Documentary Films

After seeing three of French director Louis Malle's scripted films (Au Revoir Les Enfants, The Fire Within, and Elevator To The Gallows, all quite wonderful, especially the latter two) I've found he makes a fine documentary, as well, as a drama. I first watched God's Country, which is a solid documentary, though farming may not be of my greatest interest. Then I settled in for the 1969 Phantom India, whose mammoth length (its run time is 6 hours and 3 minutes) made me a bit wary (as I tend to be short on patience), but oh, what a unforgettable film! A journey through India and sublime cinema, Phantom India is one of the most magnificent and well-rounded films I have ever had the pleasure of seeing.

For me personally, this is the film version of what the book "Night Train to Lisbon" (which inspired me to cut all ties in the U.S. and spontaneously fly to Lisbon, and travel in Europe and Africa) did for me. I am now drafting plans for a trip to India, after this film, it was that powerful.

Here's a small selection of screencapture's, really a miniscule look at the wide scoop of this film:

phantomindia7.jpg
phantomindia2.jpg
phantomindia.jpg
phantomindia6.jpg
PhantomIndia-7-11.jpg
PhantomIndia-6-8.jpg


Screencaptures source: filmsufi.blogspot

I can't wait to see more of Malle's documentaries!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Saw two excellent documentaries lately.

Paris Is Burning (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100332/)

This is a documentary of 'drag nights' among New York's underclass. Queens are interviewed and observed preparing for and competing in many 'balls'. The people, the clothes, and the whole environment are outlandish.

It's such a great documentary. Equal parts funny and fabulous and desperately sad, especially towards the end.

Catfish (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1584016)

In late 2007, filmmakers Ariel Schulman and Henry Joost sensed a story unfolding as they began to film the life of Ariel's brother, Nev. They had no idea that their project would lead to the most exhilarating and unsettling months of their lives. A reality thriller that is a shocking product of our times, Catfish is a riveting story of love, deception and grace within a labyrinth of online intrigue
 
I loved Catfish, I made all my friends watch it. I actually have seen it thanks to a tfs member. But if you are going to watch it, don't read anything about it before.
I couldn't believe it, it was very sad.

I also really liked The Boy Interrupted, if you haven't seen it I really recommend it.

Now I want to see Tarnation, I've heard it's really a great documentary. Have anybody seen it?
 
I just watched Boy, Interrupted. Thanks for the recommendation, it was brilliant and so devastatingly tragic at the same time, I think I cried from the first scene to the last.
 
I dont know if I'm the only one to do this, but I went through itunes U and downloaded a few courses. My favorite is the Sociology one from Berkeley, bu Robb Miller. He's awesome. I listen to him when I go out on hicks in the forest. It's really interesting and he has a great sense of humor. Anyway, he usually talks about and make his students watch documentaries. The only one I've seen so far is the milgram experiment. It's really interesting and kind of makes you wonder what you would do if you were the one that had to hit the button... (It has been redone by many people, you're bound to have one in your language :smile: )
(ps: if someone doesnt know what it is, I can explain the experiment :wink: )
 
Did anyone here attend the London International Documentary festival? I couldn't make it to London from the beginning but hopefully I'll be able to see "Happy". I'd love to hear some feedbacks from people who are/did attend :flower:
 
Saw two excellent documentaries lately.

Paris Is Burning (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100332/)

This is a documentary of 'drag nights' among New York's underclass. Queens are interviewed and observed preparing for and competing in many 'balls'. The people, the clothes, and the whole environment are outlandish.

I just watched this last night thanks to Huluplus. It was a great documentry. Although, it makes me rather sad to find out that they majority of the people featured have died. I'm rather curious to see what happened to the two young kids that had a brief scene in it.

I would give it 5 Stars. I just read that there is a follow documentary called How do I look. Not made by the same director as Paris, but it does feature a couple of the stars that were still living at the time.
 
Can't believe I just discovered this thread o_O My passion is documentary film making. I love that it's getting much more appreciated these days. There are so many exciting projects every year it seems.

Has anyone seen Bully? I can't wait for it to be released in the UK =)
 
I've been watching a few music documentaries lately:

-Blur: No Distance Left to Run (2010)
-Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars (1973)
-Who is Harry Nilsson (And Why is Everyone Talkin' About Him?) (2010)
-Scott Walker: 30th Century Man (2007)


I'm wondering if anybody can recommend more? :lol:

I especially find ones about artists that aren't as popular anymore such as the Harry Nilsson or Scott Walker ones to be the most fascinating.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I recently watched Capturing the Friedmans which was soooo creepy and intense.

Also interesting was a newer documentary called The Imposter. [This should be available on Netflix]

Both of these films leave you wondering - who was guilty? Who was in the wrong? But there are no easy answers, thus leaving the viewer feeling uneasy.

Both are definitely worth watching imo! :flower:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Most Beautiful Boy in the World
Sundance 2021 | Release Date: September 3, 2021

When Italian auteur Luchino Visconti set about adapting Thomas Mann’s novel Death in Venice, he knew that casting the protagonist Gustav’s teen object of fascination and obsession – Tadzio – would be key to the success of the film. He therefore launched an enormous search for the perfect boy – who would be thoroughly examined and judged against extremely highly standards of physical beauty. This procession of ‘victims’ before Visconti is what opens the documentary The Most Beautiful Boy in the World and you may think that things can’t get more disturbing from here, but believe me, you will not be able to predict the twists and turns that this absolutely riveting documentary is about to lead you on.

The boy he found was the fourteen year old Björn Andrésen from Sweden, whose experience making and promoting the film could reasonably be described as grooming. One bizarre side effect of his fame was having a pop career in Japan – and he comes across as very much a Timothée Chalamet or Harry Styles of his day. The glamorous footage of Andrésen attending Cannes and the Royal premiere of the film (where was the scene of Queenie and Margaret discussing Death in Venice in The Crown?!) is interspersed with scenes of adult Andrésen (now in his 60s) and his much-changed circumstances. The filmmakers follow his present-day life, while he is under threat of eviction from his flat, for hoarding and leaving his gas stove unattended and also his girlfriend troubles.

The documentary is very much about Andrésen wrestling and reckoning with his past, from his mistreatment by adults when he was a child and teenager, through to his own failings as a husband and father. Just when you think there can’t possibly be any more to his life story, something else will be revealed. As is often the case, there is a lot of home-movie footage from before Andrésen became an actor to illustrate his narrative and I’m always astonished at how much documentation there is, even of ‘normal’ people’s lives and from before the digital age. It feels very much like watching an episode of Who Do You Think You Are? with there even being an emotional scene at a records office.

The structure and pacing by writer-directors Kristina Lindström and Kristian Petri, as well as the editing by Dino Jonsäter and Hanna Lejonqvist aids the compulsive viewing experience, so even if you’re watching at home, it’s unlikely you will get distracted or have your attention start to wander. The score by Filip Leyman and Anna Von Hausswolff makes that opening sequence, in particular, seem like a horror film. Because of the heavy involvement of Andrésen himself, who is really guiding us through his life story, it doesn’t feel sensationalist or exploitative. There is even a treat for Ari Aster fans, with some behind-the-scenes footage of Midsommar, a more recent film that Andrésen has appeared in.

This was the first film I saw (of 25) at this year’s Sundance and it set an incredibly high standard that everything else struggled to live up to. It makes you realise that everyone you meet or pass in the street could have an incredible backstory, just waiting to be discovered. Especially with how close Andrésen comes to homelessness, the film makes you appreciate the extreme highs and lows that anyone can go through in their lives. The Most Beautiful Boy in the World is utterly fascinating from start to end. It’s an incredibly well-crafted documentary, that perfectly times each new piece of information, keeping you glued to your screen.
source | jumpcutonline

 
Cannes | Jane par Charlotte | Release Dates: July 2021 France | October 2021 US
Why Charlotte Gainsbourg Created a ‘Selfish’ Portrait of Her Legendary Mother



With the doc Jane by Charlotte, the actress-singer ventured into some uncomfortable familial territory for an unvarnished look at Jane Birkin, but she says it was worth it: ‘It was done for my own pleasure’

After 37 years as an actress and singer, Charlotte Gainsbourg’s motivation for making her directorial debut was not professional ambition or artistic longing — she wanted to spend more time with her mom.

“I needed to get close to her, and I couldn’t without an excuse,” Gainsbourg says of her mother, English actress and singer Jane Birkin. “So the excuse was to get a team together and ask her if I could film her. The idea was to be able to look at her really with the eye of a daughter.”

The result is Gainsbourg’s documentary, Jane by Charlotte, an impressionistic portrait of Birkin as a mother, wife and artist, that will screen in Cannes’ new Premiere sidebar before receiving a theatrical release in France (the film does not yet have U.S. distribution).

If American audiences know Gainsbourg, 49, it’s as the daring actress in such Lars von Trier movies as Antichrist and Melancholia, or perhaps for an episode spoofing herself on Call My Agent, the French series that has found a global audience on Netflix. But to the French, Gainsbourg is part of the national fabric, the product of the celebrity marriage between Birkin and French actor and singer-songwriter Serge Gainsbourg, whose suggestive 1969 duet, “Je t’aime … moi non plus” sparked condemnation by the Vatican and mass fascination by the public and seemed to embody the sexual revolution that was underway.

Gainsbourg is interested in a very different side of her mother than the young woman whose beauty and glamour inspired the name of Hermes’ legendary and expensive handbag. Instead, she shows Birkin, 74, padding around her seaside home in Brittany in a baggy button-down shirt, cooking for her granddaughter and answering sometimes uncomfortable questions about their family. “In France, a lot of the footage that happened in the ’70s, where my parents are together, everybody has seen,” Gainsbourg says. “Everybody has an image of her in those years. I didn’t want to have these beautiful but stereotyped images of her. I wanted her today. I didn’t care about what people knew of her or what they wanted to see of her. It was done in a very, very selfish way for my own pleasure.”

Gainsbourg now lives in Paris with her partner, Israeli-French actor and director Yvan Attal, and their three children. She says she enjoyed her first experience directing, “but I’m not sure I’d be able to do a thriller or any genre film. I have to fall in love with a story that would be very close to my own feelings.”

Gainsbourg started making the film in 2018 when Birkin was performing concerts in Japan but paused when her mother found her questions too probing. “She said, ‘I hated what you did in Japan. I hated the interview,’ ” Gainsbourg says. “I just said to the producer, ‘Well, the film is finished. We can’t continue.’ ”

At the center of the movie is a profound loss, the death of Birkin’s oldest child, fashion photographer Kate Barry, whom she had with her first husband, English composer John Barry. Kate died in 2013 in a fall from the window of her Paris apartment in what was assumed to be a suicide, and her death led to a gulf between Birkin and Gainsbourg, as each retreated into their grief separately. “I went straight to questions that were important to me but were, for her, very emotional,” Gainsbourg says. “I wanted to understand, why did I feel distance and shyness with [Birkin]? I think she felt it as an accusation, which was not the case. She was very used to talking in a professional way in front of the camera, defending her shows or films she’d done.”

In 2020, when Birkin came to perform in New York — where Gainsbourg was living at the time — they watched the footage together, and Birkin’s position softened. “After a long while, she did understand that it was done in a caring way, that it is a declaration of love for my mother.”

Gainsbourg’s parents divorced in 1981, and Serge died in 1991, but Gainsbourg has devoted herself to preserving both of their legacies — among the more striking moments in the film is a visit to Serge’s Paris home, which Gainsbourg has meticulously preserved since his death and plans to open as a museum.

“In France, he’s so well-known,” Gainsbourg says. “He belongs to everyone. The only thing that was still mine and only mine was his house. I’m not able to go to the cemetery because there are always a lot of people there. I’m able to go to his house and shut the door and just be there for him and for myself. So it means putting an end to that, but I think it’s much needed after 30 years. I have to do it.”
source | hollywoodreporter
 
^Oh God, I'm only surprised it took them this long to think up a documentary. It will probably be dripping in their trademark slouchy hair, slouchy clothes, ciggie in the mouth French coolness, and I'll probably like it, but I'm so fatigued by Jane and her daugters despite not actually knowing much about them other than the clothes they put on their backs. I can't event list all their lovers. This is what constantly appearing on magazine covers does. The mere mention of their names and I groan.
 
The Velvet Underground Film Review: Todd Haynes Makes an Immersive and Essential Rock Doc

Cannes 2021: He may not have a lot of concert footage to draw from, but Haynes turns his first documentary into a performance


“The Velvet Underground” is a rock ‘n’ roll documentary that doesn’t really follow the normal rules for rock-docs — but then, a film about the Velvets wouldn’t be satisfying if it was conventional, and following normal rules is definitely not an approach that would give Todd Haynes a reason to make his first documentary.

Haynes, the uncommonly sensitive and provocative director of “Carol,” “I’m Not There” and “Far From Heaven,” among others, isn’t here to give us a blow-by-blow account of the New York band that was adopted by Andy Warhol’s Factory scene. The Velvets proved to be far too extreme to enjoy mainstream success, but extreme enough to inspire acolytes who, as Brian Eno once famously pointed out, all formed their own bands.

But “The Velvet Underground,” which premiered on Wednesday in an out-of-competition slot at the Cannes Film Festival, doesn’t spend too much time trying to persuade us why we should care about Lou Reed, John Cale, Sterling Morrison and Maureen Tucker, or walking us through their career — instead, it somehow manages to burrow inside them and their music.

It’s a dark, disturbing and glorious film about a dark, disturbing and glorious band, and another sign that Haynes knows how to put music onscreen in a way that few other directors do.

That shouldn’t come as a surprise for a director whose first film, the unsettling and original “Superstar: The Karen Carpenter Story,” was a wholly unauthorized telling of the late singer’s story that used Barbie dolls instead of actors. He went on to make 1998’s “Velvet Goldmine,” a striking and nervy exploration of the ’70s glam-rock scene based around fictional characters inspired by David Bowie and Iggy Pop; and 2007’s “I’m Not There,” in which he made a movie about Bob Dylan by using six different actors to play personas inspired by events in Dylan’s life and in his work.

“I’m Not There” was a brilliantly kaleidoscopic deconstruction of Dylan that captured the spirit of the mercurial genius better than any straightforward account could. (It’s hard not to wonder if Martin Scorsese wasn’t inspired by Haynes when he made his 2019 film “Rolling Thunder Revue,” which purported to be a documentary about Dylan’s 1976 tour but was, in fact, a fictional reimagining of it.)

And now Haynes has turned to the documentary form himself. In one way, “The Velvet Underground” is an exemplary doc, doing a virtuoso job of weaving archival footage, still photos and talking heads into a freewheeling trip through the band’s world. But the movie feels no need for the usual trick of opening a rock-doc with a parade of people testifying to the genius of what we’re about to see; instead, he trusts the audience to recognize it if they see it, hear it and are immersed in it.

That immersive nature is the real key to the film, which uses split screens, purposefully jarring edits and lengthy shots from old Warhol movies of the band members simply staring into the camera. It’s chronological and straightforward, in a way, but it also sneaks up on you and surrounds you with sheer sound — forget the lyrics to “Heroin,” this movie will remind you just how extreme the song was musically.

Many of the key players are now gone: icy German chanteuse Nico, who joined the band at Warhol’s insistence for a few songs on their first album, died after a cycling accident in 1988; guitarist Sterling Morrison died of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in 1995, at the age of 53; and Lou Reed, the band’s main songwriter and singer, died of liver cancer in 2013.

Past interviews with Reed make him one of the main voices in the film, along with new interviews with the adventurous Welsh musician John Cale. Cale calls their collaboration “dream music”: Reed would start a song, everybody would improvise and Cale, schooled in experimental classical music from Erik Satie to LaMonte Young, would search for drones that could live in the background during the entire song. The idea was to be elegant, he says, and also to be brutal.

Reed, meanwhile, used the rock-song format to deal with drug use, sadomasochism and other topics that rarely made much headway on the radio of the 1960s. While the film lightly touches on the shock treatments Reed underwent during a troubled time in his life, it resists using them as an easy explanation for his music. (In fact, his sister explicitly warns against that.)

The approach made the band groundbreaking, but also alienating. After a show, drummer Maureen Tucker says they would take inventory of how many people walked out during their set — “We used to say, ‘How many people left? Oh, about half? We must have been good tonight.”

The film, particularly in its first hour, is relentless; it rarely stops to take a breath, making the Velvets’ music omnipresent, despite whatever else is happening onscreen. There aren’t a lot of extended concert sequences, because not much footage of the band in that era exists. So without a lot of performance footage to draw from, and with the essential help of editors Alfonso Goncalves and Adam Kurnitz, Haynes turns the movie itself into a performance.

And like the Velvets’ own performances, it doesn’t shy away from ugliness — from Reed’s demanding, often unpleasant manner and from the divisions that drove the band apart. “I really didn’t know how to please him,” says Cale, strong-willed himself. “You try to be nice, he just hates you even more.”

After taking deep dives into the first two albums, “The Velvet Underground and Nico” and “White Light/White Heat,” the film moves more quickly through the quieter and less necessary third and fourth albums, “The Velvet Underground” and “Loaded.” It even implies that those later works could be sellouts of a sort, which shortchanges the sublime “Sweet Jane,” which may sound fairly mainstream but is also a damn classic.

At the end — which means the end of the version of the Velvet Underground that included Reed — we get a moving montage that runs through the rest of the band members’ lives and careers, before slipping in an early ‘70s, acoustic version of “Heroin” performed by Reed, Cale and Nico in a way that is both heartbreaking, terrifying and uplifting. It’s a fitting end for a tough but magnificent documentary that somehow feels as if it’s exactly the right film to make about this most difficult and most essential band.
source | indiewire.

 


The Lost Leonardo: Salvator Mundi, the $450m icon to greed and deceit
The story of the controversial painting, told in a new film, tells us more about us than it does about art, says Rachel Campbell-Johnston.


August 19 2021

How do you like to imagine the art world? A land of lofty ideals and elevated scholarship? A home for beauty and feeling, sensitivity and truth? Well here is a story to rip most such illusions to shreds.

The Lost Leonardo, a dramatised documentary released in September, tells the stranger-than-fiction tale behind Salvator Mundi, a painting that, controversially attributed to Leonardo da Vinci, became in 2017 the most expensive picture (possibly even object) sold to date.

You will no doubt remember the furore it stirred. Was this solemn image of Christ, his right hand raised in a gesture of divine benediction, his left cupping a crystal orb, really a long lost painting by the supreme Renaissance master? Fewer than 20 paintings by this genius survive. Could this be the long absent brother of the Mona Lisa? Experts’ musings poured into the media. We sipped our breakfast coffee and grappled with debates about provenances, marouflaged panels and pentimenti, the intricacies of painted ringlets and refracted light.

For those who have forgotten (or never engaged in the first place), this new film will take you through many of the principal arguments about the painting’s authenticity — for and against. Yet The Lost Leonardo will not tell you whether Salvator Mundi is authentic or fake. The mystery at the heart of the film is instead about how in our global era an image can be turned into an icon and so take on a life of its own. And this, it turns out, depends far less on lofty aesthetics than it does on filthy lucre. The Lost Leonardo is a story about money. Behind the serene surface of that painting seethes a bubbling cesspit of corruption, manipulation and greed.

The story starts in 2005. A “sleeper” — a painting that comes onto the market (usually at auction) but is probably a far better work than its seller has realised — turns up in New Orleans. A “sleeper hunter” buys it for $1,175 and takes it to New York. There a renowned art conservator, Dianne Modestini, begins a long and meticulous restoration. “One evening, wrestling for the tenth time with a small loss on the transition between the lower and the upper lip,” she tells us, she realises that the treatment is precisely that which is found in the Mona Lisa. “My hands became shaky . . . no one except Leonardo could have painted this picture,” she announces as a drum beat rolls. This is a film that likes to keep tension levels taut.

Cue a cacophony of competing voices. “The most improbable story that has ever happened in the art market.” “Everybody wanted it to be a Leonardo . . . and so everybody took the most optimistic view that they could.” “It’s not even a good painting.” “I believe that it has its own power and that power is experienced only truly when standing in front of it.” “This is simply a matter of economics.”

The director Andreas Koefoed has no specialist knowledge of the art world, he tells me when I speak to him on the telephone. He has never even stood in front of Salvator Mundi, he says. But from the moment he heard the story of this painting he was riveted. “It tells us so much about ourselves as human beings,” he says. It “lays bare the mechanisms of the human psyche”. He sees the painting, he says, as “a prism through which we can understand ourselves and the world that we live in”.

Koefoed picks a clear-sighted path through the tangle of arguments as he tracks the progress of the painting as it is transported (first in cardboard boxes and bin bags, later in portfolios and specially constructed climate-controlled cases) around the globe, its price skyrocketing every time it is sold on. Twelve years after a shabby panel catalogued as “After Leonardo da Vinci” was sold in New Orleans for little more than $1,000, the gavel is falling in New York for a record-smashing $450.3 million.

Unravelling the hidden agendas of some of the richest men and most prestigious art institutions in the world, Koefoed and his team have gained (sometimes unprecedented) access to curators, restorers, dealers and art historians as well as investigative journalists, CIA operatives, bankers and businessmen in a documentary that leads us deeper and deeper into frequently secretive and often all but inaccessible domains; into worlds, he explains, “in which anything can be bought and sold, where prestige, power and money play out beneath the beautiful surface of art”.

“There is a saying,” one of the film’s contributors announces, “that after drugs and prostitution, the art market is the most unregulated in the world.” Meet the unicycling businessman Yves Bouvier, for instance. He is king of the freeport — those shadowy no man’s lands that, serving as tax-free havens, harbour billions of dollars of never-seen masterpieces in their sprawling warehouse cities. These blue-chip paintings, the documentary explains as the camera pans across hoarded canvases, are increasingly used as collateral for bank loans. The collector locks paintings away in a freeport facility while liberating the capital for redeployment elsewhere. “If taxes were reasonable,” Bouvier’s complacently cigar-puffing associate pronounces, “people would not have to play that game.”

In 2013 Bouvier bought Salvator Mundi from an American dealer, Warren Adelson, a partner in a consortium that had already touted the picture around pretty much every significant museum but had failed to find a buyer. “I felt I had the rarest painting in the world by the greatest artist in the world and I couldn’t sell it,” he laments. Then he came across Bouvier, who was prepared to buy it for $83 million. Just two days later Bouvier sold it for $127.5 million to Dmitry Rybolovlev, a billionaire oligarch who, with the collapse of one of his company’s Russian potash mines, had found himself responsible for one of the biggest ecological disasters in recent history. He needed to get his money out of Russia and into mobile assets quickly.

Bouvier made a profit of more than $44 million in barely 48 hours. He grins impishly as he reveals the succession of emails that chart every stage of his controversial transaction. “But I was nice,” he announces blithely. “He was ready to pay $130 million, but I gave him a discount if he would pay soon.”

It’s not just businessmen who have vested interests. Big arts institutions have skin in the game. Luke Syson, a former curator at the National Gallery in London, is behind the controversial decision to display Salvator Mundi as an autograph Leonardo in a 2011 blockbuster exhibition. What was at stake for you personally, an interviewer wonders. “Nothing,” he replies, but he looks less confident than he sounds. We are warned by another contributor that we “are dealing with the ego and dreams of academics” and “every academic wants to make a discovery”.

Koefoed insists that he has not offered a platform from which any single person in this drama can set their agenda. Instead, all too frequently his interviewees hang themselves in a noose they have woven from their own words.

“Institutional knowledge and authority is not as clean or authoritative as you might imagine,” another sceptic declares. “Power is never neutral.” Nothing makes this plainer than the story of the mysterious Louvre publication.

The restorer Modestini (who also, incidentally, admits that she will be “appropriately” remunerated for her work on Salvator Mundi) chances on a book left on a friend’s coffee table. This book gives the painting the massively coveted validation of the Louvre’s director. An amazed Modestini dashes off to the museum bookshop, only to find that the publication is not there and nor, apparently, does anyone know anything about it. An investigative journalist from The Art Newspaper picks up the thread. No such catalogue was ever published, she is told. She persists and it eventually emerges that, in advance of the 2019 Louvre exhibition of Leonardo, a secret booklet was produced. It described the technical examination of Salvator Mundi that had taken place in the Louvre’s labs and concluded that “the results of the historical and scientific study . . . allow us to confirm the attribution of the work to Leonardo da Vinci”.

That was bingo for the painting’s present owner, who (it had eventually emerged after a great deal of post-sale speculation) was the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Salman (known as MBS). His masterpiece, MBS insisted, had to be displayed at the Louvre alongside the Mona Lisa. The very idea was evidently too much for the French. They balked, the loan was retracted and so the Louvre also retracted its book authenticating the picture. Since then, however, it has been reported that it was the Saudis who paid for the Louvre’s 2018 scientific study of the painting and they apparently own the rights to it. As Ben Lewis, the author of The Last Leonardo, wrote in The Times in April 2021, this “not only raises questions of financial interest, but also begs the question of why, if [the study] is so positive, they have not published or at least leaked it themselves”.

The art world is a can of worms. Just in case you haven’t already got the message Koefoed’s camera zooms in on a writhing knot of the slimy creatures. Behind the regally forbidding and intellectually rarefied façades of the art world lies a vicious swarm of competing interests.

So where does this leave Salvator Mundi? Has the painting disappeared behind the hype? It seems no accident that, as part of its mercenary marketing campaign — tracked by the documentary — for the 2017 auction Christie’s presented a video that never actually showed us the painting, only the emotional responses of the people (Leonardo DiCaprio most prominent among them) who had queued in their thousands to see it.

The reality has dissolved away into the myth. The painting has become the ultimate trophy. And “everybody was complicit in dreaming up this beautiful dream”, declares the Pulitzer award-winning art writer Jerry Saltz, among the most consistently vocal critics of the entire caboodle. The truth has vanished. And for that matter, so (at least temporarily) has the painting. Closeted away in the collection of MBS (“Is the last known Leonardo now on a luxury yacht?” a journalist wonders) it has not been shown in public since the day it went up for sale.

“I suspect,” Koefoed says, “that within a few years MBS will show it in Saudi Arabia — even build a museum.” The Saudi Ministry of Culture, among several other significant institutions (Christie’s and the Louvre included), have refused to be interviewed for this documentary. But there has been art world talk about a museum. “It would make sense,” Koefoed says. “MBS could use Salvator Mundi to his benefit, much like the French use the Mona Lisa.” The painting could become part of his rebranding strategy for Saudi Arabia, a nation that, he goes on to suggest, wants to show us that it is not just about oil, not to mention human rights abuses. “This trophy masterpiece could play part of a much wider strategy,” Koefoed says.

Art has long been about money. Leonardo was paid by the Medicis after all: a family who, much like today’s Saudi royal family, understood the political power of culture. Besides, a large part of the fascination of any artwork lies in what it can tell us about our human psychology and society. An image of Christ as saviour may not hold the religious sway that it once did, but still this painting can reveal what our society values. The power it now embodies is the power of money.

Yet this picture may still communicate on some more profound level. We hanker for the genuine, the authentic, the true. The more cynical may manipulate this yearning for their own financial benefit, but others still cling to belief in some purer form of redemption. Leonardo, the great genius who united art and science in his quest for the truth, can look to our modern age very much like a saviour. Little wonder we long to discover another of his precious relics. Salvator Mundi still stands as a symbol of hope.


The Lost Leonardo is released by Sony Pictures in cinemas across the UK and Ireland from September 10 (thelostleonardo.co.uk).
source | london times

The Lost Leonardo was released in the states on August 13.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KoV

Users who are viewing this thread

New Posts

Forum Statistics

Threads
210,716
Messages
15,124,885
Members
84,416
Latest member
barakz12
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "058526dd2635cb6818386bfd373b82a4"
<-- Admiral -->