Bernini and Paris Hilton

Simon Schama’s Bernini

So, what makes a great documentary. One that can hold you attention for one. If there is one thing about Simon Schama’s take on the life of Bernini is that it is entertaining. You can’t stop watching, the same way it’s hard not to look at the beauty of the great sculptures of Bernini himself.

So that said, you would think that with an opening like that, there are lots of high points to this show. Perhaps the best point, and the least entertaining, is the cinematography of it all. Boy do those sculptures and buildings pop out. The lighting on the sculpture of Apollo and Daphne is breathtaking. When you get the camera closeups of the work, you can truly see why Bernini was considered and “genius”, and master sculpture. So close to we get, we see the intimate indentations of the flesh in Bernini’s sculpture of the Rape of Proserpina where Pluto grabs the ill fated maiden’s leg.

I have to say that they do a good job of getting a good look at the works of art. Having seen some of Bernini’s work in Rome many years ago, like all great works, many are not exactly easy to get up close to anymore. Too many scared with the attacks on the Michel Angelo’s Pieta to risk other great works I suppose. So having such close up access is quite nice.

Any low points. Well I am not sure about playing up the bad boy reputation on Bernini and Borromini. Then again, the artist as “bad boy” is a cliche that had to come from somewhere right?

I have to say that the stories of rivalry and jealousy in the life of Bernini did make for an entertaining story. How accurate was it all? I am sure there are records of all the events, but some of it seemed like I was watching a historical “Entertainment Tonight”. That Bernini, Caravaggio, and Borromini were the Lindsey Lohan, Paris Hilton, and Kim Kardashian of their time (only they have talent). It goes to show that fame, money and power went to people’s heads 400 years ago, and that we as people have not learned anything.

Perhaps also, nothing seems sexier than the bad boy artist. It can make a rather dry subject matter to some, seem well, sexy. Caravaggio was run out of Rome as a drunken trouble maker. Bernini, well, had affairs and tried to kill his brother. He also let all the adoration go to his head, where he though he could do no wrong. Kind of like Paris (Hilton) and her ill fated singing career.

Art and Theatre

Above is a painting by Pieter Brueghel the Elder entitled “Dulle Griet” (or Dull Gret/ Mad Meg in English). It was painted in about 1562. The subject matter is that of Dull Gret or Mad Meg who is a character in Flemish folklore. In the story, and the painting, she leads a group of women to pillage hell.

My interest in this painting stems from the fact that I woking as the set designer on the B.U. Drama department’s production of Caryl Churchill’s “Top Girls”. A play written in the early 1980s by Churchill as a commentary on the state of feminism in Thatcher era England.

In act one of the play, Churchill writes a “dream” sequence in which various women (both real and fictional) from history, one of which is Dull Gret, as painted by Pieter Brueghel the Elder. Her character alludes to the fact that the invasion of hell is really about the the Spanish occupation of the Netherlands, which ended is the mid 1600s. What is interesting is that the revolt that was started to push the Spanish out started in 1568, not long after the painting was done.

What I find interesting in both counts in one, how symbolism in art can be used to get a message across, without it being one hundred percent obvious. I also love how two art forms I am involved in often have influence on one an other.

The symbolism of the Spanish occupation is perhaps not obvious at first, but it is there. The Spanish (though this may no be politically correct), were though of being hungry for gold, most countries were at the time. The Spanish however got a reputation for being ruthless and relentless in their hunting for the metal. The “devils” in Brueghel’s painting are surrounded with gold. They have an excess of it, and Mad Meg and the women are doing their best to get as much as they can.

What Churchill got from the painting though is not the weirdness of it, or the hunt for gold, but that it’s women who are acting as soldiers. Women who have had enough of the devils and invade hell. Dull Gret in Churchill’s play talks about losing children to the Spanish, and how she had had enough and decides to “pay the bastards”. 

As the set designer, some of the colours, especially the red in the painting, became integral to the colour scheme of the Dinner scene in which Dull Gret appears. Both I and the costume designer took cues from the painting and included them in the costumes and props of the dinner. Further bringing aspects of the painting to life.

To Leo or Not to Leo

  So Leonardo Da Vinci. Genius, lazy, crazy, or over rated? Hard to say really. One thing is for sure, very few painters are as well recognized as he is. Some of his works, one in particular, the Mona Lisa are so famous that people flock in droves to museums to see just them, sometimes by passing just as or perhaps more important works. This begs the question why then has a this man, this artist so captivated so many. 

The first recollection I have of Leonardo Da Vinci and his work was at a very early age. I must have been five or so the first time my mother took me to the Louvre in Paris. The one thing I can certainly remember is that as we neared the Mona Lisa, there seemed to be more and more people. Once you got to the painting you could hardly see the damned thing from all the people standing arround.

What is scary, some thirty years later, on my last trip to the Louvre, Nothing changed. Sure my husband wanted to see the painting, something about  never having seen such an important piece. Again, we walked through the vast galleries of the Louvre, but he closer you got to the location of Mona, the more congested it got.

It’s a shame really. I think what upsets me about it all is not that people are so interested in one painting, but that they all seem, without reservation, bypass so many other great works. The Louvre is one of the greatest collections of art in the world. It spans Centuries of human achievement in art. To add insult to injury the louvre is but one of many superb art museums in Paris (the Pompidou and the  Musée d'Orsay are my faves)

I guess maybe I am the type of guy who is not much into canons of anything.  Sure the Mona Lisa is a nice painting, but it is one of many works of art that tell a story about the development of art and culture, and one how we view it. I often feel the same way about theatre (which is my other field of study). Sure Shakespeare can be entertaining, but to some people it is the end all and be all of theatre. Some will argue that he was the most prolific and popular playwright of his time. Well if that is how we judge great past works, then the movie franchises Transformers and Twilight will be held to be the high art of the early 21st Century? I hope not.

Back to Leo. I will give him the fact that he is quite the drafts man. As a artist, I wish my drawings were quite as detailed. Like me Leonardo had many interests, and seems hard a hard time focusing just on one. Was he the best artist ever? That is debatable, but one this is sure, if you love art, spend more time looking at everything the museum you are in has to offer, you might discover pieces you like more than those you are told you are supposed to like, and bypass all others to see.