his dedication to the project that most impresses.


There are also a few lapses along the way that don’t serve the argument. Jenison being granted an audience with the original painting in Buckingham Palace, while P & T wait outside, serves only to highlight that we can’t really compare what Tim has done with the original in any substantially verifiable way. Hockney also has to tell prole Jensison at least twice that it’s no good wishing Vermeer had a document to prove he used a device like this; painters of the day were notoriously secretive even down to their paints, let alone something of this order. And besides, paintings are documents you philistine! Additionally, for all the attention to perfectly reproducing the tools of the seventeen-century, it isn’t clear how Tim adjusts for the changes in natural light throughout the day. Still, this is an engrossing film based on a potentially game-changing intuition. It might have been a great one if Teller had taken the time to explore both sides of the fence.

***1/2

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Do you know that the leading cause of death for beavers is falling trees?

The Interpreter (2005) Sydney Pollack’s final film returns to the conspiracy genre that served him well in both the 1970s ( Three Days of the Condor ) and the 1990s ( The Firm ). It also marks a return to Africa, but in a decidedly less romantic fashion than his 1985 Oscar winner. Unfortunately the result is a tepid, clichéd affair in which only the technical flourishes of its director have any merit. The film’s main claim to fame is that Universal received permission to film inside the United Nations headquarters. Accordingly, Pollack is predictably unquestioning in its admiration and respect for the organisation. It is no doubt also the reason that liberal crusader Sean Penn attached himself to what is otherwise a highly generic and non-Penn type of role. When it comes down to it, the argument rehearsed here of diplomacy over violent resolution is as banal as they come. That the UN is infallible moral arbiter of this process is never in any doubt. The cynicism