Appreciating art is not the same as understanding it. To fully understand art, one must have an understanding of the artist and a grasp of the context from which his inspiration is drawn. A contextual essay on the 1564 painting The Way to Calvary by Pieter Bruegel the Elder provided the foundation for the film The Mill and the Cross. This film examines the painting, which becomes three-dimensional in the context of the inquisition and Spanish occupation at the time the painting was created.
The Mill and the Cross was translated to film by Director Lech Majewski. Creating a film from an essay presents many challenges. These challenges were enhanced by Majewski's choice to keep dialogue at a minimum. Majewski uses his film as a canvas, layering in multiple levels of detail to keep the viewers eye moving on the screen. Cinema generally captures and frames a single perspective, training the viewers eye on a central figure. To create the layers needed to give his film the complexity of a painting, Majewski shot numerous layers using blue screen. Single shots include as many as 150 layers of action, carefully plotted to remain aligned with the original painting while forcing viewers to shift focus the way they might take in an actual painting.
Majewski's cinematic perspective was effective. The Way to Calvary contains nearly 500 individual characters. While Majewski centers his attention on Bruegel (Rutger Hauer), he also infuses depth into the minor characters within the painting. Majewski's use of allegory assists viewers in drawing the parallels that Bruegel intended. The scene depicts a central figure, Jesus, being led to Golgotha bearing his own cross. The characters in this painting shift focus from the central figure by observing Simon of Cyrene, who is seized by Spanish soldiers to help carry the cross. The soldiers become symbols of the Roman soldiers who crucified Christ. The painting was an intriguing political satire with a complexity that provided insulation, or political cover, for the artist.
The movie was an art lesson as much as it was a story of the life of the artist. In order to understand the significance of oddly placed symbols, one must have a deeper understanding of art in the time and place that this piece was created. For instance, the Mill in this painting towers precariously over the scene atop an unlikely mount. This is the place that artists of the time would insert their interpretation of God, overseeing his creation. In this painting, God takes the form of a Miller. Preparing the bread of life while overseeing their works from his heavenly vantage point. Understanding the Spanish occupation, the significance of locations within the painting and the religious beliefs of the era greatly enhanced my appreciation of the painting. Watching it carefully reconstructed by Majewski in an incredible cinematic interpretation was brilliant.
This movie is atypical. It is not a film with a traditional plot. Instead, it is an examination of characters and context from a painting. With limited dialogue, this film should be a snoozer. It is not. At 92 minutes run time, I did not feel bored as I obsessed to find every hidden nugget of symbolism that oozed from every pore of this film. I do not watch many films twice, but this is certainly one that must be viewed more than once if you hope to capture the significance of every nuance. As we learn about Pieter Bruegel, we understand his influences and his own connection to his subject. In an odd and surprising way, Majewski managed to make this painting come alive and become very personal to the viewer. That is not an easy task, but Majewski made it look easy. An incredible visual delight.
In terms of parental advisories, this film was unrated. However, this is not a film for children. The nuance and symbolism will be lost on most adolescent audiences, so it would be a waste of time for younger viewers. Additionally, this film does contain full frontal female nudity, a couple of sex scenes (no nudity) and plenty of violence. Picture a crow plucking meat from a dying man's eyes. The nudity is very tasteful, although a bit cheeky in context. It seemed to be a portrait within a painting, the director's own artistic touch. The violence is in keeping with the thematic elements of the painting and are artistically balanced, but graphic. This film would be better enjoyed and understood by older audiences.
I was impressed with The Mill and the Cross. I was not familiar with Bruegel's work before watching this film. The absence of dialogue could have killed this film, but it actually worked. While the action was sluggish at times, allowing visual queues to "do all the talking" the film didn't really feel like it had major pacing issues. There were times that the sluggish moments felt like intentional pauses for reflection on the material. Hauer was surprisingly good in his contemplative role as the artist. He was joined by Michael York and Charlotte Rampling. The cast provided a solid foundation for a story whose true voice comes through visually. Film as a canvas has rarely been this literal. 7.5/10.
Trailer and images subject to copyright.
