So my husband and I finally got around to seeing Angels and Demons this week. We'd been a little hesitant to rent it; my husband, a film student, hadn't liked The Da Vinci Code as a movie, and I wasn't crazy about the bad art history it had presented. I had enjoyed the book well enough, though, so I decided we should give it a shot. At the movie's end, we were both fairly unimpressed, but it did prompt some interesting questions.
First of all, which is a better movie about art? On the one hand, The Da Vinci Code should be applauded for showing the actual works on screen. While the real Mona Lisa wasn't shown (the Louvre unsurprisingly wouldn't allow for such bright lights to be shone directly onto the painted canvas), the other works that the characters encounter in the museum are the actual masterpieces, bringing high-quality footage of the pieces to people who might otherwise never see them.
But at the same time, the art history theory that the movie presents about those works is so ridiculous that the movie makes me cringe. The suggestion that the figure next to Jesus in The Last Supper is a woman, concealed in plain sight because of an ancient conspiracy, completely ignores a common Renaissance practice of portraying young men – and the apostle John in particular – in what we today would call a very feminine light. Even within the Da Vinci painting itself, at least one other figure, the man second from the left, looks an awful lot like a woman, but that figure doesn't get any attention in the movie. The feminine appearance wasn't an indicator of a long-lost divine truth; it was a way to portray the young man's innocence and lack of worldliness. Just check out the angel Gabriel in Da Vinci's Annunciation!
The art history in Angels and Demons, meanwhile, is much less problematic. Does it seem likely to me that Bernini's angel statues around Rome are pointing to sites in a conspiratorial scavenger hunt? Probably not, but the arrow component doesn't completely overshadow the artistic value and meaning of the original sculptures. That said, the movie doesn't show the actual works; the Catholic Church, unsurprisingly after the way they were portrayed in The Da Vinci Code, forbade the crew from filming on any of their property, so the famous sculptures and churches were recreated elsewhere. The prop sculptures might be to scale and I'm sure a lot of time went into them, but they're just not the same. Bernini's work pops and surprises with its liveliness and humor, all of which is absent from the prop versions.
So which is a better art movie – one that gives viewers actual art with bad theory, or one that gives imitation works with a more informed history? My husband and I never quite reached a conclusion, and in fact it only stirred up bigger questions about how art is portrayed in the movies. Painting, sculpture, and film are all visual media, but how many narrative movies – not documentaries – can you think of about painting and sculpture? The forms should overlap easily and often, but for some reason they don't. Sure, Pollock did well a few years back, and Frida was well received, but how many people would have seen that if Salma Hayek weren't starring? The Agony and The Ecstasy was hugely popular, but that was also made over 40 years ago.
With these questions in mind, and being the film geeks that we are, my husband and I decided to embark on an exploration that I'll document for you here: there are good movies about art and artists, and we're going to find them and evaluate them. Over the next ten weeks, I'll be presenting you with 10 Movies About Artists That You Should See. Sure, you know music bio pics like Ray and Walk the Line, but there are good artist movies too, and I'll be offering you some of those titles, along with a discussion of how that artist's work is presented in the film. We might not get to the answer for the question “What makes a good art film?” but we'll at least make a good dent in it!
10 Movies You Should See About Artists: