#rare René art | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

blackswaneuroparedux · 2 years ago

Text

Anonymous ask: What do you think of the new Indiana Jones movie? And of Phoebe Waller-Bridge?

In a nutshell: From start to finish ‘Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny’ is watching Indiana Jones being a broken-down shell of a once great legacy character who has to be saved by the perfect younger and snarky but stereotypical ’Strong Independent Woman’ that passes for women characters in popcorn movies today.

I went in to this film with conflicted feelings. On the one hand I was genuinely excited to see this new Indiana Jones movie because it’s Indiana Jones. Period. Yet, on the other hand I feared how badly Lucasfilm, under Kathleen Kennedy’s insipid woke inspired CEO studio direction, was going to further tarnish not just a screen legend but the legacy of both George Lucas and Steven Spielberg. The cultural damage she has done to such a beloved franchise as the Star Wars universe in the name of progressive woke ideology is criminal. The troubled production history behind this film and its massive $300 million budget (by some estimates) meant Disney had a lot riding on it, especially with the future of Kathleen Kennedy on the line too as she was hands on with this film.

To me the Indiana Jones movies (well, the first three anyway, the less we say about ‘Kingdom of the Crystal Skull’ the better) were an important part of my childhood. I fell in love with the character instantly. Watching ‘Raiders of the Lost Ark’ (first on DVD in my boarding school dorm with other giggly girls and later on the big screen at a local arts cinema retrospective on Harrison Ford’s stellar career) just blew me away.

As a girl I wanted to be an archaeologist and have high falutin’ adventures; I even volunteered in digs in Pakistan and India (the Indus civilisation) as well as museum work in China as a teen growing up in those countries and discovering the methodical and patient but back breaking reality of what archaeology really was. But that didn’t dampen my spirit. Just once I wanted to echo Dr. Jones, ‘This belongs in a museum!’ But I happily settled for studying Classics instead and enjoyed studying classical archaeology on the side.

I couldn’t quite make sense why Indiana Jones resonated with me more than any other action hero on the screen until much later in life. Looking like Harrison Ford certainly helps. But it’s more than that. I’ve written this elsewhere but it’s worth repeating here.

‘Raiders of the Lost Ark’ is considered an inspiration for so many action films yet there’s a very odd aspect to the film that’s rather unique and rarely noticed by its critics and fans. It’s an element that, once spotted, is difficult to forget, and is perhaps inspiring for times like the one in which we currently live, when there are so many challenges to get through. Typically in action films, the hero faces an array of obstacles and setbacks, but largely solves one problem after another, completes one quest after another, defeats one villain after another, and enjoys one victory after another.

The structure of ‘Raiders’ is different. A quick reminder:

- In the opening sequence, Indiana Jones obtains the temple idol only to lose it to his rival René Belloq (Paul Freeman). - In the streets of Cairo, Indy fails to protect his love, Marion Ravenwood (Karen Allen), from being captured (killed, he assumes). - In the desert, he finds the long-lost Ark of the Covenant, only to have it taken away by Belloq. - Indy then recovers the ark only to have it stolen a second time by Belloq, this time at sea. - On an island, Indy tries to bluff Belloq into thinking he’ll blow up the ark. His bluff fails. Indy is captured. - The climax of the film literally has its hero tied to a post the entire time. He’s completely ineffectual and helpless at a point in the movie where every other action hero is having their greatest moment of struggle and, typically, triumph.

If Indiana Jones had done absolutely nothing, if the famed archeologist had simply stayed home, the Nazis would have met the same fate - losing their lives to ark’s wrath because they opened it. It’s pretty rare in action films for the evil arch-villains to have the same outcome as if the hero had done nothing at all.

Indy does succeed in getting the ark back to America, of course, which is crucial. But then Indy loses the ark, once again, when government agents send it to a warehouse and refuse to let him study the object he chased the whole film. In other words: Indiana Jones spends ‘Raiders’ failing, getting beat up, and losing every artefact that he risks his life to acquire. And yet, Indiana Jones is considered a great hero.

The reason Indiana Jones is a hero isn’t because he wins. It’s because he never stops trying. I think this is the core of Indiana Jones’ character.

Critics will go on about something called agency as in being active or pro-active. But agency can be reactive and still be kinetic to propel the story along. It’s something that has progressively got lost as the series went on. With the latest Indiana Jones film I felt that Indiana Jones character had no agency and ends up being a relatively passive character. Sadly Indiana Jones ends up being a grouchy, broken, and beat up passenger in his own movie.

Released in 1981, ‘Raiders of the Lost Ark’ remains one of the most influential blockbusters of all time. Exciting action, exotic adventure, just the right amount of romance, good-natured humour, cutting-edge special effects: it was all there, perfectly balanced. Since then, attempts have been made to reproduce this winning recipe in different narrative contexts, sometimes successfully (’Temple of Doom’ and ‘the Last Crusade’), usually in vain (’Crystal Skull’).

What are the key ingredients of an Indiana Jones movie? There are only four core elements - leaving aside aspects of story such as the villain or the goal - that you need in place before anything else. They are: the wry, world-weary but sexy masculine performance of Harrison Ford; the story telling genius of George Lucas steeped in the lore of Saturday morning action hero television shows of the 1950s; the deft visual story telling and old school action direction of Steven Spielberg; and the sublime and sweeping music of the great John Williams. This what made the first three films really work.

In the latest Indiana Jones film, you only have one. Neither Lucas and Spielberg are there and arguably neither is Harrison Ford. John Williams’ music score remains imperious as ever. His music does a lot of heavy lifting in the film and let’s face it, his sublime music can polish any turd.

This isn’t to say the ‘Dial of Destiny’ is a turd. I won’t go that far, and to be honest some of the critical reaction has been over-hysterical. Instead I found it enjoyable but also immensely frustrating more than anything else. It had potential to be a great swan song film for Indy because it had an exciting collection of talent behind it.

In the absence of Spielberg, one couldn’t do worse than to pick James Mangold as next best to direct this film. Mangold is a great director. I am a fan of his body of work. After ‘Copland’, ‘Walk the Line’, ‘Logan’ and ‘Le Mans 66’ (or ‘Ford vs Ferrari’), James Mangold has been putting together a fine career shaped by his ability to deliver stories that rediscover a certain old-fashioned charm without abusing the historical figures - real or fictional - he tackles. And after Johnny Cash, Wolverine and Ken Miles, among others, I had high hopes he would keep the flame alive when it came to Indiana Jones. Mangold grew up as a fanboy of Spielberg’s work and you can clearly see that in his approach to directing film.

But in this film his direction lacks vitality. Mangold, while regularly really good, drags his feet a little here because he’s caught between putting his own stamp on the film and yet also lovingly pay homage to his hero, Spielberg. It’s as if he didn't dare give himself away completely, the director seems too modest to really take the saga by the scruff of the neck, and inevitably ends up suffering from the inevitable comparison with Steven Spielberg.

Mangold tries to recreate the nostalgic wonder of the originals, but doesn't quite succeed, while succumbing to an overkill of visual effects that make several passages seem artificial. The action set pieces range from pedestrian to barely satisfying. The prologue sequence was vaguely reminiscent of past films but it was still a little too reliant on CGI. The much talked about de-ageing of Harrison Ford on screen was impressive (and one suspects a lot of the film budget was sunk right there). But Indiana’s lifeless digitally de-aged avatar fighting on a computer-generated train, made the whole sequence feel like the Nazi Polar Express. Because it didn’t look real, there was no sense of danger and therefore no emotional investment from the audience. You know Tom Cruise would have done it for real and it would have looked properly cinematic and spectacular.

The tuk tuk chase through the narrow streets of Tangiers was again an exciting echo of past films, especially ‘Raiders’, but goes on a tad too long, but the exploration of the ship wreck (and a criminally underused cameo by Antonio Banderas) was disappointing and way too short.

The main problem here is the lack of creativity in the conception of truly epic scenes, because these are not dependent on Ford's age. Indeed, the film could very well have offered exhilarating action sequences worthy of the archaeologist with the whip, without relying solely on the physicality of its leading man. You don't need a Tom Cruise to orchestrate great moments but you could do worse than to follow his example.

Mangold uses various means of locomotion to move the character - train, tuk tuk, motorbike, horse - and offers a few images that wouldn't necessarily be seen elsewhere (notably the shot of Jones riding a horse in the middle of the underground), but in the end shows himself to be rather uninspired, when the first three films in the saga conceived some of the most inventive sequences in the genre and left their mark on cinema history. There are no really long shots, no iconic compositions, no complex shots that last and enrich a sequence, which makes the film look too smooth and prevents it from giving heft to an adventure that absolutely needs it.

And so now to the divisive figure of Phoebe Waller-Bridge.

It’s important here to separate the person from the character. I like Phoebe Waller-Bridge and I loved her in her ‘Fleabag’ series. She excels in a very British setting. I think she is funny, irreverent, and a whip smart talented writer and performer. I also think she has a particular frigid English beauty and poise about her. When I say poise I don’t mean the elegant poise of a Parisienne or a Milanese woman, but someone who is cute and comfortable in her own skin. You would think she would be more suited to ‘Downton Abbey’ setting than all out Hollywood action film. But I think she almost pulls it off here.

In truth over the years Phoebe Waller-Bridge, known for her comedy, has been collecting franchises where she is able to inflict her saucy humour into a hyper-masculine space. I don’t think her talent was properly showcased here.

Hollywood has this talent for plucking talented writers and actors who are exceptional in what they do and then hire them do something entirely different by either miscasting them or making them write in a different genre. I think Phoebe Waller-Bridge is exceptional and she might just rise if she is served by a better script.

In the end I think she does a decent stab at playing an intriguing character in Helena Shaw, Indy’s long lost and estranged god daughter and a sort of amoral rare artefacts hustler. Phoebe Waller-Bridge brings enthusiasm, charm and mischief to the role, making her a breath of fresh air. She seems to be the only member of the on-screen cast that looks to be enjoying themselves.

To be fair her I thought Waller-Bridge was a more memorable and interesting female character than either Kate Capshaw (’Temple of Doom’, 1984) and Alison Doody (’Last Crusade’, 1989). She certainly is a marked improvement on the modern woke inspired insipid female action leads such as Brie Larson (’Captain Marvel’), or any women in the Marvel universe for that matter, or Katherine Waterson (’Alien Covenant’). Waller-Bridge could have been reminiscent of Kathleen Turner (’Romancing the Stone’) and more recently Eva Green, actresses who command attention on screen and are as captivating, if not more so, than the male protagonists they play opposite.

To be sure there have been strong female leads before the woke infested itself into Hollywood story telling but they never made it central to their identity. Sigourney Weaver in ‘Alien’ and Linda Hamilton in the ‘Terminator’ franchise somehow conveyed strength of character with grit and perseverance through their suffering, while also being vulnerable and confident to pull through and succeed. Phoebe Waller-Bridge’s character isn’t quite that. She doesn’t get into fist fights or overpowers big hulking men but she uses cheek and charm to wriggle out of tight spots. She’s gently bad ass rather the dull ‘strong independent woman’ cardboard caricatures that Marvel is determined to ram down every girl’s throat. If Waller-Bridge’s character was better written she might well have been able to revive memories of the great ladies of Hollywood's golden age who had the fantasy and the confidence that men quaked at their feet.

What lets her character down is the snark. She doesn’t pepper her snark but she drowns in it. All of it directed at poor Indy and mocking him for his creaking bones and his entire legacy. It’s a real eyesore and it is a real let down as it drags the story down and clogs up the wheels that power the kinetic energy that an adventure with Indiana Jones needs. ‘The grumpy old man and the young woman with the wicked repartee set off across the vast world’ schtick is all well and good, but it does grate and by the end it makes you angry that Indy has put up with this crap. I can understand why many are turned off by Waller-Bridge’s character. As a female friend of mine put it, we get the talented Phoebe Waller Bridge’s bitter and unlikable Helena acting like a bitter and unlikable man. But it could be worse, it could be as dumb as Shia LaBeouf‘s bad Fonzie impersonation in 'Crystal Skull’.

I would say there is a difference between snark and sass. Waller-Bridge’s character is all snark. If the original whispers are true the original script had her way more snarkier towards Indy until Ford threatened to leave the project unless there were re-writes, then it shows how far removed the producers and writers were from treating Indy Jones with the proper respect a beloved legacy character deserves. It’s also lazy story telling.

Karen Black gave us real sass with Marion Ravenwood in ‘Raiders’. Her character was sassy, strong, but also vulnerable and romantic. She plays it pitch perfect. Of all the women in Indy’s life she was good foil for Indy.

Spielberg is so underrated for his mise-en-scène. We first meet Marion running a ramshackle but rowdy tavern in Tibet (she’s a survivor). She plays and wins a drinking game (she’s a tough one), she sees Indy again and punches him (she’s angry and hurt for her abandoning her and thus revealing her vulnerability). She has the medallion and becomes a partner (she’s all business). She evades and fights off the Nazis and their goons, she even uses a frying pan (she’s resourceful but not stupid). She tries on dresses (she’s re-discovers her femininity). Indy saves her but she picks him up at the end of the film by going for a drink (she’s healing and there’s a chance of a new start for both of them). This is a character arc worth investing in because it speaks to truth and to our reality.

The problem with Phoebe Waller-Bridge’s character is that she is constantly full on with the snark. Indy and Helena gripe and moan at each other the entire film. Indy hasn’t seen her in years, and she felt abandoned after her father passed, so there’s a lot of bitterness. It’s not unwarranted, but it also isn’t entertaining. It’s never entertaining if the snark makes the character too temperamental and unsympathetic for the audience to be emotionally invested in her.

I think overall the film is let down by the script. Again this is a shame. The writing talent was there. Jez and John-Henry Butterworth worked with James Mangold on ‘Ford v. Ferrari’ and co-wrote ‘Edge of Tomorrow‘ while David Koepp co-wrote the first ‘Mission: Impossible’ (but he also penned Indiana Jones and the ‘Kingdom of the Crystal Skull’, and the 2017 version of ‘The Mummy’ that simultaneously started and destroyed Universal’s plans for their Dark Universe). I love the work of Jez Butterworth who is one of England’s finest modern playwrights and he seemed to have transitioned fine over to Hollywood. But as anyone knows a Hollywood script has always too many cooks in the kitchen. There are so many fingerprints of other people - studio execs and directors and even stars - that a modern Hollywood script somehow resembles a sort of Ship of Theseus. It’s the writer’s name on the script but it doesn’t always mean they wrote or re-wrote every word.

Inevitably things fall between the cracks and you end up filming from the hip and hoping you can stitch together a coherent narrative in post-production editing. Clearly this film suffered from studio interference and many re-writes. And it shows because there is no narrative fluidity at work in the film.

Mads Mikkelsen’s Nazi scientist is a case in point. I love Mikkelsen especially in his arthouse films but I understand why he takes the bucks for the Hollywood films too. But in this film he is phoning in his performance. Mads Mikkelsen does what he can with limited screen time to make an impact but this character feels so recycled from other blockbusters. Here the CIA and US Government are evil and willing to let innocent Americans be murdered in order to let their pet Nazi rocket scientist pursue what they believe to be a hobby. But to be fair the villains in the Indy movies have never truly been memorable with perhaps Belloq, the French archaeologist and nemesis of Indy in ‘Raiders’, the only real exception. It’s just been generic bad guys - The Nazis! The Thugee death cult! The Nazis (again)! The Commies! Now we’re back to Nazis again which is not only safer ground for the Indy franchise but something we can all get behind.

However Mads Mikkelsen’s Dr. Voller, is the blandest and most generic Nazi villain in movie history. At the end of World War II, Voller was recruited by the US Government to aid them in rocket technology. Now that he’s completed his task and man has walked on the moon, he’s turning his genius to his ultimate purpose, the recovery of the ‘Dial of Destiny’ built by Archimedes. Should he find both pieces of the ancient treasure, he plans to return to 1930s Nazi Germany, usurp Hitler, and use his advanced knowledge of rocket propulsion to win the war. In a sense then he was channeling his inner Heidegger who felt Hitler had let down Nazism and worse betrayed Heidegger himself.

So there is a character juxtaposition between Voller and Indy in the sense both men feel more comfortable in the past than the present. But neither is given face time together to explore this intriguing premise that could have anchored the whole narrative of the film. It’s a missed opportunity and instead becomes a failure of character and story telling.

Then there are the one liners which seemed shoe horned in to make the studio execs or the writers feel smug about themselves. There are several woke one lines peppered throughout the film but are either tone deaf or just stupid.

“You trigger happy cracker”- it’s uttered without any self-awareness by a black CIA agent who is chaperoning the Nazi villain. Just because white people think it’s dumb and aren’t bothered by it doesn’t make it any less a racial slur. If you want authenticity then why not use the ’N’ word then as it would historically appropriate in 1969? The hypocrisy is what’s offensive.

“You stole it. He stole it. I stole it. It’s called capitalism.” - capitalism 101 for economic illiterate social justice warriors.

“[I’m] daring, beautiful, and self-sufficient” - uttered by Helena Shaw as a snarky reminder that she’s a strong independent woman, just in case you forgot.

“It’s not what you believe but how hard you believe.” - Indiana Jones has literally stood before the awesome power of God when the Ark of the Covenant was opened up by the Nazis, and they paid the price for it by having their faces melted off. Indy has drunk from the authentic cup of Christ, given to him by a knight who’s lived for centuries, that gave him eternal life and heal his father from a fatal bullet wound. So he’s figuratively seen the face of God (sure, he closed his eyes) and His holy wrath, and has witnessed the divine healing power of Christ first hand. And yet his spews out this drivel. It’s empty of any meaning and is a silly nod to our current fad that it’s all about the truth of our feelings, not observable facts or truth.

For me though the absolute worse was what they did to Indiana Jones as a character. Once the pinnacle of masculinity, a brave and daring man’s man whose zest for life was only matched by his brilliance, Henry Jones Jr. is now a broken, sad, and lonely old man. Indiana Jones is mired in the past. Not in the archaeological past, but in his own personal past. He's asleep at the wheel, losing interest in his own life. He's lost his son, he's losing his wife. He's been trying to pass on his passion, his understanding to disinterested people. They're not so interested in looking at the past. He remains a man turned towards the past, and then he finds himself confronted by Helena, who embodies the future. This nostalgia, this historical anchoring, becomes the main thread of the story.The film tries to deconstructs Indiana Jones on the cusp of retirement from academia and confronts him with a world he no longer understands. That’s an interesting premise and could have made for a great film.

It’s clear that the filmmakers’ intention was for a lost and broken Indiana to recapture his spirit by the film’s end. However, its horrible pacing and meandering and underdeveloped plot, along with Harrison Ford’s miserably sad demeanour in nearly every scene, make for a deeply depressing movie with an empty and unearned resolution.

By this I mean at the very end of the film. It’s meant to be daring and it is. There’s something giddy about appearing during the middle of siege of Syracuse by blood thirsty Romans and then coming face to face with Archimedes himself. The film seems to want to justify the legendary, exceptional aura and character of Indy himself by including him in History. Hitherto wounded deep down inside, and now also physically wounded, Indy the archaeologist tells Helena that he wants to stay here and be part of history.

It's a lovely and even moving moment, and you wonder if the film isn't going to pull a ‘Dying Can Wait’ by having its hero die in order to strengthen its legend. But in a moment that is too brutal from a rhythmic point of view, Helena refuses, knocks out her godfather and takes him back to the waiting plane and back to 1969. The next thing Indy sees he’s woken up back in his shabby apartment in New York.

I felt cheated. I’m sure Indy did too.

After all it was his choice. But Helena robbed him of the freedom to make his own decisions. She’s the one to decide what’s best. In effect she robbed him of agency. Even if it was the wrong decision to stay back in time, it’s so important from a narrative and character arc perspective that Indy should have had his own epiphany and make the choice to come back by himself because there is something worth living for in the future present - and that was reconciling with Marion his estranged wife. But damn it, he had to come to that decision for himself, and not have someone else force it upon him. That’s why the ending feelings so unearned and why the story falls flat as a soufflé when you piss on it.

‘Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny’ feels like the type of sequel that aimed to capture the magic of its predecessors, had worthwhile intentions, and a talented cast, but it just never properly materialised. In a movie whose pedigree, both in front and behind the camera, is virtually unassailable, it’s inexcusable that this team of filmmakers couldn’t achieve greater heights.

The film was a missed opportunity to give a proper send off to a cinematic legend. Harrison Ford proving that whatever gruff genre appeal he possessed in his heyday has aged better than Indy’s knees. He may be 80, but Ford carries the weight of the film, which, for all its gargantuan expense, feels a bit like those throwaway serials that first inspired Lucas - fun while it lasts, but wholly forgettable on exit.

I wouldn’t rate ‘Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny’ as the worst film in the franchise - that dubious honour still lies with ‘Kingdom of the Crystal Skull’. Indeed the best I can say is that I would rate this film at the benchmark of “not quite as bad as Crystal Skull”.But it’s definitely time to retire and hang up the fedora and the bull whip.

For what’s worth I always thought the ending of ‘Last Crusade’ where Indy, his father Henry Jones Snr., and his two most faithful companions, Sallah and Marcus Brody, ride off into the sunset was the most fitting way to say goodbye to a beloved character.

Instead we have in ‘Dial of Destiny’ the very last scene which is meant to be this perfect ending: Indiana Jones in his scruffy pyjamas and his shabby apartment. Sure, the exchange between a reconciling Indy and Marion is sincere and touching. But that only works because it explicitly recalls ‘Raiders of the Lost Ark’. That's what Nietzsche would call “an eternal return”.

I shall eternally return to watch the first three movies to delight in the adventures of the swashbuckling archaeologist with the fedora and a bull whip. The last two dire films will be thrown into the black abyss. Something even Nietzsche would have approved of.

Thanks for your question.

141 notes · View notes

lucennia · 3 months ago

Text

Arthur Dayne arrived on the jousting field with the dawn. Above him, the sun's first flush sent pale fingers of light stretching across the eastern sky, turning Harrenhal’s charred towers into shadowy grey wraiths that drifted among the mists. Only birdsong accompanied his steps.

He had always been an early riser, much preferring the sun’s call to some squire’s. Sleep was no generous mistress to the Kingsguard, nor a frequent visitor. Duties, though, they bore in spades. Charged with protecting the king and his kin by day, the White Swords were expected to serve just as diligently by night.

The task had never troubled Arthur. Duty and discipline called to his blood. It did, however, trouble the king. Too Dornish, Aerys oft complained of him, though he just as oft forgot his mislike when faced with Arthur’s fair skin, so unlike the dark sandy Dornishmen of his imagination. Mad kings cannot be expected to be learned men, he supposed. But of late it seemed the king remembered well enough, and his disdain for Arthur’s Rhoynish blood had earned him a night’s reprieve from guarding his door. With the queen and Prince Viserys forbidden from attending, there was no need to stand watch over them either. Prince Lewyn, as usual, guarded Rhaegar and Elia.

A rare respite—lighter duties, and the luxury of greeting the new day unwearied.

Now Arthur mounted his white courser with a quick pat to the mare’s flank. She was a good horse and swift, but he missed the long-necked sand steeds of Dorne. Dawn, too, he missed. The ancient milk-pale greatsword felt more right in his hand than any tourney lance, but such was the duty of a white cloak: protect the king, keep his secrets, obey his commands. Today's command was to entertain.

── ⟢ ・⸝⸝

Snippet from A Crown of False Spring, Chapter 2.

Tourney at Harrenhal art by René Aigner.

#asoiaf #asoiaf fanfic #arthur dayne #rhaegar targaryen #elia martell #harrenhal #writing

6 notes · View notes

the-garbanzo-annex-jr · 2 years ago

Text

The Center for Jewish History in New York City announced this week a new exhibition opening in the fall that will showcase the history of Jewish comics, graphics, and pop culture.

The exhibit, titled “The Museum and Laboratory of the Jewish Comics Experience,” will feature original artworks by acclaimed Jewish comic writers and artists, historical artifacts, and interactive installations “celebrating the rich tapestry of Jewish narratives depicted through the lens of comics and graphic storytelling,” according to a description on its website. It is being organized in partnership with JewCE: The Jewish Comics Experience, a Jewish comic book convention that will take place in November.

The artifacts that will be on display include original Captain America artwork by co-creator Joe Simon, the rare 1933 Reign of the Superman story by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, and the comics of Holocaust survivor Lily Renée, who was one of the first women to make a mark in the comic book industry.

Visitors will learn about the development of Jewish themes and representation in comics and other art forms — from classic newspaper comic strips to contemporary graphic novels. The exhibit will have two parts, starting with a museum that dives deep into the Jewish origins of the comic book industry and how Jewish comic book creators responded to fascism in their works.

The second part of the exhibit is a laboratory that will enable visitors to participate in activities that will teach them about the creative process behind graphic storytelling, such as character creation, storyboarding, and iconography. The laboratory will additionally have a separate area where visitors can dress up like superheroes, take part in imaginative cosplay, and pose for pictures.

“The Museum and Laboratory of the Jewish Comics Experience” will open on Oct. 6 and run through December.

#center for jewish history #the museum and laboratory of the jewish comics experience #jewish comics experience #captain america #joe simon #jerry siegel #joe shuster #lily renee

18 notes · View notes

antiqueestatebuyers · 25 days ago

Text

Discovering the Charm of Antique Estate Collectibles: Baccarat and Lalique Crystal Glass

About

When it comes to timeless elegance and unparalleled craftsmanship, antique estate collectables stand out as coveted treasures. Among the most celebrated names in this realm are Baccarat crystal glass and Lalique crystal glass, two iconic brands that have captivated collectors and enthusiasts for centuries. Let’s explore the allure of these exquisite pieces and why they hold such a cherished place in the world of antiques.

The Allure of Antique Estate Collectibles

Antique estate collectibles are more than just items; they are tangible pieces of history that tell stories of their time. These treasures often come from estates, offering a unique glimpse into the artistry, culture, and craftsmanship of bygone eras. From fine china and silverware to rare crystal pieces, antique collectibles are prized for their beauty, rarity, and connection to the past.

Collectors often seek out antique estate collectibles for their investment value as well as their aesthetic appeal. Rare finds, especially those in pristine condition or bearing the mark of renowned manufacturers, can significantly appreciate over time. Among the most sought-after collectibles are the exquisite creations of Baccarat and Lalique, which represent the pinnacle of crystal artistry.

Baccarat Crystal Glass: A Legacy of Excellence

Since its establishment in 1764, Baccarat has been synonymous with luxury and refinement. This French crystal manufacturer has a long-standing reputation for producing some of the finest crystal glass in the world. From intricate chandeliers to stunning tableware, Baccarat pieces are celebrated for their clarity, brilliance, and intricate detailing.

Collectors of Baccarat crystal glass are often drawn to its timeless designs and superior craftsmanship. Iconic collections such as Harcourt, Mille Nuits, and Massena showcase the brand's ability to blend tradition with innovation. Baccarat’s commitment to excellence ensures that each piece is a masterpiece, making it a valuable addition to any antique estate collection.

Lalique Crystal Glass: Artistry in Transparency

René Lalique, the founder of Lalique, revolutionized the art of glassmaking in the early 20th century. Known for his innovative designs and exceptional artistry, Lalique transitioned from jewelry to glassmaking, creating breathtaking crystal pieces that are highly sought after today.

Lalique crystal glass is renowned for its unique blend of traditional craftsmanship and modern artistic flair. The brand’s signature style often features natural motifs, such as flowers, animals, and flowing lines, which exude elegance and charm. Collectors value Lalique pieces for their artistic significance and the impeccable attention to detail that goes into their creation.

Why Collect Baccarat and Lalique Crystal Glass?

For antique enthusiasts, owning Baccarat or Lalique crystal glass is akin to possessing a piece of art history. These collectibles not only enhance the aesthetic appeal of a space but also carry the prestige of owning items crafted by two of the world’s most iconic crystal manufacturers.

Whether you are a seasoned collector or just beginning your journey into antique estate collectibles, Baccarat and Lalique offer exceptional investment opportunities. Their timeless beauty and enduring craftsmanship ensure they remain treasured heirlooms for generations to come.

Final Thoughts

The world of antique estate collectibles is rich with history and beauty, and Baccarat and Lalique crystal glass exemplify the artistry that defines this realm. Whether you’re drawn to Baccarat’s timeless elegance or Lalique’s artistic innovation, these collectibles promise to add a touch of luxury and heritage to any collection. Start your journey today, and discover the unparalleled charm of these exquisite treasures.

#antique estate collectables #Baccarat crystal glass #Lalique crystal glass

0 notes

cleverhottubmiracle · 1 month ago

Photo

When it comes to iconic luxury watches, few timepieces rival the Jaeger-LeCoultre Reverso in terms of heritage, craftsmanship, and timeless design. For collectors, connoisseurs, and those simply looking to invest in a statement wristwatch, the question often arises: Is the Jaeger-LeCoultre Reverso really worth the splurge? With prices starting at $4,400 and climbing into the tens of thousands, it’s a valid question—and one we’re here to break down. Introduced in 1931, the Jaeger-LeCoultre Reverso has kept its signature Art Deco design intact, becoming a symbol of refined elegance. Originally created for polo players, the Reverso’s innovative reversible case was designed to protect the watch face during intense matches. Nearly a century later, Jaeger-LeCoultre continues to impress, maintaining the perfect balance between aesthetic sophistication and technical precision. The Legacy Behind the Reverso Photo: Jaeger-LeCoultre The Reverso was born out of necessity. In the early 20th century, British officers stationed in India sought a timepiece that could withstand the demanding nature of polo. Enter René-Alfred Chauvot, the engineer who crafted the ingenious flipable case design for Jaeger-LeCoultre. This innovation allowed wearers to protect the crystal by simply reversing the watch face—a practical solution that quickly became iconic. Jaeger-LeCoultre itself has a rich history, dating back to 1833 when Antoine LeCoultre established his workshop in Switzerland. Over the years, the brand has been responsible for numerous horological innovations, including the millionometre and some of the world’s thinnest watch movements. The brand we know today, Jaeger-LeCoultre, was born from the partnership between LeCoultre and watchmaker Edmond Jaeger, a collaboration that set the foundation for one of the most respected names in luxury watchmaking. Timeless Design Meets Customization Photo: Jaeger-LeCoultre One of the most compelling reasons to consider splurging on the Jaeger-LeCoultre Reverso is its timeless appeal. Despite the constant evolution of fashion trends and watchmaking technologies, the Reverso’s signature rectangular shape and clean lines have remained steadfast. Whether you choose the Reverso Classic Small, the Reverso Duoface, or a diamond-set women’s edition, each model speaks the same design language—one deeply rooted in Art Deco elegance. Photo: Jaeger-LeCoultre Today’s Reverso collection offers an impressive array of options, from different sizes and case materials (stainless steel, rose gold, platinum) to a variety of movements (manual, automatic, quartz). Some models even feature dual time zones, moon phases, or intricate engravings, adding a touch of sophistication to the design. Perhaps the most charming—and practical—feature of the Reverso is its reversible case, allowing the wearer to flip the watch face to reveal a blank metal caseback (perfect for personal engraving), impressive artworks, or a second dial. It’s this blend of practicality and elegance that makes the Reverso a true standout in the world of horology. Shop editor’s choice Is the Jaeger-LeCoultre Reverso Worth the Investment? From a financial investment perspective, Jaeger-LeCoultre watches—while prestigious—don’t typically appreciate in value like Rolex or Patek Philippe. However, that doesn’t mean the Jaeger-LeCoultre Reverso is a poor investment. In fact, retail prices have generally kept pace with the stock market, and demand for rare or limited-edition models remains strong in the secondary market. For buyers seeking a wearable luxury piece with heritage, the Jaeger-LeCoultre Reverso offers incredible value. It blends Swiss engineering finesse with timeless design and a storied history. If you’re buying a luxury watch to enjoy and potentially pass down, the Reverso is a standout. Entry-level models like the Classic Small start at around $4,400, making them more accessible than many other luxury timepieces. On the higher end, pieces like the Tribute Tourbillon can reach upwards of $67,000. But with that price tag comes impeccable craftsmanship and intricate complications that truly set the Reverso apart. A Watch That Blends Form and Function Women’s Reverso/Photo: Jaeger-LeCoultre Beyond its aesthetics and history, the Jaeger-LeCoultre Reverso is a true marvel of watchmaking. Most models are hand-wound, fostering a deeper connection between wearer and timepiece. For those seeking convenience, automatic and quartz options are also available. Innovative features like the Duetto (with identical dials on both sides) or the Duoface (showcasing two time zones) offer practicality wrapped in elegant design. Even if you’re not playing polo, the Reverso’s reversible face has become a canvas for personalization and artistic expression. Some editions even feature miniature paintings or engravings on the reverse side. Should You Splurge? If you’re drawn to watches that embody history, elegance, and technical artistry, the Jaeger-LeCoultre Reverso is an irresistible choice. It’s more than just a timepiece; it’s a conversation starter, a style icon, and a testament to the craftsmanship of one of Switzerland’s most esteemed watchmakers. While it may not offer the same return on investment as some other luxury brands, the Reverso holds its value remarkably well. More importantly, it provides something arguably even more valuable: the daily satisfaction of wearing a piece of living history. In short, if you’re looking for a luxury watch that blends innovation, impeccable craftsmanship, and timeless elegance, the Jaeger-LeCoultre Reverso is undoubtedly a splurge worth making. Shop editor’s choice Featured image: Jaeger-LeCoultre For the latest in fashion, lifestyle, and culture, follow us on Instagram @StyleRave_ —Read Also Collins Badewa A fashion and pop culture writer who watches a lot of TV in his spare time. At Style Rave, we aim to inspire our readers by providing engaging content to not just entertain but to inform and empower you as you ASPIRE to become more stylish, live smarter and be healthier. Follow us on Instagram @StyleRave_ ♥ !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s) if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function()n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments); if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n;n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0'; n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)(window, document,'script', ' fbq('init', '496558104568102'); fbq('track', 'PageView'); !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s)if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function()n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments);if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)(window, document,'script',' fbq('init', '1453079628754066'); fbq('track', "PageView"); Source link

0 notes

norajworld · 1 month ago

Photo

0 notes

denimbex1986 · 2 months ago

Text

'“There is no villain as elegant as Tom Ripley.” Film critic Roger Ebert already stated this when he reviewed the cult film “The Talented Mr. Ripley” in 1999. Now, more than two decades later, Netflix is once again pulling the perfect suit out of the closet with a modernized, dark and at times devilishly handsome adaptation of Patricia Highsmith’s classic antihero – this time played by none other than Andrew Scott, the Irish-British whose subtle acting always balances razor-sharply between charm and discomfort. But is Scott’s version of Ripley sharp enough to stand out among iconic actors like Alain Delon and Matt Damon? The answer is pleasantly surprising: here the style confidence of the sunny 60s Riviera is combined with a clinical, modern icy coolness where every tailored suit and well-ironed shirt is another pawn in the psychopath’s game.

A suit to die for – Ripley and the importance of style

Andrew Scott's Ripley is more than just a chameleon; he's a calculating fashion animal equipped with a pair of tailor's scissors and a psyche cold enough to freeze champagne. Netflix has got the gist: In Ripley's world, clothes and morality are intertwined in a way that would both impress and slightly terrify fashion legend Karl Lagerfeld. Every piece of clothing Ripley wears subtly signals his complex psychology; his impeccably pressed linen trousers and neatly buttoned shirt collars signal distance rather than warmth, control rather than sensitivity. Following Ripley's wardrobe is like watching a polished con artist perform a well-directed play, his psychopathic logic amplified by every deliberate style choice.

A sharp nod to the original 1960 film, René Clément’s seminal classic “Plein Soleil” , can be clearly seen in the Netflix version. Just as Alain Delon swung with incredible self-confidence in every stitch of his costume, Andrew Scott shines with elegance and minimal movement. But of course, it is Anthony Minghella’s unsophisticated 1999 interpretation with Matt Damon that today’s middle-aged viewers may primarily associate Ripley’s character with – where we first saw how clothing style was not merely decorative, but central to understanding Ripley’s search for identity and abysmal alienation. The Netflix series’ costume designer, Stefan Knight, has achieved what many would describe as the art of balance: the aesthetic flirts with nostalgic elements, but at the same time feels fresh and updated for today’s audience. It is no coincidence that fashion platform GQ praises the series’ clothing choices as “ an elegant lesson in stylistic storytelling that sheds new light on Tom Ripley ”.

“It’s complicated”: the psychology behind Ripley

If style is the surface, the Ripley character's psyche is abysmal, and in the hands of the Netflix series, these abysses are effectively exposed. Andrew Scott's Ripley is not a madman with insane glances, but rather a man with disturbingly well-directed politeness and a smile that never quite reaches the eyes. Highsmith created the character back in the 1950s, and it literally oozes subtle anxiety, identity crisis and an almost poetic loneliness from every page of the book - something Netflix has consciously captured and magnificently transferred to the screen. Scott's subtle facial expressions - a slight twitch at the corner of the mouth, a barely noticeable raised eyebrow - give the audience chills in a way that more explicit villains rarely manage. Scenes where Ripley appears extremely controlled and composed in extremely charged situations reinforce the viewer's feeling of standing in front of a puzzle of icy logic, hidden behind a sophisticated exterior.

The Ripley phenomenon is more evident than ever in this multifaceted portrayal, where we are both frightened and attracted by this strange combination of fragile narcissism and rock-solid self-confidence. What is it that really attracts us to characters whose morality is so conspicuously absent? According to film critic Sheila O'Malley of RogerEbert.com, it is precisely the paradox that is key:

“Ripley fascinates because his cold rationality and skillful manipulation of his surroundings appear absurdly attractive – even enviable. We are frightened by him, because we can at the same time see something very human in his desire to fulfill a deep need for affirmation.”

The Netflix series' screenwriter, Steven Zaillian, manages to illuminate this complex ambiguity better than ever. It scares us that we recognize fragments of ourselves in someone so icy, and that's what makes the Ripley character eternally fascinating.

Curious to see psychopathic coldness personified by Andrew Scott?

“Andrew Scott carries psychopathy with an elegance that should be illegal.” Netflix’s new take on Patricia Highsmith’s iconic antihero Tom Ripley is as sleek and clinically fascinating as it is terrifyingly appealing. Andrew Scott brilliantly captures all the icy charm and controlled evil that has made the Ripley character a cultural phenomenon. Scott’s minimalist acting technique places him squarely alongside Alain Delon and Matt Damon in the exclusive club of memorable Ripley actors. A tailor-made psychopath

Stefan Knight's stylized costume work perfectly enhances the hidden discomfort - or as GQ puts it: "an elegant lesson in stylistic storytelling" . Fashion and morality dance a disturbing but entertaining waltz, which is definitely a highlight worth noting.

The critics nod in approval (although a little nervously)

The series' subtle psychology is widely praised; Sheila O'Malley of RogerEbert.com puts her finger on why we are fascinated by Ripley's amoral world:

“Ripley fascinates because his cold rationality and skillful manipulation of his surroundings appear absurdly attractive – even enviable.”

In conclusion, Andrew Scott's Ripley is both a refined and fresh update of a classic character. The psychological complexity and stylistic execution make this series an obvious recommendation.

Rating: 4.5 out of 5'

#Ripley #Andrew Scott #Netflix #Stefan Knight #Patricia Highsmith #The Talented Mr Ripley #Steven Zaillian

0 notes

coolstuffoutlet · 2 months ago

Text

🔥Vixen Vol.1 No.1 (1958) For Men Who Enjoy Mates With Claws and Paws Collectors: https://coolstuffoutpost.com/b/2Ew9g

🔥 Vixen Vol.1 No.1 (1958) – “For Men Who Enjoy Mates With Claws and Paws” 🐾💄

An ultra-rare vintage collectible from the wild world of 1950s men's mags! This debut issue features a fierce cover by G. Pichard,classic bombshells like Jayne Mansfield, Julie Newmar, Meg Myles, Dolores Donlan, and more.

Inside, discover playful pulp cartoons, exotic features like the Camellia Girls of Oshima, and even a nod to monster movie royalty — Lon Chaney, the original man of a thousand faces. 👹

Topped off with sultry rear cover art by René Caillé, Vixen is a must-have for collectors of vintage glamour, and Golden Age horror ephemera. 📸✨

0 notes

martial-maurette · 1 year ago

Text

Bernard Perrine (9 septembre 1938/15 Décembre 2023) :

85 ans, (docteur en pharmacie, psychologie), photographe dès 1968, journaliste, professeur, rédac’chef pour « Le Photographe », conseiller, membre de tant de jurys, …/… "Officier des Arts et des Lettres, correspondant de la section de photographie de l’Académie des Beaux-Arts"

La pertinence rigoureuse de ses propos techniques, technologiques et historiques, (…il a une bibliothèque d’érudit rare, dont il m’avait dit, malicieusement, être rangée par ordre de dates de naissance des auteurs…), m’était compensée par son impertinence envers les « VIP » des diverses chapelles en « La Photographie » française.

Il m’a fait connaître Karlheinz Stockhausen (compositeur contemporain), Lyrinx (René Gambini, éditeur de musique), Henri Cartier-Bresson, Avedon, Nadar, les humanistes français, le rouleau compresseur « kulturel » américain, L’Histoire de La Photographie française, les M chez Leica, le Noir et Blanc et ses innombrables nuances, le portrait Polaroïd en 50x65cm, d’innombrables auteurs-photographes anciens et récents, Armal Moutiez, Agathe Gaillard, Delpire, Jean-Claude Lemagny, Willem Flusser, Lucien Clergue, Andy Warhol, Les Rencontres Internationales de la Photographie d’Arles, le Ministère de la Culture, l’Académie des Beaux-Arts, la BNF, « les » professions (…et chapelles esthétiques…) de La Photographie, (et tous les magazines plus ou moins spécialisés), les rues, musées et galeries photo de Paris, l’apprentissage technique et chimique en labo, la découverte des dernières technologies, les droits d’auteurs, les règles sans compromis, le doute envers la société des loisirs et spectacle, l’intransigeance, la persévérance, son exceptionnelle bibliothèque personnelle, sa forteresse familiale, …où très cachées, ses innombrables planches-contacts dont très peu d’images diffusées…/…

Bernard, sous le coup de cette nouvelle, hier ...aujourd’hui ...demain !, je reste stupéfait de ton départ foudroyant en l’autre monde, certainement lumineux pour toi.

Ensuite, ce seront les souvenirs qui empliront l’espace que tu laisses. Et ces souvenirs partagés par tant (et toi, par tes archives, sauf sur les réseaux sociaux que tu abhorrais), tels les écrits photographiques, consolideront ton « image ».

C’est grâce à toi, professeur (pour moi, de 1976 à 1980) puis ami 44 ans, que j’ai très correctement mené ma passion-profession (diplômé, encore grâce à toi) pendant 30 ans.

Sans oublier que tes partages de savoirs, rigueur et questionnements m’ont aussi permis d’assumer (très bien) une famille soudée.

Pensées amicales aussi à Isabelle et leurs filles. Au revoir.

https://galeriehegoa.fr/portfolio/bernard-perinne/

#Bernard Perrine #Martial Maurette Photographe #Photographie Noir et Blanc

1 note · View note

antiqueestatebuyers · 6 months ago

Text

How to Identify Valuable Antique Estate Collectables: A Focus on Baccarat and Lalique Crystal Glass?

About

Antique estate collectibles hold a special place in the hearts of collectors and enthusiasts alike. These valuable pieces often carry a rich history, intricate craftsmanship, and timeless appeal, making them sought-after items for anyone who appreciates the beauty of rare and luxurious items. Among the most prized collectibles are Baccarat crystal glass and Lalique crystal glass, two renowned names in the world of high-end glassware. If you're looking to expand your collection or simply admire these exquisite works of art, this guide will introduce you to the fascinating world of antique estate collectibles.

The Allure of Antique Estate Collectibles

Antique estate collectibles are treasures that come from personal estates, often passed down through generations. These items can range from fine jewelry and vintage furniture to rare glassware and decorative art. What sets antique collectibles apart is their uniqueness, history, and the story behind each piece. Collectors value these items not only for their aesthetic appeal but also for the craftsmanship and the era in which they were made.

Estate sales, auctions, and specialized antique stores are prime locations to find these rare pieces, often offering a glimpse into the past. Among the many types of collectibles, fine crystal glassware from prestigious brands like Baccarat and Lalique stands out as an embodiment of elegance and luxury.

Baccarat Crystal Glass: A Legacy of Luxury

Baccarat crystal glass has a storied history dating back to 1764 when the Baccarat company was founded in France. Over the centuries, Baccarat has built a reputation for producing some of the finest crystal glassware in the world. Each piece is a work of art, known for its clarity, precision, and brilliance. Baccarat crystal is often associated with opulence, having been commissioned by royalty and aristocrats throughout history.

Collectors of Baccarat crystal glass appreciate the brand's dedication to craftsmanship. From exquisite chandeliers and elegant vases to wine glasses and decanters, Baccarat crystal glass pieces are known for their timeless designs. The intricate cuts, patterns, and flawless finishes make these items highly desirable among antique estate collectors.

If you're in the market for Baccarat crystal glass, estate sales and antique shops are great places to find these stunning pieces. Because Baccarat has been producing crystal for centuries, there's a wide variety of styles to choose from, each reflecting the period in which it was made.

Lalique Crystal Glass: Art Meets Glassmaking

René Lalique, a visionary French artist and designer, founded Lalique in the early 20th century. What sets Lalique crystal glass apart from other brands is its unique fusion of art and glassmaking. Lalique's creations often feature sculptural designs, inspired by nature, mythology, and the female form, giving them a distinct aesthetic that collectors love.

Lalique crystal glass is known for its frosted and clear finishes, which give the pieces an ethereal, almost mystical appearance. Collectors prize Lalique vases, bowls, figurines, and perfume bottles for their artistic qualities and craftsmanship. Each Lalique piece tells a story, whether it's a delicate floral design or an intricate animal figure.

Antique Lalique crystal glass pieces are highly sought after by collectors who appreciate the blend of artistry and functionality. Estate sales and auctions are excellent venues to find rare Lalique items, often offering one-of-a-kind pieces that are no longer in production.

Investing in Baccarat and Lalique Crystal Glass

For collectors, investing in Baccarat and Lalique crystal glass is not just about owning beautiful items—it's also about preserving a piece of history. Both brands have maintained their status as leaders in the world of luxury crystal, and their pieces tend to hold or increase in value over time. When purchasing antique Baccarat or Lalique items, it's important to ensure authenticity by checking for maker's marks and consulting experts if necessary.

Conclusion

Antique estate collectibles, particularly Baccarat and Lalique crystal glass, represent the pinnacle of elegance and craftsmanship. Whether you're a seasoned collector or just beginning to explore the world of antique glassware, these brands offer a wealth of options that can enhance any collection. By attending estate sales, auctions, or visiting specialized antique dealers, you can find rare and valuable pieces that reflect the beauty and artistry of a bygone era.

#antique estate collectables #Baccarat crystal glass #Lalique crystal glass

0 notes

longlivebatart · 2 years ago

Text

Hals' Youth with a Skull

Note: Sorry I haven't been around, guys! Life kinda got in the way.

Transcript:

Welcome to Long Live Bat Art, the podcast for art lovers who don’t see art as much as they want to. My name is Sydney and thank you for taking this slow tour through an art gallery with a casual art lover. Today, I’ll be talking about Youth with a Skull by Frans Hals. I hope you enjoy.

Frans Hals was born somewhere around 1582 in Antwerp. Hals and his family fled Antwerp after the fall of the city to the Spanish when he was around 2 years old. Protestants were given a mere four years to get all their affairs in order before leaving the city. The Hals family moved north to Haarlem in the Netherlands, which was part of the fledgling Dutch Republic. Hals did his studying as an artist under Flemish artist Karel van Mander, though the older painter’s style is barely seen in Hals’ own work. It seems as though Hals worked with portraits exclusively.

Hals joined the Haarlem Guild of Saint Luke in 1610, when he was in his late twenties, which was considered old to be admitted to the Guild. Once admitted, Hals actually worked as a restorer for the town council, which brought him some amount of money. After the council sold off to Cornelis Claesz van Wieringen, a Guild member and painter, Hals was forced to seek other work. It’s then that Hals decided to try his hand at original work, starting with portraiture. He stuck with religious themes by using a Catholic pastor, Jacobus Zaffius, as a subject in 1611. But it isn’t until 5 years later that he had his first work that gained him some attention when he produced a schutterstuk and painted the officers of the Saint George Militia company. Hals even painted René Descartes in 1649.

Instead of the usual custom at the time of painters moving from place to place as they were commissioned, often staying in the house or general vicinity of their patrons, Hals remained in Haarlem and his customers came to him. Perhaps it was because he was a devoted father to his 10 children.

In 1644 he became chairman of the Guild that he was once considered too old to be admitted into.

Hals was also a musketeer- though sadly not one of the swashbuckling three- in the Saint George civic guard, which was a kind of town guard. After being a musketeer from 1612-15, he served another function in the same guard for nine years. From 1616 to 1624 he was a man after my own heart- he was a second member of an amateur dramatic society whose translated name is The Vine Tendrils. In fact, one of Hals’ earliest known portraits was of a man named Pieter Cornelisz van der Morsch. Van der Morsch apparently was known for his cutting wit.

Like Vermeer, unfortunately no foundations of Hals have survived.

Frans Hals is considered by many in the art world to be second only to Rembrandt before the last century when Vermeer was re-discovered as a Dutch Master. Hals was especially popular in Paris past 1850. Hals’ often-colorful palette and incredibly bold brushwork was particularly inspiring to Impressionist and Realist painters, even more so than Rembrandt. And you might remember our friend Theophilé Thoré from the Vermeer episode, who was also a fan of Hals. It seems as though Thoré had a very good eye and incredible taste. After Thoré brought Hals back to the public eye, Hals’ work soared in value. His work went from being sold for just over 4 British pounds to 25,000 of the same currency. That’s from about 5 to nearly 31,000 American dollars.

On the opposite side of the spectrum from Thoré’s flattery and support, the same critic that wrote a quote biography unquote of Steen- Arnold Houbraken- said in 1718, long after the painter’s death, that Hals’ financial struggles later in his life were due to alcoholism. Of course, it might have had nothing to do with the fact artists were rarely appreciated or paid well in their time and his 10 children, but I highly doubt it. To further cast doubt on Houbraken’s biography, it seems as though a scene in the book - where Anthony van Dyke went to visit Hals had to search taverns for the man when he wasn’t at home, painted a picture of Hals who recognized him by the art alone, and how van Dyke tried to get Hals to move to England - was borrowed almost entirely from Pliny the Elder’s Natural History from around the year 78 ACE. Seymour Slive tried to squash those rumors, but they remained persistent for quite a while. People tend to like unsubstantiated gossip more than facts.

Hals had several students once he was established, though the exact number and even names are debated. The ones that are known for sure are Vincent Laurensz van der Vinne and Pieter Gerritsz van Roestraten, the latter of which later married Hals’ daughter Adriaentje. Because of her style, Judith Leyster has been offered as a possible student of Hals. She often signed her work, which was unusual at the time but very helpful today. Her husband, Jan Miense Molenaer, is also a possible student.

Hals’ influence extended far beyond his lifetime- I said before that Impressionists and Realists were influenced by his work. What I didn’t mention was that one of those influenced painters was Claude Monet, and that even Vincent van Gogh admired Hals’ work. Still other painters were able to learn the technicalities of painting due to Hals’ tendency to not hide his brushstrokes as many of his contemporaries did.

As with most of the painters this season, the exact numbers of surviving painters that have been attributed to Hals differ greatly, depending on which source you draw from. Slive claims 222 works in 1970-74, but in 1989 Claus Grimm, another historian of Hals, attributed only 145. Now for the painting.

The young man depicted in the painting has shaggy and wispy brown hair that extends past his chin, but not by much. It’s unkempt- the right side is fluffed out carelessly. So not a vain young man.

He has pale skin and a rosy complexion, mostly around the apples of his cheeks and his nose. His mouth is also very red. He’s looking to his left, the viewer’s right. He’s wearing a bright red hat with a very long red feather on the right side of the image stuck in the front by the quill. The feather extends from the hat to just past the young man’s shoulder, then it drapes down. The fibers of the feather are fluffy. Each strand is a different shade of pink or red. The main vein of the feather is a very pale pink, actually more of a white.

The boy is wearing a loose navy garment wrapped around his front. It- like the feather- is oversized. The folds are realistic. The low points are a deeper blue, the highlights a brighter one. The fabric is actually shaded with a rust color on the left side of the image. The collar of the young man’s clothes peeks over the fabric- his shirt is white. The clothing underneath the fabric, what must be his overcoat, is red. It’s a deeper shade than the hat and the feather. A little closer to burgundy than true red. The young man’s right hand is stretched towards the viewer, his thumb above the others and the rest of his fingers flat, as if he’s going to awkwardly shake hands. His fingers are too spread for a grab. His palm is in shadow, and the backs of his fingers are highlighted. The webbing between his thumb and his hand is also highlighted, and the webbing is detailed. You can see the actual curve of it in front of the rest of his skin. His overcoat is open over his hand, and you can see the button holding the sleeve halves shut on the bottom of his arm. His arm is casting a shadow on the rest of his body. Now for the skull.

The boy is holding it from beneath, his fingers curled around it. There’s no bottom jaw, just the top jaw that’s connected to the rest of the skull. The skull is somewhat in profile- you can see only one half of the teeth, where the cartilage of the nose was, and an eye socket with only part of the other one visible. The right half of the skull is in a gentle shadow. The skull has a pronounced brow ridge, and its cheekbones are pronounced, as well. The skull is shaded in faded yellow and neutral tones, with some blue-toned grays. The gray is concentrated in the hollow above the cheekbone and following the line of it. The eye socket is almost completely in deep black shadow, with some lighter shadows closer to the nose. The opening in the nose where the nostrils were is in deep shadow, as well. The few teeth that remain are whiter than the rest of the skull. The wall behind the boy is a dingy gray with some texture. There is a shadow thrown on it beneath the feather, though not by it. By his head, maybe.

Now for my thoughts.

The boy looks unsure. It’s clear Hals was giving him directions on how to pose himself. He’s looking for assurance that he’s doing it correctly. And at the same time, there’s an innocence about him, even though he’s holding a skull. His mouth is very red. It’s slightly open, too. Just enough to show his front teeth. There’s just something soft about this. And the finality of the skull, the symbol of death, in such a vibrant young man’s hand. Lots of artists used skulls and skeletons as a subject- Van Gogh did the latter with a cigarette hanging from its mouth. And I’ll hopefully describe that baller painting in a later season.

But the juxtaposition of death and youth is interesting. As much as death is scary, youth is comforting. And both death and youth are important. Without death, we wouldn’t appreciate life. And without youth, we wouldn’t remember where we came from. But as far as youth, people have to be very careful when giving advice, no matter how well-meaning, to people younger than they are. Nostalgia makes us think the past was better, but it isn't. It’s just the past. It only seems better because we’re no longer experiencing it. Time and distance bring wisdom in a lot of situations.

Here’s today’s challenge- learn one thing from your life. I don’t mean examine every second of your life for a theme, though you’re free to do that and all the more power to you. I mean learn one thing you didn’t know yesterday. It can be a fact about a subject you think you know well, or something from a brand-new one. It can be a joke- the dumber the joke, the better. It can be some new story from a friend or family member. Learn from your life, because life is the best teacher there is, even though it isn’t always the easiest.

Not only skills take practice- being a human does, too. Learning how to be a better friend to others and yourself takes practice. Learning to communicate your wants and needs takes practice. Trying new things takes practice. And you should dive into practicing whole-heartedly because finding out what makes you happy is a great feeling. And don’t feel like you’re ever done learning- humans are ever-changing beings. Labels can be useful, but boxes are prisons.

If you liked this episode of Long Live Bat Art, please consider telling a friend and reviewing to help the podcast grow. A link to the transcript of this episode is available in the show notes below. And you can follow me on Twitter at Long Live Bat Art and tumblr at tumblr dot com forward slash Long Live Bat Art. That’s Long Live B-A-T Art. Thank you for listening to this episode, and I will see you in two weeks.

#episode transcripts

0 notes