Final Portrait. 2017
This is a low key movie about three weeks in the 60s when the writer James Lord sat for a portrait by the artist Alberto Giacometti. Based on recollections from Lord, what we are really seeing is a portrait of an artist and his process. It's also as much a memoir/documentary as a movie. And although there is not a whole lot of traditional 'storyline' to the narrative, I found that the depiction of the artist and his creative process was so authentic, I felt I met and knew him through this film.
.
Giacometti was an artist who achieved great fame and financial success, known more for his spindly elongated sculptures, of an almost grotesque yet primal elegance, which are shown spaced throughout his Parisian studio.
The artist, btw, is not a man who was easy to admire. He is callous and cruel to his long suffering wife, as he blatantly courts and indulges a prostitute who is young enough to be his daughter, or more likely, granddaughter. He somehow takes this young lady to be his Muse, and it becomes apparent that this was an honored position that his wife, who still loves him, once held.
Giacometti promised Lord that the sitting will take a few hours , then a few days, which stretch into weeks. During that time we see the artist working and erasing and reworking the painting, while in the throes of self degradation and doubt of his abilities. It is inexplicable to the straight laced stodgy Lord (and I ' m sure, to some of the audience) why this man, who is so egotistical and selfish as a human being, is so unsure and riddled with doubt and disdain of his own art and abilities. However, if you, as a viewer, have ever been strongly involved with the arts, ( as a dedicated artist of some discipline yourself, as a close comrade of a driven artist, or even as an appreciative viewer) you will find this aspect of the man rings as true as the clang of a steeple bell on a clear October morn. The man throws his artwork on the floor, and is in equal disregard of his fortune, hiding millions of francs in his messy studio so well, he forgets where he puts them.
The uncombed and untamed regal fluff of his hair, his shabby attire, the walks with Lord in a graveyard as Alberto merrily and wittily pontificates on art, Picasso, and life ,and the studio where you can almost smell the paint and the dust - all are real and speak of truth of this man and his world. . Note that the cinematographer chose to shoot the studio in a monochrome, while outside scenes - the streets and cafes of Paris- are bathed in colorful glow- - a way of saying, perhaps, that life can be bountiful but the hard driven passion of creating some object of worth is as stark and dry as a bone.
The main characters are revealed layer by layer, and the character study is more pressing in this film than a storyline. But for me, the entire ride was engaging. It may not sound like it, but there is a a great deal of humor sewn all through the movie. even towards the end as Lord and Alberto's brother hatch a plot to end the sitting.
Diego, the brother, is played so well with an air of Zen like calm and mystery, that I didn't even recognize the talented Tony Shalhoub in the role.
A final observation, this quiet film raises more questions than it answers: about the nature of artistic genius, the mysteries of creating, and the frustration and confoundment of those who are bound to deal with this man. But they are questions you may well enjoy mulling over at a later time.
As I said, I enjoyed the film, But then, after seeing it, I knew Giacometti. And how can you not enjoy a movie about someone you have met and known personally?
RATING: four out of five stars
Because I understand that this movie may not appeal to everyone, I didn't give it a 5 star rating - and besides, I'm sure Alberto himself wouldn't want to carry the onus of that kind of perfection.
Last edited by lenslady; 10-04-18 at 12:55 AM.