I do enjoy viewing art
museums, though my articulation of art criticism outside of film is somewhat
limited to something akin to, "Now that is an aesthetically pleasing...
whatever that is." When I see good art, I can recognize it as good art. The
artist Gustav Klimt's iconic painting "Portrait of
Adele Bloch-Bauer I" is what initially caught my attention in the
trailer for Woman in Gold (2015);
it's a beautiful painting that used real gold and silver foils to create a
beautiful paining. On top of that, seeing two mismatched actors together on
screen was also intriguing. Finally, some World War II history was involved and
it sent me over the edge; I had to see it. While it is a good movie, it's not
as deep or profound as it thinks it is.
Sixty years after she
fled Vienna during World War II, an elderly Jewish woman, Maria Altmann (Helen
Mirren), starts her journey to retrieve family possessions seized by the Nazis,
among them Klimt's famous painting 'Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I'. Together
with her inexperienced but plucky young lawyer, Randy Schoenberg (Ryan
Reynolds), she embarks upon a major battle which takes them all the way to the
heart of the Austrian establishment and the U.S. Supreme Court, and forces her
to confront difficult truths about the past along the way. Maria does this not
just to regain what was rightfully hers, but also to obtain some measure of
justice for the death, destruction, and massive art theft perpetrated by the
Nazis.
I was privileged in
college to study World War II history coupled with psychology, culminating in
travels to Munich, Germany to see historic sites firsthand. It is one of the
greatest experiences I've had in academia. The combination of these two
disciplines was positively fascinating and ever since, I have been engrossed by
that time period. World War II dramas tend to resonate with me. Woman in Gold was particularly
interesting, because it explored how the actions of the Nazis of the day have
an effect on the present, even when well over half a century has passed. Nazi
Austria is only visited briefly in flashbacks throughout the film as Maria
reflects on memories. The movie shows how history is still very much alive and
continues to influence us today. The past isn't just stories, it is our
personal history, our family history, our heritage, and the long standing
narrative that defines who we are now.
Woman
in Gold tries to portray this idea of returning to our
roots and preserving our histories, but seems somewhat lacking in its ability
to do so. Initially, Randy is helping Maria for the money and prestige that the
lawsuit would grant him; but he eventually he sees how it's not just Maria's
history they are fighting for, but his as well, and he gains new conviction as
the case becomes more relevant to him. How this is portrayed is that Maria and
Randy visit the Austrian Holocaust memorial, and Randy excuses himself and
cries in the privacy of a public restroom with no prior indication of interest.
This could have been a deeply dramatic scene, but we're not shown why this
change of heart happened so much as we were shown that it did happen. It causes
this turning point to seem like a convenient plot development. This is just one
example of some dramatic action being over simplified and weakened. It was well
acted, no doubt, but without establishing enough context so many of the scenes
felt lacking.
Helen Mirren is a
beautiful and regal actress who often plays very dramatic roles. She has played
three British queens in different films and television series, and she fits the
role of nobility with remarkable astuteness. I particularly liked her in Hitchcock and The Hundred-Foot Journey. Ryan
Reynolds is frequently typecast as an arrogant, handsome, cocky, and rude young
man. And he plays that role very well. He's essentially the same character in Just Friends, Green Lantern, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, and Waiting. While I hate to oversimplify
his career, I think this is one of the only times he's taken on a dramatic
role. He does a pretty good job of it and emotes remarkably well. In one scene,
he loses his patience and is downright intimidating as he vents his anger and
frustration. There are moments when his characteristic humor shines through,
but overall he does quite well in a dramatic role. These two mismatched actors
bounce off of one another beautifully; their character's contrasting views and
personalities make for some great scenes between the two. It's an odd coupling
of actors, but they do a splendid job together.
Woman
in Gold was not a bad movie, but wasn't as deep as it seems
to think it is. It is at its core the true story about legal proceedings meant
to resolve ownership of a painting. While that is an interesting story, frankly
there isn't a whole lot of actual story to tell with that. Fortunately it is
more character and theme driven than story driven, and the characters and theme
are excellent. I'd never have imagined seeing Helen Mirren and Ryan Reynolds acting
opposite each other, but here they are. Woman
in Gold benefits greatly from the talented leads, but their strong work
doesn't manage to overshadow the fact that there isn't a whole lot actually
going on otherwise. It expresses the idea of getting in touch with our heritage
and preserving our histories, but it doesn't do a whole lot outside of that. I
like the movie overall and I recommend seeing it once it hits home video, but I
don't think it's quite worth going out of my way to see a second time.
Can you think of another great movie that urges you to get in touch with your family history and heritage? Comment below and let me know!
Can you think of another great movie that urges you to get in touch with your family history and heritage? Comment below and let me know!
No comments:
Post a Comment