Reply to Topic
Mr. Turner
This was one of the odder movies we’ve seen for a while. There was no actor I recognized, the director, Mike Leigh, had done no movies I had seen and, as a biopic, it was about an English artist that I knew nothing about. Mr. Turner starred Timothy Spall (who?) in the title role as J M W Turner, the eccentric English painter of the early 19th century, an artist who seemed to be somewhat ahead of his times (I claim no credentials as an art historian), but was off the scale for eccentricity. The story joins Turner in middle age and follows him to his death.
I don’t know anything about Turner that I didn’t read in 5 minutes on Wikipedia, but, from what I found, the portrayal in the movie seemed to be correct. This is important for this movie since Turner is portrayed by Spall as an obese, grouchy, unappealing guy who is nearly non-verbal, communicates largely in grunts or snorts and spends much of the movie making gross noises as he moves phlegm around his respiratory system…not a flattering portrayal. Fortunately, he also appears to have had a remarkable talent, the ability to make a quick pencil sketch of a scene and then return to his studio where he could flesh out a remarkable painting of the scene, complete with amazing use of color and abstraction. For all of his social dysfunctions, the guy must have been a genius. Turner has left a family behind, lives with his equally eccentric father and leprous housekeeper, with whom he has a groping relationship that occasionally advances to brief, creepy sex. Just when you are ready to completely dismiss him, he performs small acts of unexpected kindness and insight. Eventually falls in love with a widow, with whom he spends his later years. He really is a strange and fairly unappealing but complex character.
So why see this movie? Assuming that this portrayal is reasonably accurate, what redeems it the man’s art and the amazing cinematography of the movie, done by Dick Pope (huh? who?). The rendering of early 19 century England is remarkably rich in detail, the scenes that Turner paints (mainly bucolic, waterfront, sunset scenes in the movie) are like period art themselves. The LOOK of the movie is quite amazing and takes you back very palpably to a time when there is no technology as we know it, life is organic because there is no other way to live it, the population of England is low and mostly rural. This is a very painterly movie that makes you understand what Turner needed to portray on canvas. In spite of his fairly disgusting demeanor, he saw the beauty in everyday life and painted it remarkably.
Mr Turner managed to get 4 Oscar nominations, for Cinematography, Costume design, Music and Production Design. I don’t think this will get much of a view in the US…it’s just SO ENGLISH (not British, but English), but for fans of this painter or fans of old England, it’s worth seeing. The movie really does present a vivid portrait of a time and place. You might not like the main character very much, but he is believable, especially in the context of his world. The look of the movie is amazing, well worth the price of a ticket. I’m not sure just WHERE my rating goes on this. I sorta liked, it, appreciated the aesthetics, but while I didn’t like Turner very much, I do appreciate his genius. You could definitely do worse in a movie, but it’s not conventional popcorn-night entertainment. The cinematography alone moves it up one star.
This was one of the odder movies we’ve seen for a while. There was no actor I recognized, the director, Mike Leigh, had done no movies I had seen and, as a biopic, it was about an English artist that I knew nothing about. Mr. Turner starred Timothy Spall (who?) in the title role as J M W Turner, the eccentric English painter of the early 19th century, an artist who seemed to be somewhat ahead of his times (I claim no credentials as an art historian), but was off the scale for eccentricity. The story joins Turner in middle age and follows him to his death.
I don’t know anything about Turner that I didn’t read in 5 minutes on Wikipedia, but, from what I found, the portrayal in the movie seemed to be correct. This is important for this movie since Turner is portrayed by Spall as an obese, grouchy, unappealing guy who is nearly non-verbal, communicates largely in grunts or snorts and spends much of the movie making gross noises as he moves phlegm around his respiratory system…not a flattering portrayal. Fortunately, he also appears to have had a remarkable talent, the ability to make a quick pencil sketch of a scene and then return to his studio where he could flesh out a remarkable painting of the scene, complete with amazing use of color and abstraction. For all of his social dysfunctions, the guy must have been a genius. Turner has left a family behind, lives with his equally eccentric father and leprous housekeeper, with whom he has a groping relationship that occasionally advances to brief, creepy sex. Just when you are ready to completely dismiss him, he performs small acts of unexpected kindness and insight. Eventually falls in love with a widow, with whom he spends his later years. He really is a strange and fairly unappealing but complex character.
So why see this movie? Assuming that this portrayal is reasonably accurate, what redeems it the man’s art and the amazing cinematography of the movie, done by Dick Pope (huh? who?). The rendering of early 19 century England is remarkably rich in detail, the scenes that Turner paints (mainly bucolic, waterfront, sunset scenes in the movie) are like period art themselves. The LOOK of the movie is quite amazing and takes you back very palpably to a time when there is no technology as we know it, life is organic because there is no other way to live it, the population of England is low and mostly rural. This is a very painterly movie that makes you understand what Turner needed to portray on canvas. In spite of his fairly disgusting demeanor, he saw the beauty in everyday life and painted it remarkably.
Mr Turner managed to get 4 Oscar nominations, for Cinematography, Costume design, Music and Production Design. I don’t think this will get much of a view in the US…it’s just SO ENGLISH (not British, but English), but for fans of this painter or fans of old England, it’s worth seeing. The movie really does present a vivid portrait of a time and place. You might not like the main character very much, but he is believable, especially in the context of his world. The look of the movie is amazing, well worth the price of a ticket. I’m not sure just WHERE my rating goes on this. I sorta liked, it, appreciated the aesthetics, but while I didn’t like Turner very much, I do appreciate his genius. You could definitely do worse in a movie, but it’s not conventional popcorn-night entertainment. The cinematography alone moves it up one star.
It's interesting to read a review on this film by someone who has virtually no knowledge of its subject, but more interestingly, those involved. 
