Girl with a Pearl Earring (2003) User Reviews

A Wonderful Film Not Just about Vermeer, but Artistic Motivation

[jkeats1 · 8/10 · 17 May 2004]

Johannes Vermeer was a silent man. Being equipped with immense talent, brush and palette, there really was no need for words. Such philosophy is greatly dwelt upon in Peter Webber's adaptation of Tracy Chevalier's novel.

The film is breathtaking alone in the fact that the production team, led by cinematographer Eduardo Serra, production designer Ben Van Os, and art director Christina Shaeffer, manages to capture Vermeer's filling, oil-based colors, and light into every scene.

The story is exemplary as well. We are taken into a brief era in Vermeer's life in 17th century Delft. Much of the film's premise is true: Vermeer was a reticent and brilliant painter who attempted to balance his genius and deep-rooted, innate calling to art and solitude with the often overbearing demands of a bourgeoisie, Venetian society, as well as the malignant pressures posted by a sadistic commissioner, and the pressures of being the head of a massive household (when he died in 1675, he left behind his wife and 11 children).

In 1665, however, he painted a mysterious masterpiece. It's mysterious because much scholarship has since been dedicated to uncovering the identity of the model who posed for it. It has been suggested that the subject is one of his daughters, although this theory is met today with much skepticism. And this is where the film spends most of its fictional focus: that of creating an imaginary story to help speculate on what we know as factual about Vermeer's life. Enter a young, beautiful servant girl, Grit (Scarlett Johansson), who through no fault of her own, finds that her classic beauty attracts Vermeer's sensibilities-as a man and as an artist-to such a degree that he has no choice but to capture her on oil and canvas.

Vermeer (Colin Firth) spends a lot of time in this film standing quietly in the shadows and peeking around corners. There's great symbolism in many of these shots-his body is often half-covered, half-exposed, representing the dichotomy he must have felt in his life-that of being in perpetual conflict with his spiritual, artistic longings and the more human qualities of a man.

Whereas Vermeer' silence is a result of his being reluctant to communicate with the external world, mostly due to artistic self-absorption, Griet similarly is cut off from humanity, but rather out of innocence, naivety, beauty, and the unfortunate side effect of being at the low end of a rather oppressive Delft caste system where she has little voice outside of the disturbance her beauty stimulates in others. Together, the two characters find an unspoken solace, a type of kinetic energy that can only be conveyed through Vermeer's art. Indeed, one of the film's more touching moments comes when the artist reveals his portrait of her and Griet replies, 'You've seen into me.' Another memorable moment, if not altogether breathtaking, comes when Vermeer is instructing Griet in how to hold her face at the proper angle in order to catch the appropriate reflection of light on her mouth, and also when he is instructing her in how to mix his paints and their hands, for a split second, brush together. It is in such moments that Firth brilliantly conveys the tormenting dissonance present in a man not in whose base desires are overshadowing his artistic being, but rather the opposite-as a virtuoso experiencing a rare moment of temporary carnal pleasure.

All philosophy aside, is the film any good? I'd say it's extraordinary, although if you're not one to gravitate toward the biography of an artist, this may not be the film for you. However, I do believe that the human story element her is valuable, entertaining, and worthwhile.

Not without flaws, but beautifully presented

[moonspinner55 · 7/10 · 4 May 2006]

Young woman in Holland circa 1665, innocent and wide-eyed but hard working, leaves home for job as scullery maid to a painter named Vermeer and his family; soon, she becomes the artist's secret assistant and muse, eventually posing for Vermeer's famous title-named portrait. Stunning art direction, lively pacing and an absorbing narrative all make up for a few key performances which seem too modern, and minor instances where the editing isn't as sharp as one might hope. The maid's many entrances and exits are repetitive, but Scarlett Johansson proves to be an intuitive actress who excels in a role with very little dialogue. Quite good overall, and with a finale that smartly leaves the breathless viewer wondering...asking...wanting more. *** from ****

Lyrical perfection if it's the sort of thing that turns you on

[Chris_Docker · 8/10 · 20 January 2004]

Is this an incredibly dull movie about a single painting - or is it a mesmerising and penetrating insight into art and a particular 17th century Dutch artist? It probably depends on your point of view.

Griet is a poor young girl who goes to work for the great Vermeer as a humble servant. She is pushed around emotionally by his overwrought and jealous wife, mischievous children and all-powerful lustful patron. Yet the biggest force in her life, gradually teasing out her own artistic sensibilities, is the Master himself. Griet becomes the subject of his most famous painting, lured by a mixture of dread and fascination.

For Vermeer the artist, his work is all-consuming. Every part of his world – the welfare of his family, his eccentricities, his whole energy and purpose in life, is concentrated into his work. That is not to say he lacks morals but simply that his work is his higher calling. To justify such a character, we could look to the role of art and its importance. Art can be worshipped for its own sake, like some wicked effigy, and used to excuse all manner of moral turpitude in its creator; or it can be seen as the entrance by which light can enter our soul, illuminate thought and our world in a way that cold logic alone would deny us, move us beyond the bounds of our immediate impressions and let us see the world about us in a new way, inspired and informed.

Griet carries this seed, to see beauty where others see only common place things, and it is a seed that the Master nourishes. There are times when Vermeer protects Griet from the people around he,r to whom she is so vulnerable, but is his concern towards her concern for her welfare, secret desire, or just a tool, an exquisite tool, of his trade?

Cinema is also being part of this artistic spectrum, if we allow it to be, affecting us in ways that let the viewer grow rather than just be entertained. Girl With a Pearl Earring certainly has sufficient integrity to do that, but if one just wanted to be entertained then it probably falls short. The art direction beautifully recreates Holland of the period and Scarlett Johansson gives a very well-tempered performance as young Griet. Costumes, music and overall cinematography are accomplished and haunting without loss of subtlety, producing a memorable film for lovers of art and cinema; but if paintings don't do anything for you, this film might not either.

visually stunning, though lacking in dramatic intensity

[Buddy-51 · 20 July 2004]

Behind every picture there lies a story, and the film `Girl With a Pearl Earring' purports to give us the inside scoop into the making of Vermeer's classic painting of the same name. In the mid 1600's, a young, illiterate peasant girl named Griet came to live and work as a servant in the home of the promising, yet still financially struggling, Dutch master. Obsessed by her beauty, Vermeer insisted on using her as the subject for one of his works, much to the horror and chagrin of his jealous and shrewish wife. Despite the domestic havoc it caused, the collaboration between artist and subject resulted in one of the genuine masterpieces of the art world.

Visually, this film could not be more stunning. Thanks to luminous cinematography, art direction and costume design, the audience watching this film feels almost as if it has been transported into a Vermeer work. Director Peter Webber recreates every element of that world in loving detail, right down to his choice of actress Scarlett Johansson, who is a dead ringer for the model in the original portrait. Alexandre Desplat's score also captures the lyrical, haunting tenderness of the subject matter.

`Girl With a Pearl Earring' is a very fine movie in many respects, but it is ultimately unsatisfying because it cannot match in content what it achieves in style. Despite the exquisite look of the film, the characters seem strangely underdeveloped, most especially Vermeer himself, who remains frustratingly superficial throughout. Thanks mainly to his taciturn moodiness, we never get to know much of what he is thinking or feeling. The romantic moments between artist and subject are admirably restrained – and thereby all the more erotic in nature – but we do feel as if we would like to know more about him as a person. Griet is only slightly more fully developed, although, in her case, we can at least ascribe this lack of information to the restrictions placed on her by her station in life and the society of her time. Unlike Vermeer, Griet was conditioned by the world around her to be a passive observer. But Vermeer needs to be a more dynamic presence in the story.

One admires the fact that the filmmakers have remained truthful to the spirit of the enterprise, refusing to indulge in cheap melodramatics to make the story more salacious and scandalous than in truth it really was. Yet, in dramatic terms, such integrity comes with a price, for the film often has the effect of lulling rather than stimulating us, of raising our expectations then failing to fully satisfy them. Perhaps, in the case of this particular artwork, the story-behind-the-picture wasn't really all that interesting to begin with.

Vermeer, his servant and a painting

[theachilles · 7/10 · 29 November 2004]

In Holland of 17th century, a humble girl named Griet (Scarlett Johanson) works as a maid in the house of the famous painter Johannes Vermeer (Colin Firth) and somehow contributes into the creation of a masterpiece.

The film, just like Tracy Chevalier's book on which is based, narrates an imaginary story about who and what inspired Vermeer and led him make the "Girl With A Pearl Earring" painting. Few things are known about the personal life of Vermeer. He died at 43 after making 35 paintings and having 11 children. More than any other of the Dutch painters, he analyzed the effect natural light had on a room and on a face, something that influenced visually the film as well.

It seems inevitable that the first thing everybody notices about this film is the stunning work done by the director of photography Eduardo Serra (ASC, AFC). The colors, the lightning, the surrounding environments create a harmony and every frame of the movie cries out for you to watch it and admire it. According to the cinematographer, he didn't want the film look like a collection of Vermeer's paintings because something like that could possibly distract the viewers from the story. Well, unfortunately for him (but not for our eyes), he didn't manage it.

Although there are very few dialogues, the script achieves to be multi-leveled. Initially, it can be seen as a commentary on artistic inspiration. But there's much more in it. Griet intrudes into Vermeer's universe. She is the catalyst that makes things upside down in the household, in a very silent way - much unlike the lead character in Pier Paolo Pasolini's "THEOREM" (1968). Griet has an inner energy that captivates the painter. She doesn't end up to be just a model for him, she becomes something more. The relationship between the artist and his subject becomes deeper and deeper as Vermeer gets obsessed with his servant. Obsession plays a very important role in the story. Let's not forget that Vermeer lived in a household full of women and the only way to concentrate on his art was by having carved out his very personal space in the house. Neither his wife, nor his mother in law or his children were qualified to enter there. But Griet manages it and there are many scenes that prove her understanding of Vermeer's art.

While most films should have a tighter job in editing, this one has the exact opposite problem. Its small duration may make it watchable, but the characters seem to suffocate. They could be far more developed, but the lost ground is covered by the liaisons created among them. Griet is totally charmed by her master. She admires him as a personality, as an artist and of course as a man. But not even a moment does she forget her background and probably she ends up with Peter, the butcher's son who from the very first moments showed his feelings about her - a rather perfect match. Vermeer's thoughts are more complexed. He somehow also admires Griet, mainly because of her esteem on art. But his obsession with her is not based on erotic or sexual grounds. We can see that he's loyal to his wife, but he just does what he has to do in order to serve his art. On the other hand, Van Ruijven, who is Vermeer's family's patron is presented as a rich and lecherous old man. He knows Vermeer's desperation for money and tries to take advantage of the growing intimacy between the master and the maid that seems obvious to him. Last but not least, it must be said that in Vermeer's house, light is a character of itself. It becomes brighter and more colorful as Griet evolves from a maid to his model.

There is a strange chemistry between the lead actors, but not very successful. Firth is undoubtedly a limited actor and although he tries his best, it is not enough for such a challenging role. Johanson is surely more talented and her body language and face expressions are captivating. However, many times in the film we have the sense that she repeats her performance in "LOST IN TRANSLATION", especially in scenes where not too much is shown, but many are implied. So, the room is empty for Judy PArfitt to make another excellent performance and build in a great way her character. Peter Webber is just another director and here he's doing a better job than usually, mostly because of the materials he had in his hands. You can't distinct the director's personal touch throughout the film and that's not a good sign. My Grade: 6.5 out of 10

Colorful and splendid picture upon the excellent Dutch painter and his model

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 5 July 2005]

The film talks about a gorgeous maid (Scarlette Johansson) who goes to work as a servant at Vermeer's (Colin Firth) home in Delft (Holland) location. His jealous wife (Essie Davis) doesn't like the new worker and the troubles come out . Meanwhile, Scarlett falls in love with a butcher (Cilian Murphy) and secretly in love for Vermeer and is lustfully wished by the Vermeer's merchant (Tom Wilkinson).

Johannes Vermeer (1632-1675) was born and lived in Delft , he is considered to be the most important Dutch painter , he was dedicated, almost exclusively, to interior scenes that he paints with enjoyable realism, as well as outdoors from Delft locations . The storyline relies heavily on his stormy marriage and on the continued relationship among protagonists : Colin Firth and Scarlette Johansson . The film plot is plain and simple and it is almost slow-moving because happening limited events and that's why it results to be a little bit boring . Picture is correctly based on real deeds , although there is also fiction , the artistic creation process, the extraordinary paintings, and the family scenario are authentic . Greatest scenes of the movie when imaginatively bring to life several of Vermeer's paintings . Scarlett Johansson is wonderful with her sweet and white countenance . Eduardo Serra's cinematography is magnificent and impressive , in the movie is perfectly shown the paintings on the colorful photography . Alexandre Desplat musical score is evocative and atmospheric . Production Design is extraordinarily imade, it is well set the Dutch seventeen century . The motion picture was professionally directed . Rating: Good , above average. Well worth watching.

A film where art and cinema blend.

[filipemanuelneto · 7/10 · 22 November 2016]

Vermeer is one of the most famous names in Flemish painting, and "Girl with Pearl Earring" is one of his most famous works. The whole film revolves around this painting and its model, developing a fictional story (based on a novel) in which the painter creates a sentimental connection with the model, without the film itself being clear about the nature of this relationship. We never realize if they are lovers or if they just create a friendship based on common interests. And this deliberate doubt is one of the elements that holds the public until the end of the film, despite being very stopped and having a rhythm that can leave some people bored.

The construction of the characters deserves a positive mention. The film allows us to understand the character and personality of almost everyone. Griet, the maid/model, is a poor young woman who needs that job to survive, and for whom beauty can really be a drag. However, this is not the reason why she is shy and withdrawn to the point of keeping her blond hair always hidden. This is a result of time and place: Dutch morality was rather austere and puritanical, thanks to the Protestant mentality. This can also be seen in the contained attitude of Vermeer. He is a discreet and hard-working man, who literally lives on the art and needs it to pay his bills, which sometimes leaves his family's financial situation in some trouble. For him, the support of rich patrons was essential, and the film clearly shows it.

The film is also interesting in technical issues, particularly in the scenarios and the way they recreated the time and place. We can, in several moments, see how important art was to build this environment. A lot of details in the scenery are clearly inspired or copied from Flemish paintings. But the art direction goes one step further, by embedding in the film the recreation of a series of famous paintings of this time. For example, there is a moment where the kitchens of the painter's house are shown and, for a brief moment, the image of the painting "The Milkmaid" is recreated.

This is a worth watching movie.

A cinematic homage to 17th Century Flemish painters (not just Vermeer). (minor spoilers)

[vertigo_14 · 9/10 · 27 April 2004]

Girl with a Pearl Earring is based on the novel by Tracy Chevalier, who tells the story of a forbidden love affair (pardon the cliché) between painting master, Johannes Vermeer (Colin Firth), and the only woman who seemed to appreciate his work, a timid young maid named Grit (Scarlett Johansson).

Grit is hired to work in the Vermeer household. Had you not known anything about Vermeer prior to viewing the film, it seems as though he is some deformed creature the family wishes to keep secret. The family always linger near the door to Vermeer's studio, as though something dangerous was contained within. And, as the story goes along, you might get the impression that he is a nasty fellow, the way everyone approaches the studio so delicately, careful not to disturb anything. Says one maid to Grit, he doesn't like people bothering him when he is working.

In a way, Johannes is a real bastard to his wife, children, and mother-in-law. As a painter, they're never sure whether he is going to get the commissions from the arrogant, but jolly rich patron Van Ruijven (Tom Wilkinson), or whether they'll be escaping debtors by fleeing in the middle of the night.

Grit is curious, and at the same time, smitten with Johannes Vermeer, probably because of the initial mystery. She gains an interest in Vermeer, and in a way, also becomes his painting apprentice, helping him to mix paints, making creative suggestions about the paintings, and so forth. Vermeer introduces her to a rather different world that Grit has never known. And the two for a silent bond, a love for each other. Johannes appreciate's Grits company as a comfortable contrast to his mother-in-law, children, and especially his wife, he only seem to try to discourage his silly hobbies.

But, Johannes and Grit cannot act on their feelings for each other, at least not aloud. Divorce was highly out of the question, for one thing. But second, Johanne's was dependent on the arrogant Van Rijn for his commissions, and Van Rijn wanted Grit. Disgusted as Johannes may have been, and only slightly able to protect her (you'll see what I mean in the finale), he can't totally reject his financer. Plus, there is the barrier of master and maid, presenting a rigid social structure. And for Grit, she can only play out her affair with Johannes vicariously through her boyfriend, the Butcher.

Even if the story is not grounded in fact, or is based on little fact, the story of how Vermeer's painting, The Girl With a Pearl Earring came to be is one that presents a little mystery and romance to a painting. You can find something to appreciate it, beyond just consideration of the artistic elements of lighting or coloring, etc. In fact, art is always more fun with an intriguing story behind it (consider the controversy behind Whistler's 'Peacock Room').

I thought the movie did a fantastic job of recreating 17th century Netherlands. But what you may not know without having seen many 17 century painting, is that nearly every scene in the movie is constructed from 17 th century paintings, of Vermeers, Frans Halls, Van Dyke, and many others. The entire movie is, as one other viewer coined it, a "cinematic painting," but not just because it is a movie about the beauty of one painting, but because it is a movie entirely constructed from paintings. It was really incredible how precise everything is. Lighting, placement of figures. The actors would have to walk around a room and then at one point, hit their points precisely (props and all) to capture that one moment reflected in the painting from which it was taken from. This is really a great film for the art direction alone.

I don't know what art is, but I know what is art when I see it. Georgia O'Keefe

[jotix100 · 7/10 · 27 December 2003]

It is easy to see why art lovers will flock to see the film adaptation of the Tracy Chevalier book, but Vermeer, the master of Delft, is not in this movie at all. Granted, it is a pleasant time at the movies, but as far as telling us something about the genius behind a meager art production that the world has come to love and cherish, it will have to wait for another film with better material than this one.

The whole movie was like a painting. A work of art.

[jitterbug_perfume · 10/10 · 7 December 2004]

I was fascinated by that movie. Every scene looked like a painting and they perfectly captured Vermeer's light . I also liked the historical references to how Vermeer liked to paint young people so he could work on big surfaces of colour and avoid the shading wrinkles give. The music was beautiful and gave off a Dutch feeling of the 17th century as it should have. The time customs that were mentioned are also a great asset.Griet looked so much like Vermeer's original painting that I thought in a moment that this was real (but of course it couldn't cause back in 17th century were no cameras around :p).It was a perfect movie for someone interested in art. Other might find it a bit tiring but if you are an art lover you definitely have to watch this.

Girl with a Pearl Earring

[fmperiset · 6/10 · 3 August 2020]

Strengths: 1.- Compelling work by Colin Firth as Vermeer and Scarlett Johansson as Griet

2.-Excellent visuals and notable costume design

3.-The soundtrack is beautiful and is well used throughout the film

4.-Very effective photography

5.-The film successfully captures the environment of 17th century Delft

6.-Offers a plausible story and a meditation on love and artistic inspiration

Weaknesses: 1. -The main villain is a shallow and underdeveloped character

2. -Other characters are equally uninteresting and it is hard for the viewer to feel invested in them

3. -Sadly, the structure of the plot is predictable and suffers from a lack of tension

4.-The dialogue is forgettable for the most part. The writing is not particularly polished

5.-Although the film is only 1h 30' long, it feels significantly longer due to pacing issues

On the whole I would recommend this interesting, but somewhat uneven, film to anyone seeking a slow but well-acted drama that tackles the theme of art. 'Girl with a Pearl Earring' contains some good ideas, even if their execution sometimes falters. The film is far from being a masterpiece, but it is entertaining enough to make it enjoyable to watch and very pleasant to the eye.

Grade: 6.4 / 10.

Beautiful like the painting of an old Dutch master

[xristost · 8/10 · 14 January 2005]

I have just seen "Girl with a pearl earring" and I am already willing to see it again. The feeling is very much the same as wanting another tour in a gallery of paintings of old Dutch masters, to enjoy repeatedly the beauty of light and shadow and colours. Scarlett Johansson is both very pretty and talented and the camera lovingly moves around her, searching for her beautiful eyes and puffy lustful lips, very much reminding me of Bertolucci's love for the beauty of Liv Tyler in "Stealing beauty". Colin Firth is again producing a most powerful impact by his tall dominating figure, deep beautiful voice and reserved yet sensual and passionate attitude. A strikingly good picture in the ocean of mediocre productions.

A beautiful painterly film -- satisfaction enhanced by Alexandre Desplat's hauntingly flowing music.

[ruby_fff · 7/10 · 7 January 2004]

Besides having the feeling of the whole film is literally like a painting -- cinematically delivered in shades of subtle colors and painterly light, Alexandre Desplat's score for "The Girl With a Pearl Earring" is simply entrancing. The music elegantly flowing -- leading us from one scene to the next, be it Scarlett Johansson's Griet in the kitchen or backyard, basement or attic, braving the hailing snow or leisurely walking along the tree-lined river path with Pieter (Cillian Murphy), and, of course, in the artist's studio with Vermeer (Colin Firth) -- satisfying enchanting moments easily experienced.

What a filmic idea conceived around practically just one hauntingly beautiful painting by Vermeer. How the story is weaved and spun into intriguing vignettes, spiced with rude strokes when Tom Wilkinson's Van Ruijven appears, setting off uneasiness similar to having to perhaps erase or paint over uneven hues and hence the compromise. It's the resulting intensity and passion to complete the masterpiece of a work forever intriguing to look at -- as the haunting refrains repeatedly enhance the progression of the film.

It's not a grand film per se like the scope of say, "Cold Mountain" or full of drama and action like "The Last Samurai," but I felt so good after viewing the "Girl With A Pearl Earring" -- I was simply smiling beside myself. What an enjoyable movie experience. You might say it's quietly beautiful and intriguing at the same time. My filmic appetite was thoroughly satisfied that afternoon.

Scarlett Johansson's superbly sensitive portrayal (as the girl with traumatic experience over her loving horse) in Robert Redford's "The Horse Whisperer" 1998, impressed me more than the Thomas-Redford pairing. Then in Terry Zwigoff's "Ghost World" 2000, a complementary supporting role to Thora Birch, but front and center as the defiantly determined daughter in Eva Gárdos' "An American Rhapsody" 2001, opposite Nastassja Kinski. Same year, she played another maturing young lady role opposite Billy Bob Thornton in Coen Brothers' "The Man Who Wasn't There". Of course, in 2003, her much praised performance opposite Bill Murray in Sofia Coppola's "Lost in Translation" -- and Scarlett's only a 19 year old in Nov '03. Her portrayals are always so poignantly vulnerable and strong at the same time. Her first 2004 release will be "The Perfect Score," a group of late teens hacker-like movie (along side Erika Christensen of "Traffic" fame), seems like a reprieve from her string of 'pseudo adult' roles.

Colin Firth in costume roles -- very first one comes to mind is his Mr. Darcy opposite Jennifer Ehle in A&E series of "Pride and Prejudice" 1995. He was Valmont opposite Annette Bening in Milos Forman's "Valmont" 1989. Of course, the unforgettable modern day Mr. Darcy opposite Renée Zellweger and Hugh Grant in "Bridget Jones's Diary" 2001, and in the stellar ensemble cast of "Love Actually" in 2003, as a writer chasing after a Spanish-speaking love of his life -- comedic tempo, he also has. To see Firth in an intense suspenseful leading role, try Martin Donovan's psycho thriller (NFE) "Apartment Zero" 1988, set in Buenos Aires.

The Lips Did 90% of The Work

[poindexter_mellon · 1/10 · 5 March 2022]

I sort of liked it but c'mon, it was all about the lips. Over and over, the lips front and center, no dialog, just the lips. It got old after awhile, the lips. Scarlett could have stayed home and sent her lips because they did 90% of the work. Try this experiment and see if I'm right. Watch the movie and imagine that the lips aren't there.

Subtle, yet powerful enough

[Moñy · 15 January 2004]

We first meet Griet, spectacularly played by Scarlett Johansson, cutting and chopping vegetables and placing them in a beautiful display on a large plate. Her patience and care for making sure that all of the vegetables are balanced correctly in shape, form and color is only a glimpse of what becomes clearly evident later on in the film: this girl has the Eye.

She is ushered by her mom to begin her job as maid at the Vermeer's household while at the same time prompting Griet to shut her ears whenever someone is praying in presence. She says her goodbyes to her father, who loves her very much and is pained to see her go. It seems that her parents never expected her to assume the position of maid, but financial circumstances have forced Griet to make her way to her new master, Johannes Vermeer, superbly played by Colin Firth.

Griet settles in fairly well in her duties as maid and was given the chore to clean Vermeer's studio, a room that Vermeer's wife seems to avoid at all costs, almost fearful of what happens within its four walls. So right from the beginning we realize that Vermeer's wife is ignorant to her husband's talent, work and passion. This is a common theme throughout the movie and eventually culminates in an amazing confrontation toward the end of the movie.

It doesn't take long for us to realize that Vermeer and Griet have forged a bond: she fetches his colors, she grinds and mixes the paints, she cleans the windows in the studio so that better light comes in, she even moves a chair so that it doesn't appear on the painting Vermeer is working on. When he asks her why she moved the chair, she answers simply, "She looked trapped." referring to the female subject in the painting inspired by Griet herself. And it made perfect sense for her to do that. But it was also bold and only one who feels comfortable in that setting would have dared to do that, even for a person in her station, a maid.

Vermeer is commissioned to do a painting of Griet by a lustful Van Ruijven, played by Tom Wilkinson, who believes that Vermeer and Griet have fooled around and wants to join in and have a taste for himself. Thankfully he doesn't get his way but he does get the painting which is remarkable in its own right. But not without any hardships. Griet, understandably so, didn't want to participate in the sitting simply because she would it would anger his wife. Eventually persuaded by both Vermeer and his insipid mother-in-law to have it finished, she agrees to pose and get her ears pierced so that she could wear the beautiful pearl earring, a piece of jewelry belonging to Vermeer's wife. This leads to a confrontation when she finds out that Griet has worn her pearl earrings and demands to see the painting for herself. Vermeer doesn't want her to see it, claiming that she wouldn't understand, and inevitably so, once she sees it, she deems it grotesque, clearly showing us that she is ignorant and completely out of her element. This frustrates her and sends Griet packing, severing the connection between Vermeer and Griet when he does nothing to stop the dismissal.

Every shot in this film looks like it could be a painting itself. It's an absolutely beautifully shot movie. The movie is also incredibly quite and could be considered slow at times. There is not a lot of action in this movie, unless you consider Griet's little rendezvous with the butcher's son, played by Cillian Murphy. But then again, this is not an action movie. It is simply a story of girl who came into the life of a very talented painter and inspired him at the time he needed it most in his life.

Even Johansson's performance is quiet. She hardly ever speaks, yet her eyes and her face speak volumes. It is by far one of her best performances, only rivaled by her rendition of Charlotte in "Lost in Translation" where, incredibly enough, she plays the role of a woman who connects with an older man on a very human level and yet no physical consummation is ever present. Very much so like Griet and Vermeer connect in the confines of his studio and yet are worlds apart outside of it.

I enjoyed the movie very much but it is clearly not for everyone. It can seem slow at times, too quiet in others, but it's worth seeing if just for Johansson's performance, one which I am sure she will get recognized for.

Pretty but slow..ie. pretty slow......

[mrcaw12 · 6/10 · 8 September 2004]

Glad to see they made a movie about Vermeer using his lighting techniques in the movie itself. As recorded in other comments there is not much dialog in the film. Lots of atmospheric shots with not much action per se except for Scarlett Johansenn mixing paint, walking around the artist studio etc. One thing I did find very funny is the idea that Vermeer would have been influenced in his painting choices, composition etc, by someone who is basically a skullery maid. Sorry but I think it's definitely a 21st revisionist's idea to put forth this supposition. For example, Scarlett's character must be very careful not to move anything in Vermeer's painting model-setup, a chair, etc. Yet one afternoon, she looks at the painting in progress and decides that a chair in Vermeers painting should not be there, so she removes the real life chair from Vermeers mock-up. Later, Vermeer notices this and decides that she is right and erases the chair from his painting. Later he asks her why she moved the chair! Yikes! It all got a bit contrived and pompous at that point. Poor Colin Firth. What happened to his performance? He basically uses one expression throughout the film. That of p*ssed off. Combining this with the horrible hair extensions/wig(?) they had him in and his character is woefully petulant throughout the flick. Johansen actually does manage to keep the audience interest though she better be carefull not to let her soulfull, furrowed brow look become too much of an affectation. Judy Parfitt, as Vermeers mother-in-law,is one of the better attractions in the film. She's an accomplished actress one should keep an eye out for. She was particularly good in the Kathy Bates flick, Dolores Clairborne where she utters the infamous line... "sometimes being a bitch is the only thing a woman has to hold on to"

The art of light

[stensson · 7/10 · 15 March 2004]

Peter Webber's film dares to have silences. Every scene is a composition, including the beautiful light. 17th century Dutch life is described in a most realistic way. You can almost feel the smell.

Scarlett Johansson will certainly be the first great new American actress of the 21th century. She acts mostly with her eyes here, but that makes things a little limited. The story is also predictable and the fact that everybody speaks 21th century movie American English, although in a quiet manner, brings everything down a bit.

Anyway, this is a film done in a different way, with totally respect for the baroque environment.

If you've read the book, Skip the movie

[Src_0416 · 6/10 · 24 June 2023]

Having just finished the book by Tracy Chevalier, I was very excited when I stumbled across this movie. Oops.

It was pretty I guess, but they managed to take every nuance, personality, and ounce of tension from the book and destroy it. One of the most interesting pieces of conflict from the book was what was happening inside Griet as she lost more of herself in Vermeer's world. And she was full of life, with lots of backstory. Griet in the movie just stands around looking shocked the whole time and you wonder why she would be compelling to paint or get to know at all.

Not to mention that one of the things that was supposed to be poignant (her piercing her ears for the painting) was completely glossed over. In the book she did it herself as a way of showing her love and commitment to Vermeer and we see how much she is struggling with how to deal with those feelings.

Her relationship with Pieter should have had much more complexity. The reason she sleeps with Pieter in the alley is because now that someone (the master) has seen her hair, she feels like she has given every piece of herself away, so why not let Pieter, who she has had a long courtship with, sleep with her? The movie just made it look like she was upset and needed sexual attention right there and now, from a guy she's met maybe twice.

And the conclusion explained nothing. The book was so beautifully clear and really delivered a punch - after Griet was painted and was accused of stealing the pearls, she ran away, reputation ruined, with no support from the master she believed cared about her. She more or less settled for Pieter because that's what she thought she should do, and ten years later is left the earrings because Vermeer has died - and the real punch is that his wife is the one who has to give them to Griet. Griet does not want to feel like she owes anyone anything, pawns the earrings, and gets on with her life. Where is this empowerment in the movie? You don't even know why Tanneke brings her the earrings at the end- there is no conclusion.

I know that not everything from a book can be included in the movie adaptation, and some things have to be changed for the screen. But I felt like they cut out a lot of crucial plot points that would have made the movie make more sense, and they changed some things just for the sake of making changes. If you did read the book, don't watch this. If you haven't read the book and you want a good story, read the book.

Slow But Wow, Is This A Visual Treat!

[ccthemovieman-1 · 9/10 · 13 January 2006]

I can't imagine a lot of people, especially anyone under 40, sitting through this extremely slow film....but I thought it was excellent. However, I am biased because I love great cinematography and stories about famous painters. Sometimes the cameras stay on subject longer than normal, affording the viewer time to really soak it up.

If you can stay awake, this film offers some of the prettiest images I've ever seen on film. Scene after scene looks like a classic painting come to life. Scarlet Johannson says very little but is fascinating to watch. For the first-time viewer, there a tension that builds throughout the film leaving wondering what bad thing is about to happen. The story is not an upbeat one, yet not depressing either.

One time, I watched this film very early in the morning, something I rarely do, and with the subtitles on. It wasn't a bad way to watch it - a quiet film in the quiet of the pre-dawn hours . The film offers another demonstration of why doesn't have to shed all their clothes to be erotic. This inspired me to read the book, and I enjoyed that, too.

Very well written and directed

[abhilashay-71255 · 7/10 · 1 March 2021]

Great movie. Any art lover would love the whole direction of movie. Scarlett Johansson acted beautifully.

An artistic triumph.

[planktonrules · 9/10 · 30 December 2012]

While one of the major characters in the film is Jan Vermeer and the film is about one of his most famous paintings, my calling the film an artistic triumph is NOT because of this. No, it's because the people making the film have managed to create an amazing work of art in this film. The colors, the set design, the costumes and the entire look of the film is like a Vermeer painting come to life--especially in the set that is Vermeer's studio. If you are unfamiliar with his work and the historical setting, you might not recognize this--but the filmmakers did a brilliant job in creating the look of the period. It is, simply, a triumph in design and cinematography and I am surprised that the film didn't win an Oscar in any of these artistic categories. It did get nominated, but no more--losing to films like "Master and Commander" and one of the "Lord of the Rings" movies. These two were wonderful films, but when it comes to Costume Design, Art/Set Decoration and Cinematography, "Girl with a Pearl Earring" is, to me, more remarkable. As for my personal reaction to the movie, I was so enthralled by the look of the film that I could easily look past any other shortcomings in the movie. It also helped that I have seen several of Vermeer's few extant paintings just over the last few months (in London, Edinburgh and Paris) as well as having seen them in New York and Washington in the not too distant past. They are fresh in my mind and the images in the film bring them back to me. The only other film that manages to convey an artist's work this well is the superb "Lust for Life" (that featured actors who were virtual duplicates of Van Gogh's subjects).

The story is mostly a work of fiction. Nothing is known about the subject in the famous painting for which the film is named--and the movie is entirely conjecture--what MIGHT have happened leading up to the production of this masterpiece. Now I am not complaining about this--it does make for an interesting sort of story. But I also am always worried that people will mistake it for historical fact--which isn't a surprising concern considering that I used to teach history. So, we don't know whether or not one of Vermeer's kids was a brat or if his wife was irrational or if the subject of his painting was his maid or if Vermeer was a horn-dog who liked to sleep with the subjects in his pictures.

When it comes to the acting, it might not be everyone's idea of a wonderful film. The acting is highly subdued--with a very, very narrow range of emotions. Considering that the story would have taken place during a very conservative time and place (17th century Holland) and the story centers on a lowly servant, this is probably reasonable--but still might irritate viewers who want action. So, instead of action, there are lots of knowing glances and nuances...not everyone's cup of tea! And, while the illustrious Colin Firth plays Vermeer, you never really learn much about him nor is Firth given much with which to work. Young Scarlett Johansson, however, is ALWAYS in every part of the film--and she manages to make quite a bit of what she is able to convey given the limited emotional ranges in the film. Overall, it's certainly not a film for everyone but a brilliant film nonetheless.

Attractive but limited depth

[ThomasColquith · 7/10 · 22 December 2021]

"Girl with a Pearl Earring" is a well made film about a fictional backstory around the famous Vermeer painting of the same name. It is an art house type film with very good cinematography and lighting to match the equally enchanting work of Vermeer. However, the plot and character development is slim. I will rate it a 7/10 as it was pleasant to watch and was an interesting look at the Old World, but it is a film that I may not watch again.

The painting was better than the book

[=G= · 8/10 · 4 May 2004]

"Girl with a Pearl Earring" tells a fictional tale about how the title painting by 17th century Dutch painter Vermeer might have come to be. Outwardly, the film is a story about the painter and a household maid who becomes the subject of the painting. Inwardly, the film is about the unspoken but palpable feelings between two people of very different stature and station which may or may not be forever cast in the crazed pigments of the masterpiece. Those who can tap into the subtle human emotional undercurrents will find this film far more satisfying than those who cannot. Regardless, all will find "Girl with a Pearl Earring" a masterpiece of filmmaking. (A-)

looks really pretty, takes a long time to get going

[SnoopyStyle · 7/10 · 30 August 2013]

Griet (Scarlett Johansson) is a peasant maid working in the house of painter Johannes Vermeer (Colin Firth). She becomes his talented assistant, and the model for one of his most famous works. Also starring such greats actors as Tom Wilkinson and Cillian Murphy.

This movie is based on a fictional story derived from the Dutch masterpiece painting called Girl with a Pearl Earring. Like the painting, this is really pretty. The set and the costumes are all beautifully created reminiscent of the paintings. Every chance he gets, director Peter Webber frames the movie as a painting. I see the idea behind the style, but inevitably it restraints the picture from anything more than 2 dimensional portraits.

Scarlett's reserved performance siphons most of the passion from this film. It's obvious they're trying to allude to an overall sense of restricted sexuality. But it just takes too long to get the tension going. A quicker faster emotional speed is required for the first half.

MISSING THE POINT

[Norwegianheretic · 5/10 · 2 December 2003]

Despite the fact that considerable technical skill went into the recreating of Vermeer's lighting, there is virtually no evidence of Vermeer the painter in GIRL WITH A PEARL EARRING.

Instead of exploring the work of this genius, the master is trivialized with a dull, uninspired melodramatic story. That one should spent the length of a feature film considering the superficialities of the relationship between Johannes Vermeer and his wife, his maid, and his patron is evidence to me that, despite all of our electricity, we are living in a truly dark age.

In 1977, a Dutch director, Jos Stelling, made a film, unjustly ignored, about Rembrandt. His work, REMBRANDT FECITE 1669, re-created more than the artist's lighting, he re-created the man's soul. The camera moved in accordance with the painter's sensibilities, the story moved similarly. This film was a meditation on the man's work, a true attempt to re-create the time in which he lived. Vermeer deserved but has not received the same treatment.

The fundamental problem with GIRL WITH A PEARL EARRING lies in its presumption that Vermeer's personal genius had something to do with the man - as a husband, a lover, a son-in-law, or whatever the hell else he was. What is missing entirely is that Vermeer had a talent and sensibility for capturing the most ineffable qualities of life - his was a gift of observation, not participation. What happened in the artist's personal dramas is completely irrelevant to the more lasting sensation of his method of observing.

It should be about how he saw things, not what actually happened.