Biographical films about painters can be problematic, and Mike Leigh's "Mr. Turner" based on the life of the prolific British landscape artist, J.M.W. Turner, is no exception. One should first ask the question, should Leigh have actually gone ahead with the project in the first place? Couldn't this have worked better as a documentary? I had the same feelings about the recent French film, "Renoir," which was beautifully shot, but was sorely lacking in the drama department.
Leigh begins Turner's saga as he has already reached the middle age of 50 in the 1820's. Turner's travels to lands far from England where he discovers all those marvelous landscapes which become the subject of his paintings, all ably highlighted at the beginning and throughout the rest of the film.
Leigh seeks to show the contradictions in Turner's character by damning his treatment of his ex-mistress and two daughters whom he barely acknowledges as well as his housekeeper of 40 years, Hannah Danby, whom he takes advantage of sexually. (In the sex scene between them, Danby clearly is not happy with Turner's tendency toward premature ejaculation.) In contrast, Turner apparently had a warm and loving relationship with his father, a former barber, with whom he lived with for many years, up until his death in 1829.
Later, Turner shacks up with Sophia Booth, a two-time widow, whom he ends up living with for 18 years, up until his own death in 1851. I found Booth perhaps the least interesting of Leigh's characters, despite the necessity of including her in the narrative. Indeed she has little to do except be a supportive presence to Turner; perhaps more importantly, Leigh is emphasizing that in his relationship with Booth, Turner was perfectly capable of forming a normal, caring relationship with a woman.
In one of the stronger scenes in the film, Leigh does well in showing that Turner was not always the gruff and impatient curmudgeon who often turned up in social circles. After his father's death, Turner visits a prostitute. But instead of having sex with her, has her pose clothed in bed, while he begins to draw her in his sketchbook. Suddenly tears pour down his face and he begins sobbing; clearly the the death of father has affected him greatly.
Leigh occasionally becomes so enamored with the history of the denizens of the mid-19th century English upper-class as well as the era's technological advances, that he drags out sub-plots, to the detriment of the overall narrative. Case in point: the drawn-out focus on Benjamin Haydon, a rival painter who was perennially in debt throughout his life and ultimately committed suicide. Haydon is there mainly to highlight either Turner's stinginess or financial prudence, depending on your point of view. Nonetheless, there was a little too much of the bankrupt painter for my tastes.
Another scene which seemed unnecessarily long was when Turner visits the newfangled daguerreotype shop where he has his first photo taken. (He then goes back to the same shop with Sophia so they can have a photo of the two of them taken together.) Turner remarks something to the effect that he is becoming obsolete due to rapid advances in technology. But Leigh drags scenes such as this out far longer than necessary as the awe in which these 19th century folks must have felt when they had their first picture taken, has little to do again, with advancing Turner's story.
Leigh is on more solid ground when he depicts Turner's interaction with colleagues at Royal Academy exhibits, in social conversation at home and at public venues, such as the theater. In one memorable scene, Leigh shows off his skills as "editor" of his ensembles' often improvised dialogue, as the various artists debate their art at the Royal Academy and end up marveling at Turner's "sleight of hand" (Turner mischievously appears to ruin his painting in front of his colleagues, by appending a red splotch in the center of one of his masterpieces, only to turn it into a buoy, bobbing in the ocean). The inane prattle of his contemporaries--including the overly witty, noted art critic of the time, John Ruskin--is ably highlighted. There's also a very nice scene when a theater troupe makes fun of Turner in skit and song, as Turner sits displeased in his private box.
Ultimately, Leigh doesn't quite pull off the Turner biography. This is mainly due to the fact that there is no singular or even group of antagonists that Turner is pitted against throughout the narrative. Turner's opponents, such as his mistress and two daughters, have brief cameos and are underdeveloped as foils for the "great" artist. There is also no great conflict between Turner and his fellow artists that could lead to rising tension at the end of the second act and an exciting climax. Instead, Leigh is left to depict Turner's sad decline as he becomes more eccentric and mentally unstable, prior to his death.
If you're going to see "Mr. Turner," see it more for the production design and the brilliant cinematography, which mimics many of Mr. Turner's grand vistas. "Turner" has its moments, but the plot is bare- boned and overly dependent on isolated historical episodes.
Leigh begins Turner's saga as he has already reached the middle age of 50 in the 1820's. Turner's travels to lands far from England where he discovers all those marvelous landscapes which become the subject of his paintings, all ably highlighted at the beginning and throughout the rest of the film.
Leigh seeks to show the contradictions in Turner's character by damning his treatment of his ex-mistress and two daughters whom he barely acknowledges as well as his housekeeper of 40 years, Hannah Danby, whom he takes advantage of sexually. (In the sex scene between them, Danby clearly is not happy with Turner's tendency toward premature ejaculation.) In contrast, Turner apparently had a warm and loving relationship with his father, a former barber, with whom he lived with for many years, up until his death in 1829.
Later, Turner shacks up with Sophia Booth, a two-time widow, whom he ends up living with for 18 years, up until his own death in 1851. I found Booth perhaps the least interesting of Leigh's characters, despite the necessity of including her in the narrative. Indeed she has little to do except be a supportive presence to Turner; perhaps more importantly, Leigh is emphasizing that in his relationship with Booth, Turner was perfectly capable of forming a normal, caring relationship with a woman.
In one of the stronger scenes in the film, Leigh does well in showing that Turner was not always the gruff and impatient curmudgeon who often turned up in social circles. After his father's death, Turner visits a prostitute. But instead of having sex with her, has her pose clothed in bed, while he begins to draw her in his sketchbook. Suddenly tears pour down his face and he begins sobbing; clearly the the death of father has affected him greatly.
Leigh occasionally becomes so enamored with the history of the denizens of the mid-19th century English upper-class as well as the era's technological advances, that he drags out sub-plots, to the detriment of the overall narrative. Case in point: the drawn-out focus on Benjamin Haydon, a rival painter who was perennially in debt throughout his life and ultimately committed suicide. Haydon is there mainly to highlight either Turner's stinginess or financial prudence, depending on your point of view. Nonetheless, there was a little too much of the bankrupt painter for my tastes.
Another scene which seemed unnecessarily long was when Turner visits the newfangled daguerreotype shop where he has his first photo taken. (He then goes back to the same shop with Sophia so they can have a photo of the two of them taken together.) Turner remarks something to the effect that he is becoming obsolete due to rapid advances in technology. But Leigh drags scenes such as this out far longer than necessary as the awe in which these 19th century folks must have felt when they had their first picture taken, has little to do again, with advancing Turner's story.
Leigh is on more solid ground when he depicts Turner's interaction with colleagues at Royal Academy exhibits, in social conversation at home and at public venues, such as the theater. In one memorable scene, Leigh shows off his skills as "editor" of his ensembles' often improvised dialogue, as the various artists debate their art at the Royal Academy and end up marveling at Turner's "sleight of hand" (Turner mischievously appears to ruin his painting in front of his colleagues, by appending a red splotch in the center of one of his masterpieces, only to turn it into a buoy, bobbing in the ocean). The inane prattle of his contemporaries--including the overly witty, noted art critic of the time, John Ruskin--is ably highlighted. There's also a very nice scene when a theater troupe makes fun of Turner in skit and song, as Turner sits displeased in his private box.
Ultimately, Leigh doesn't quite pull off the Turner biography. This is mainly due to the fact that there is no singular or even group of antagonists that Turner is pitted against throughout the narrative. Turner's opponents, such as his mistress and two daughters, have brief cameos and are underdeveloped as foils for the "great" artist. There is also no great conflict between Turner and his fellow artists that could lead to rising tension at the end of the second act and an exciting climax. Instead, Leigh is left to depict Turner's sad decline as he becomes more eccentric and mentally unstable, prior to his death.
If you're going to see "Mr. Turner," see it more for the production design and the brilliant cinematography, which mimics many of Mr. Turner's grand vistas. "Turner" has its moments, but the plot is bare- boned and overly dependent on isolated historical episodes.