User reviews

For those who enjoy the experience of visiting art museums, National Gallery' is a must-see. The brilliant objectivist documentarian Frederick Wiseman captures the iconic British museum from every side imaginable. Over the course of three hours, he offers a grand glimpse of the museum's collection and temporary exhibits as others look or discuss them, from art historians to tour guides. Fixed history and interpretation are celebrated in both Wiseman's camera and the loosely strung scenes of people in the exhibition halls. The movie cuts to various perspectives of the museum, from details of paintings to entire galleries, as people gaze at works. But Wiseman also captures the people operating the museums during PR and budget meetings and, most intriguingly, at work restoring paintings. No one looks at the camera to explain their work and Wiseman never even uses superimposed title cards, yet you will come away enlightened.

"National Gallery" (2014, Frederick Wiseman), a documentary about the renowned British art museum, makes a strong case for major arts institutions. With a three-hour running time, we finish with a firm idea of both the inestimable value and fragility of The National Gallery. With a haphazard, seemingly random structure, the documentary shows people regardless of their actual involvement with the museum. We see patrons silently absorbing art; board members discussing their goals; curators discussing philosophy and techniques; janitors; wall painters; a board meeting where the discussion is about an unwelcome public marathon; budget cuts discussed at another board meeting; various educators, various video crews, museum guides analyzing master works; a male and a female nude model separately posing for what appears to be an advanced art class; adventurous Arctic activists bravely hoisting a banner at the museum's entrance; a pianist performing amid priceless paintings and a reasonably erotic, heterosexual ballet dance. Wiseman makes a compelling statement about the worth of visual arts, and it couldn't arrive to this brutal world at a better time.

Curiously, Wiseman does not introduce museum employees with captions or inform the viewer what event is occurring. This helps makes his statement universal. Rather than just a story of the National Gallery, the viewer is encouraged to gain appreciation for his or her local cultural institutions.

There are some memorable segments. I really enjoy the brief excerpts of lectures where experts interpret details in master works. The discussion of Paul Reubens's "Samson and Delilah (1609- 1610)" is interesting. So is the curator's lecture describing a Rembrandt portrait with a hidden second composition of the same subject. One of the senior museum big shots tells a laugh-out-loud joke about Moses and the Ten Commandments. Another museum guide informs a group of adolescents, several of whom are Black, that the Gallery owes its early funding to the Slave Trade. Leonardo da Vinci's power is also expressed or suggested multiple times. Finally, the ballet dance that is staged in the vicinity of two large master works reminds us that visual arts tickle the public's imagination in many ways.

It is an uneven journey, but it finishes with rising interest. "The National Gallery" will likely be enjoyed by artists of many disciplines who wish to be reminded of culture's power. It sure would be nice if the arts flourished in this particularly barbaric period while the world's militaries languished.

For a 3 hour documentary about the National Gallery, this is oddly compelling. I'm really not sure how this got on my watch list, but I'm glad it did. I first visited the National Gallery in my mid-teens. It felt stuffy and I got bored quickly. The art didn't grab me the way things did at The Tate, but I can still recall the feeling of looking at some of those masters and although not thinking 'that looks ace', it was impressive. It's nice to see here that there's voices running the gallery that want to open the gallery to appeal more to the public. This of course being 'proper art' that everyone can think 'well that's good, I can't paint like that', as apposed to the opposite reaction levied at modern art. Not everyone wants that though, there's still the undercurrent of an elitist element present which is frustrating. Some of the nicest stuff in this is the viewers stood looking at the paintings, you experiencing their fascination through their fixation. Especially the packed crowds for the Da Vinci exhibition. The hushed walla through the rooms, people gawking and picking apart the paintings as people have done for hundreds of years. There's some really cool stuff, artwork transferred into almost Braille like pieces for the blind to enjoy, absolutely fabulous! As is the tour guide down on floor with a group of really young kids, telling them about the paintings around them, bustling with energy and enthusiasm. Not least this works simply for the explanation of the exhibits. The stories behind them bringing them to life. The restoration stuff is mind boggling too and sadly isn't covered enough, it's also ironically very much all surface with little explanation to the process... although the X-ray stuff on a Rembrandt is cool and the stuff that's not explained is still very relaxing to watch. Instead there's some behind the scenes stuff which is exceptionally dry. Unedited meetings about how they deal with the London Marathon finishing on their doorstep and how they deal with charitable requests. It's stuff like this that pushes the duration to the 3 hour mark and it's far from entertaining, but it seems the choice has been made to put it all out there for the viewer to muse over... much like the art on the walls. There's some delightful bits though, the art historian filming a piece to camera talking about a Turner, the lighting experts talking about compositions dictated by natural light before we had electricity and the bloke struggling to talk about carving ebony picture frames that reminded Anne* of Porky Pig. Depressingly in another meeting there's talk of budgets, caps on spending, staff reductions and palpable concern over what the future may bring. The figures mentioned are pretty epic, but then as art institutions go, this one is epic. It's been a while. I think I need to go back and visit again.

Frederick Wiseman's new documentary NATIONAL GALLERY runs three hours; three hours of dissecting and analyzing the workings of one of the world's great Museums - the National Gallery in London England. Probing paintings' meaning and content; structure and design; the decisions involved in the way venerated and treasured works of art are conserved, restored, cleaned, lit and hung. We also are privy to the voices of the docents, curators, and staff talking about specific artworks connecting their audiences to the aesthetics, beauty, history, and science of conservation; the various pathways a painting takes from its original creation; its entry into various collections, and finally to its safe-keeping for posterity in the National Gallery Museum. We even listen to Nicholas Penny, the rumpled-haired Museum Director in a lecture taking a stab at Poussin - admitting that he is not sure if he likes the work, but is always intrigued by it.

Questions of elitism and exclusivity vs.accessibility and egalitarianism in light of budgetary considerations are discussed at meetings; there are lots of meetings. The film might have edited out some of the discussions - but I felt that the prosaic, the boring, the everyday-ness was worth observing. The running of a museum is not always glamorous. The decisions that establishments have to make in order to grip the public's interest - what lengths do they go to attract visitors, and at what price to their institution?

Wiseman just lets his camera roll; he never uses "voice overs". His working method and vitality at age 84 is unchanged - not intrusive - the filmmaker is always invisible - interviews are conducted by others. Frederick Wiseman lets us be the proverbial "fly on the wall" in a space that ordinarily would be bug-proof.

I loved watching one of the restorers discussing the cleaning of Velasquez' Christ in The House of Martha and Mary and passionately ponder the dilemma - do we over-strip the varnish used 100's of years ago and thereby brighten and change the artists' original intent? Ethical problems and compromises come into question. An in-house construction of a triptychs' impressive frame delicately carved by the crafts-men and women associated with the Museum, and the lighting of the finished piece held me spellbound, as did the issue of a cast shadow obscuring the top 1/4 of the painting once the work was installed. We also pay heed to restorers scraping away tiny slivers of paint with scalpels, Q-tips, eye-droppers, etc. and then put the minuscule paint shavings on a slide tray to be placed under a microscope to be scrutinized - to be thoroughly examined yielding a plethora of information; new scientific techniques today make this kind of investigation possible. We mark the fragility of time's passing on art realizing that there are effects that you have to live with, and guard against, but ultimately methodical and deductive technical intervention will be called upon to "save" the work from aging and deterioration.

The camera also takes us outside the Museum with aerial views of Trafalgar Square lit by the grays of daylight to the shimmering of the early darkness -focusing on the diverse community waiting patiently in the cold to to see the Da Vinci exhibition "Painter at the Court of Milan" (2012.) We are never far away from the human response to art - the intensity of the onlooker's gaze, the curiosity, confusion, delight, horror and interior peace that art can inculcate.

Other blockbusters such as "Turner Inspired by the light of Claude" and "Metamorphosis: Titian 2012" are exhibitions that we are fortunate to attend and hear curators/docents of varying sizes, ages and accents advocating for art's fascination and magnetism; confronting us with their disparate styles - some humorous, others psychoanalytical - all informative. Each artwork has a presence with an individual history and personal narrative imprinted on its essence - like life itself this movie is thrilling, enigmatic, complex and a singular jewel.

This was another of Wiseman's great films on institutions. The movie takes us inside the world of the National Gallery in London. The film does everything from show us guide lectures to the general public, specific talks for children, an art history discussion of the painting "Boulevard Montparnasse" specifically for blind people (where they feel raised images of the drawing), and talks about restoration. The main focus of the film is a special exhibition they had about Leonardo da Vinci. There is also a focus on the paintings of Hans Holbein, Poussaint, Turner and Titian. There is a very interesting segment where the restorers focus on a portrait of Rembrant, where an x-ray reveals another painting, at a 90º angle, made on the canvas at an earlier time. Discussions about whether and how to "market" the museum and how to project expenses are also shown. The film also shows a discussion with Wayne MacGregror (resident choreographer of the Royal Ballet) about a dance piece that will be performed in front of the Titian paintings and whether the dancers will need a sprung floor (the one in the museum is on concrete).Finally, the films ends with a short excerpt from this piece, danced by Leanne Benjamin and Ed Watson, in front of the Titian painting. Another excellent film by Wiseman and once you have made it past the 1.5 hour mark, by 3 hours, you feel immersed in the National Gallery world.

As observational documentaries go, Frederick Wiseman's "National Gallery" is pretty close to sublime. In typical Wiseman style there's no voice-over and no score; he simply places his cameras and his microphones inside the buildings and lets us see the paintings and hear the words spoken by the staff, at meetings or in discussing the art with the public. It lasts for three hours and if you love great art you just might have an orgasm watching the flow of masterpieces lovingly framed and spoken about. However, if art isn't quite your bag this might be the most boring film ever made.

At least Wiseman doesn't do it all in one continuous take, the way Sokurov did with "Russian Ark" whose roving camera induced in me a feeling of seasickness. Wiseman plumps for detail and how. The art is, of course, extraordinary but so too are the faces of the punters who come to stare. The screen itself becomes a canvas in which Wiseman's camera paints the faces of these onlookers and it is beautiful to behold. What's less beautiful are the commentaries of the gallery's guides as they try to 'explain' the paintings to the various tour guides. Love it or loathe it, it isn't like any other film about 'art' that you are likely to see which is some sort of achievement in itself.

If you are familiar with Wiseman's work, you know that he is a true documentarian. No Michael Moore-type bias, no opinions, just a pure document for you to do with what you will. I enjoyed every minute and learned much about the day-to-day life in London's National Gallery. I loved the staff lectures on different paintings, the restoration sections were fascinating, and even the board meetings were interesting (even though I hate meetings in real life LOL).

I'm only sorry Frederick Wiseman is getting older and cannot be with us for another 80 years so he can make even more documentaries. Brilliant, beautiful, sublime….

This film is composed of snippets of life inside the National Gallery. There is no narrator or text to provide an overall chronology or identification of who's who and what's what. I found this to be a little distracting. I kept wanting to know more about the people and activities being presented. Who was that man speaking at the meeting? What was that substance the conservator was using? I would loose focus on the next scene while thinking about those questions. Overall the film was very interesting but not very informative. I like documentaries to be both. And I think documentaries are most successful when they are both.

National Gallery (2014) was directed by Frederick Wiseman. Wiseman is also listed as writer, co-producer, and editor. Although this is obviously very much a Wiseman film, Wiseman himself never appears in it.

This is typical of Wiseman. He finds ways to go where no other cinematographer could go, and he films what he sees. Moreover, there's never a hint that people are aware of the camera's presence, and there's no voice-over. What he sees is what you get. There's no explanations and no talking heads.

Because National Gallery is about a major art gallery, this film doesn't have the sizzle and pop that occur in some of Wiseman's other documentaries. For example, Astoria (2000) is about a multi-ethnic neighborhood in Queens, NY. Naturally it's more lively and inherently more interesting than National Gallery.

However, Wiseman is a great director, and he makes a relatively quiet art gallery a place where we see quiet internal struggles, and some great discussions of the paintings themselves, and the technical aspect of restoring paintings and even of making frames.

I was very interested in the board room scenes. It became clear to me that there was a subsurface struggle between the director and most of his staff. The staff wanted to make the museum more user-friendly. For example, the U.S. National Gallery and the Metropolitan Museum in NYC are user-friendly. People from all the strata of society feel comfortable there. From context, that isn't so at the National Gallery.

The staff would like to change that, but it becomes apparent that the director is looking for middle- and upper-class attendance. If Bill Rugby doesn't feel at home at the museum, the director doesn't really care.

Nobody on the staff wants to confront him directly, so they keep agreeing with him, and then saying, "Yes, but . . . " He ignores these oblique suggestions, and he prevails.

The movie is three hours long, and there are many segments. Some segments worked really well, but some of the segments didn't work for me at all. For example, there's a special program at the gallery for visually impaired people. A lecturer has a work of art, and describes it in terms of lines and angles. The visually impaired people are supposed to "see" the painting in this way. It didn't look like any of them could, indeed, visualize the painting. And, unfortunately, this scene went on and on. It's a three-hour movie, so Wiseman could allow this scene to go on and on, but it wasn't enjoyable for me.

This isn't a movie that you should watch for excitement and revelation. On the other hand, if you love art, and art museums, it's the movie for you.

We saw National Gallery on DVD. It worked very well on the small screen.

A wonderful documentary of the National Gallery, a great museum in London and one of the greatest in the world with a large collection of masterpieces dated back from 16th century. This documentary makes it a living museum through the exhibition of several paintings, the galleries and the public around them. There are several explanatary commentaries by the museum technicians about the paintings and some talks also about the museum direction and planning all with excellent quality and remarkable detail. Indeed one of the best movies of 2014.

It's hard to know where to begin when analyzing what's so wrong with this long, boring film. Fundamentally, it's that museums are embedded in history, collecting and displaying great art from the past, and educating the public about their collections. Director Wiseman is not just ahistorical in his approach, but anti-historical, in his affectation to identify no one in the film. It DOES matter that the NG's director at the time was Nicolas Penny, just as it's important to know that Larry Keith was head of conservation. What they say isn't ahistorical gospel but very individual opinions. To erase their identity is to erase history. What we are shown instead well could serve as a PR effort to get money from the government because one would think, on the basis of the film, that the museum does nothing but cater to the public. How tiresome are Wiseman's head shots of the audience! How irrelevant are his juxtapositions with painted heads! Collecting? That is a primary mission of museums, if not its first purpose; but not a word about that activity in this film. Rather, what we are subjected to for three hours could pertain to any great museum: to the Louvre, the Met, the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna, etc. That the film gives no idea of what is special about the NG underscores its superficiality and disregard of history.

I was expecting three hours of viewing paintings; maybe there would be descriptions and opinions.

What we get is much more. It is a real documentary about life in London's National Gallery. I can relate as we have a local (Kimbell Art Museum) and took part in similar activities.

Do not get me wrong, there are plenty of pictures and discussions. They are just part of the overall experience.

You will come away feeling that you are part of the gallery staff and participated in decisions. It is the next best thing to being there. And the three hours presentation in its casual form will leave you wanting more.