All the Vermeers in New York

This literary, in many respects experimental film examines the parallels between the art world and the business world, through the relationship between an actress and a stockbroker who meet in the Vermeer Room of the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

The film is much more interesting for its cinematography and narrative style than its plot. In keeping with its subject matter, the photography tries to emulate Vermeer's paintings, with some shots of Emmanuelle Chaulet being particularly successful. Furthermore, rather than having a linear plot, the narrative takes the form of a mosaic linking the different characters, bringing to mind a minimalist short story.

This is not to say the film is for all tastes. Some scenes, such as where Anna and the stockbroker first meet, drag on for too long. Furthermore, some of the dialogue, particularly Stephen Lack's, comes across as overly metaphorical and stilted, though this should not be a surprise given that it was supposedly improvised.

On the whole, a film worth seeing for a look at when the art house film scene really was arty, before the indie film boom led to the scene being co-opted by corporations.

If you are a fan of independent and innovative filmmaking, this movie is for you. It's visuals are tremendous in their composition, movement, colors, etc. It's sense of editing and story progression is involving and thought provoking. This is the kind of movie that makes you forget traditional narrative expectations of "what will happen next?" or questions like "what is going on?" and instead prompts you to just experience, perceive, and feel the film. A must-see for anyone interested in non-traditional filmmaking and for anyone interested in a beautiful movie.

Jon Jost's filmography is quite incredible with lows and highs, but this movie and Bell Diamond (1987) is an exception. The film combines Jon Jost's signature tart wit, deadpan expressions on his characters and staccato style of dialogue with a touching romance story which can be seen in Hal Hartley films. Jon Jost makes wry comments on the class respectability for art and offers a more realistic but also a darker view on New York Stock Exchange and the society in general. The is the best amalgamation of style and substance. It moves between Hal Hartley, Michelangelo Antonioni and Eric Rohmer. The simple story of Impalpable lives illuminated and swallowed by the soft light of Vermeer's paintings is executed beautifully. I Still binge the score and striking photography of spaces, including an absolutely breathtaking whirl around an empty building lobby that's quite unlike anything I've seen. I was reminded of the music video for Flock of seagull's space age love song featuring Jennifer Connelly. Overall, this is an interesting film to look forward to for arthouse fans, but personally my expectations were well surpassed. The simple story was well played out with a lot of depth, making it look quite natural and life-like. It was also interesting to get a peep at the backstage of the world of art and stock exchange in the 80s. I certainly recommend this well made bittersweet film.

This got good just at the moment when I nearly quit. The opening is, I'm pretty sure, objectively bad: bad dialogue badly delivered in badly framed shots. It's also almost totally irrelevant to the rest of the movie and could probably have been binned. It was weird to go through that and then suddenly, just when I was about to switch off, find myself basically transfixed.

The rest isn't perfect, especially the end, but my god I love it, and there's really nothing else like it. It looks gorgeous, partly for the simple framing - owing something to Vermeer - and the butterscotch dominated colour scheme, but also the very prominent film grain, probably a result of the stock being pushed to keep lighting as simple as possible.

Though none of this is really quite it, at times it feels a bit like Rohmer and at times like something darker, like Mamet or Neil LaBute, but the point is probably that it sits somewhere in between and that's what creates the ache: the characters could be the vacillating lovers of one of Rohmer's bitter-sweet stories, but it all gets messed up and fully soured by capitalist alienation, in particular the alienation of sex becoming transactional.

The other thing its got that isn't in those other things is occasional subtle oddness in the generally paired-down realist visuals, something almost Magritte-ish.

It took me a while to get into the rhythm of this movie; long languorous takes with little happening, actors obviously improvising, a sense that this is a film that doesn't know what it's concerned with, but.....

Once I got into the groove of director Jon Jost was selling (once the film had taught me how to watch it), and once I got a handle on the narrative, I began to enjoy it. By the time the camera was gliding among the pillars of the Metropolitan Museum, instead of asking "what is happening?", I simply sat back and enjoyed the film's revelry in the NY art world. By then, the focus of the film has come into view; big money and its impact on things that are pure in life; love and art - and how it's bad news for all concerned.

Sounds good even to me when I describe it like that, but the film never fully works. The dispassionate nature of the framing keeps the audience at a remove, which could work but Stephen Lack as Mark is too stiff, too unreadable to ever engage the audience. I don't believe a character has to be likeable for us to engage, but we have to have a level of understanding of why they are who they are, or they need to be charismatic enough to make us want to get that understanding, but Lack can't deliver, and all of the worst scenes involve him. (And there's a random scene where the lead female characters complain to their flatmate about her singing too loud so there's competition.)

The ambition, the confidence and the technique get this film a long way, but some poor casting and the problems inherent in improvising a movie hold this back from the finish line.