← Back to Reviews
in
Velvet Buzzsaw (2019) N
An art gallery assistant discovers paintings from the apartment of her dead neighbor. Everyone who sees the works falls in love with them and soon they're sold for serious money. But why did the dead artist demand his works to be destroyed?
For some reason I expected Velvet Buzzsaw to be much weirder than it actually is. Sure, it has some eccentric characters and preposterous dialogue but at its core it's still very traditional horror story that's just set in an environment filled with odd people.
I don't think the horror side of the film is fully utilized. There's no motive or explanation given and for the most part neither is even sought out. It wouldn't be a huge exaggeration to say that Velvet Buzzsaw has no plot at all. With little more depth to its story it could have been a good film. Also while Dease's paintings look good the horrors related to them aren't very imaginative.
The other side of the film is a satire about commercialization, self-importance and artificialness of art. Art is elevated by words and explanations and names, not by the works themselves (like when Dondon starts to praise Piers' garbage when he assumes it's his new work). The whole concept of Dease's art becoming a phenomenon is a snipe towards modern art - even a skilled hobbyist is a marvel when compared to colored blots and metal spheres.
The remaining question is whether Velvet Buzzsaw is part of the art it laughs at or not? I suppose only Dan Gilroy knowns the answer to that.
An art gallery assistant discovers paintings from the apartment of her dead neighbor. Everyone who sees the works falls in love with them and soon they're sold for serious money. But why did the dead artist demand his works to be destroyed?
For some reason I expected Velvet Buzzsaw to be much weirder than it actually is. Sure, it has some eccentric characters and preposterous dialogue but at its core it's still very traditional horror story that's just set in an environment filled with odd people.
I don't think the horror side of the film is fully utilized. There's no motive or explanation given and for the most part neither is even sought out. It wouldn't be a huge exaggeration to say that Velvet Buzzsaw has no plot at all. With little more depth to its story it could have been a good film. Also while Dease's paintings look good the horrors related to them aren't very imaginative.
The other side of the film is a satire about commercialization, self-importance and artificialness of art. Art is elevated by words and explanations and names, not by the works themselves (like when Dondon starts to praise Piers' garbage when he assumes it's his new work). The whole concept of Dease's art becoming a phenomenon is a snipe towards modern art - even a skilled hobbyist is a marvel when compared to colored blots and metal spheres.
The remaining question is whether Velvet Buzzsaw is part of the art it laughs at or not? I suppose only Dan Gilroy knowns the answer to that.