The mass populace looks to critics for a very specific function. The critics see movies ahead of time (usually), and write/talk about what they thought and why so people know whether or not to spend $10 on a ticket. It's a simple job with a simple explanation, so why is it that the tagline "based on a true story" seems to force most critics into being very biased in favor of a film despite its (glaring) flaws?
That was the main question I had in my head while walking out of Mr. Turner, a biopic about the last 25 years of painter J.M.W. Turner's life. Going in to the film I had no idea what to expect, but then again I knew nothing of the man and wasn't even sure I had seen any of his work up until that point. The film begins a beautiful shot of Turner painting somewhere in the Netherlands by a windmill, and little did I know that shots such as that would be the most gripping part of it. Thankfully, the film is abundant in shots that look and feel similar or it would just be a mess of dialogue that doesn't flow or string together at all.
When a filmmaker creates a film based on 100% true fact such as this, they still have to keep in mind that people are going to watch it expecting an actual movie or they essentially lose the magic that made the person in real life so compelling. This is where I find the films biggest flaw. The acting wasn't the problem, in fact it was some of the best in a long time with Timothy Spall playing the titular character and making me forget I'm watching an actor from the Harry Potter series, which as it's been seen is nearly impossible. No, the biggest problem is that the scenes themselves don't piece together like they should. The film has so many scenes that never needed to be there in the first place. The one big example I can think of is when Turner visits the home of a young admirer of his where they talk about where the best place to grow gooseberries is. Then, after a few minutes, they change the subject to the admirer denouncing one of Turner's biggest influences as being dull, with Turner not really saying much at all other than stating the contrary. It's as exciting as it sounds. There are about 5 long scenes of the same necessity as that. I understand staying true to that persons' character even if they aren't the most interesting person in the world, but at least give the viewers the most interesting parts of their life. Throughout the movie Turner falls into a relationship with a woman he met in a port town. Their actions help to drive the story along and show time passing, so why not elaborate on that and leave the extraneous material out? This film felt about 30 minutes too long because of scenes that didn't help the plot of character development, and that's a huge problem. Some of the shorter scenes felt infinitely more significant and had a much bigger impact, but the film spends time fleshing out ideas that don't feel like they matter. When the movie is on about him painting, loving, teaching, and thinking I'm engaged. Everywhere else, i.e most of the movie, I'm checking the time and fidgeting. If this had been a movie about an entirely fictional character, there would have been a much more polarizing opinion among critics, and deservedly so.
2.5/5
No comments:
Post a Comment