Rembrandt

Why *can't* they make films like this anymore? Today, a film has to be the best part of three hours long and packed with special effects. In this film we see the story of a man's life told in half that time, made at a studio outside London. (Having said that, it was a box-office failure, presumably the audiences who shunned this flocked to see Clark Gable in 'San Francisco'.)

Charles Laughton's performance is truly great, portraying Rembrandt's vision and artistic integrity (which appears as perverse stubbornness to his fellow citizens), and his deep humanity. His speeches at the inn which mirror each other at the beginning and end of the film, on the glory of perfect love and the vanity of human life, are so beautifully delivered I almost held my breath so as not to miss a word.

More than that, the film succeeds in recreating Rembrandt's world. We see the business-like merchants, self-important local politicians and hard-living peasants who made up Dutch society in the 1600's. One of the most moving passages of the film shows Rembrandt trying to return to his home. He is physically unsuited to his father's work and derided by the villagers. He returns to Amsterdam realising he can't fit in with the merchant-class or the peasant-class where he was raised - he is a man alone.

The supporting cast is noteworthy, including Elsa Lanchester (Mrs Laughton, of course) as Rembrandt's last love, Gertrude Lawrence (although I'm still not sure why audiences seemed to fall in love with her, maybe her histrionics were more suited to theatre) and a large crop of Liveseys (Roger, Jack, Sam - I'm sure there were others).

Charles Laughton's beautifully nuanced performance as Rembrandt plus excellent cinematography are the main reasons for watching this biopic. Unfortunately, while it's fairly interesting at first, the movie doesn't really go anywhere. And I was always skeptical of the "tortured artist painting for the love of it" take on Rembrandt. I don't know anything about Rembrandt, but painting was very much a business and a craft in those days and while I'm sure there were tortured artists trying to say something, I don't know that they were as common as they are today.

I was reinforced in my suspicions by wikipedia, which for example says Rembrandt was always popular as a painter and that the painting of the regiment was a tremendous success from the moment it was unveiled.

So I don't think I learned much about Rembrandt, but the movie beautifully captures the look of his paintings and Laughton is brilliant (and also looks remarkably like Rembrandt).

Truly wonderful and worth all the plaudits piled on this film after sixty-odd years. Laughton was arguably never better than in this role and has able support from Elsa Lanchester, Gertrude Lawrence (fascinating to see her and she made few films and they are rarely seen nowadays), the Livesey clan etc etc. A film of atmosphere, of clarity, and of soul, like a Rembrandt painting in fact. Marvellous.

Charles Laughton returned to his native Great Britain in 1936 for three years and made a series of films there. The first and best of these was for Alexander Korda about Rembrandt Van Rijn, arguably the greatest of all Dutch painters.

Later biographical pictures, Lust for Life about Van Gogh and Moulin Rouge about Toulouse-Lautrec had good location photography going for them. Alexander Korda did create some nice sets to depict the Netherlands of the 17th century, but it just isn't the same.

Another difference between Rembrandt and the other two later pictures is while Van Gogh and Toulouse-Lautrec died young, Rembrandt lived to be an old man by the standards of his century. The film takes us on a forty year journey of his life from the death of his first wife until just before he dies. Laughton is great at capturing Rembrandt at every stage of his life.

As compared to those other two 19th century artists, Rembrandt's life was also not the tormented one the others had. Rembrandt is not a deformed cripple like Toulouse-Lautrec nor is he dealing with the onset of mental illness like Van Gogh. Tragedy happens in his life, but the tragedy isn't out of his own character.

Like the other two Rembrandt was constantly plagued with money problems. That's actually what takes up most of the film, the compromises he makes with his artistic vision and the need he has to put bread on the table.

Gertrude Lawrence and Elsa Lanchester do fine as the two women in his life. Laughton and Lawrence did not get along during the making of Rembrandt, that may have helped give their scenes some real bite. Three members of the performing Livesey family are in this film and Roger Livesey is a standout as the beggar who Rembrandt uses to paint his portrait of King Saul from the Old Testament.

Rembrandt is a finely crafted piece of film making and Charles Laughton gives one of his best screen performances. I wish though it had been done on location the way Lust for Life and Moulin Rouge were.

Artists speak through their paintings and, often, their lives are not that interesting. "Van Gogh" gave us a good screen character because that film maximally milked his neurotic excesses. Very recently, "The Girl With a Pearl Earring" concocted a fantasy vision of long ago Delft and framed without fear of contradiction by scholars the life of an artist, Vermeer, about whom very, very little is known.

In 1936, the great age of the Studio System, Alexander Korda produced and directed "Rembrandt," a sprawling and somewhat disjointed portrait (pun intended) of Rembrandt van Rijn. Charles Laughton alternates as a boisterous or then somewhat subdued Rembrandt. He loses his wife to illness and then takes up with a domestic, Geertje, played by Gertude Lawrence. Lawrence is fine as a woman who combines common sense with hectoring but who, in the process, sacrifice's the relationship's initial passion to hnadling daily burdens.

This Rembrandt has no idea that in the future his paintings will be quite desired by museums and thieves, including celluloid ones. He paints, he proclaims, what he sees and not what his patrons want. A huge painting of the Civic Guard is unveiled to shock and denunciations as, Goyaesque, the contributors to the fund for the painting see themselves savagely lampooned.

A new model, Hendrickje, charmingly acted by a beautiful and youthful Elsa Lanchester, steals Rembrandt's heart and body, leaving the long suffering Geertje out in the cold.

Rembrandt's relationship with Hendricktje is the most charming part of a film that blends unconvincingly connected scenes together. There's too much noise: Rembrandt paints, Rembrandt drinks (a lot), Rembrandt is hounded by creditors, Rembrandt runs back to dad. Laughton's acting carries the film and when he occupies center stage he is never less than attention-grabbing. But this isn't the Charles Laughton of "Mutiny on the Bounty," there a riveting character. Laughton's Rembrandt is a fellow one might care to sip smooth Holland gin with but he's no character with a deep soul inviting speculation and drawing the best from a great actor.

"Rembrandt" is a studio product well representative of its time. On that basis it merits enjoyable viewing.

8/10.