#102 - Rembrandt

Look at that picture. Doesn't it look like he got caught in the middle of something and is trying to play it off like he's not doing anything wrong? We're not talking like he was doing something inappropriate to a nude painting or nothing, but that guy got caught in the act. I bet he was painting a nude picture of the hot young neighbor lady and his old bitty of a wife walked in on him. "Uh, I'm not doing anything. Well, yeah, I'm painting...something. No...no...you can't see it. Why? Uhm...it's not done yet. You know I don't like to show my paintings until I'm done. What are you talking about? I've always been like that. No, no, don't look!! Hey, I think the goats just got out of the yard. We don't have any goats? The pigs? The hedgehogs? The newts? Oh yeah, we don't even have a yard. Okay, if you promise not to look until I'm done...I'll promise to...uh...let you throw all my stones at the next witch hunt. Deal? Deal. Okay. No, I love you more. NO, I love you more." Maybe that's not exactly what happened, but by looking at that picture you can tell that Rembrandt is up to something more than just painting.

And why, pray tell, would I spend so much time in my opening paragraph with all of that rambling on? The answer is simple. There's not a whole hell of a lot to talk about with this movie. It really doesn't do or say anything. You get a segment of Rembrandt's life that is clearly being told in a fictional way. That's fine and dandy, but by the time our story begins he is already a well renowned and famous painter. Okay, there goes any of the potential dramatic tension as he struggles with his art. He has a couple of wives, both of whom die, but you don't really care because it doesn't seem to affect him all that much, or at least beyond those particular scenes. There really is no dramatic tension in this movie whatsoever. And while I am no expert in the life and times of Rembrandt, I just have to think something interesting happened to him. Since this is probably the case, you could have put that into a movie, especially when it's fictional account of his life. That's right, these guys made up what happened, and yet nothing really happened, and yet, things seemed to happen. I don't get it.

Paradox? Did you say "paradox"? Well, yes boys and girls, there is a paradox in this movie. And that paradox is a simple case of bad writing, yet good acting of that bad writing. I'll explain. We all have learned of my dislike of what they did for the life of Rembrandt, but Charles Laughton's performance of this character is really well done. In other words, I hate what you're doing, but you're doing it well. That's a weird place to be. On top of that, the scenery was well designed, and believe it or not, the directing was well done too. That's right, it's a movie that was merely average, yet I am applauding the acting, scenery, and directing. While this sounds impossible, I believe it can actually happen when filmmakers seem to have made exactly what they wanted to make, but the final product just didn't work. It's unfortunate, but I guess it happens.