Caution: Some spoiler content.
This film feels like a documentary--no highs and no lows-but is executed like a fiction. At the end of the film, for example, the director somewhat blurred the line between documentary (reality) and fiction. The tone of the movie is very flat and very monochromatic but I like the way it captures the creative process and struggle of the artist. The artist's philosophy of doing painting is very technical and rigidly methodical. The dialogue is mundane, uncoached, and true to real life but I think this films works because the formal compactness and control of the subject matter.
The artist is committed to capture the reality of the quince tree under the sun although the weather is not always at his side. His method of painting is somewhat "different" from other painters, as pointed out by one visitor (the Chinese lady) where she tells him that many painters paint their objects from photo. To this, the artist replies that he feels closer to the tree when done that way, that is by drawing the tree from the real source.
As time goes by, the artist is realising no way can he captures the "truth" about the quince tree in the way he wants it to be. In fact, we are shown some of difficulties faced by the artist. For example, we are being shown the windy day thus distorting the stable and rigid position of the leaves. The final blow comes when he sees in one morning the dead quince on the ground.
The artist gives up in his mission at the end and to my surprise, he let himself to become the object of art. This time with him laying on the bed and the film shows the almost finished painting, which is presumably done by his wife. In one scene, the painting and his actual lying on the bed is somewhat close to each other in reality that there is a sense that there's no difference between reality and the created objects. The artist falls asleep when his wife is making some final touch on the painting or (is he dead?). Realising this, the wife leaves him. I got the impression that the artist has given up his work and his life, too.
This film is particularly good at portraying the artist at work without pushing the ups and the downs of the artistic process. There are few memorable scenes; for example, when his old friend visits him and they sing together while the old friend is trying to keep the leave stable and the artist draws it. One scene is good, too, where the Chinese lady and the interpreter discuss with the artist about his work. All these scenes--in fact almost all the scenes-are done with no ups and downs of human life found in narrative-driven films.
Because of the style of Erice's presentation of the subject matter, this film is open to many interpretations. I think Erice seems to suggest that we love to capture everything into what we call art but we can never capture the "truth" of the stuff. The film also suggests filmmaking is also working under the same principal with painting and hence, is defeated in the same manner. To illustrate, it shows film camera, with no operator but replacing the artist's standing point, "capturing" the quince tree at night with the helps of artificial lighting. This is very interesting. We are being shown the artists in the artistic process. Then, we are shown (although somewhat suggestively) the filmmakers in similar process. It's like saying making films and making a drawing is voyeuristic in nature.
Two things happen simultaneously although the film focuses more on the artist. Erice is very restrained and reserved about making clear about the two events that they almost go unnoticed (although I think this is justifiable.) The effect is not something that calls for itself. Neither it is self-conscious. It is very low-key. It is like nothing happens during my viewing of the film. I realised something only when I was done with the film.
Consider some of these things:
The processes: 1. The artist is working on the painting on the quince tree. The film actually shows in quite detail some of the process. 2. At the same time, three workers are renovating the artist's house. The film shows they are doing it in the passing.
The first results: 1. The artist didn't finish the work. 2. The three workers managed to finish their works.
The second results: 1. When the artist decides to stop drawing the quince tree, he plucks the quinces and keeps three of them in his studio, together with the two unfinished stuff (a drawing and a painting of the quince tree) 2. After the workers are finished with the work, one of them plucks the quince and together they eat the quince.
What are these "facts" about if they have meaning at all in the film? What the heck is Erice trying to suggest? Is Erice saying that artist's work is always unfinished or to be finished. Or is Erice saying the artists and the non-artists have different ideas what the objects are supposed to mean in real world? Or whatever he means, is Erice saying we cannot take it very seriously because he just wants to show that the way it is?
I think Erice wants to make a distinction between seeing and looking at. Two differences between seeing and looking away. (1) Seeing (e.g. artists, philosophers, etc): seeing the world in order to know what it is out there and seeing things as they are in reality. Seeing is like penetrating to extract the truth about the objects seen. By contrast, (2) Looking away (e.g. ordinary people): Looking away from the world and things no matter how beautiful and however real or true they are, if any different at all. The quince, for example, can be self-useful to people like the workers and the artist's wife because the quince can be used for many purposes like eating, making into jam, etc. I think the artist belongs to the former while the workers the latter.
This film recalls a natural comparison to Rivette's La Belle Nouseise, another story about the artist's struggle to finish his artistic work. Both rely on a very low-key presentation. Both shows in detail the artistic process. In Rivette's film, the artist is struggling to capture "the essence" of the human body. Erice's film shows the artist trying to contain the truth about natural objects. The ending is somewhat different, though. The artist in Rivette's film decides not to show the finished work to anyone and this is almost anti-climatic (in a good sense, of course) because all the materials point to his desire to finish his once-abandoned masterpiece. In Erice's world, the artist does not finish his work and we know that the artist feels somewhat "upset" about this. Another disturbing thing about El Sol del Membrillo is that his wife and his children know in the passing that the artist does not finish the painting and the drawing but Erice is not concerned to show any dramatic revelation about this thing as though there's no big deal about it.
El Sol del Membrillo is one of 1990s' most underrated films. Highly recommended.
This film feels like a documentary--no highs and no lows-but is executed like a fiction. At the end of the film, for example, the director somewhat blurred the line between documentary (reality) and fiction. The tone of the movie is very flat and very monochromatic but I like the way it captures the creative process and struggle of the artist. The artist's philosophy of doing painting is very technical and rigidly methodical. The dialogue is mundane, uncoached, and true to real life but I think this films works because the formal compactness and control of the subject matter.
The artist is committed to capture the reality of the quince tree under the sun although the weather is not always at his side. His method of painting is somewhat "different" from other painters, as pointed out by one visitor (the Chinese lady) where she tells him that many painters paint their objects from photo. To this, the artist replies that he feels closer to the tree when done that way, that is by drawing the tree from the real source.
As time goes by, the artist is realising no way can he captures the "truth" about the quince tree in the way he wants it to be. In fact, we are shown some of difficulties faced by the artist. For example, we are being shown the windy day thus distorting the stable and rigid position of the leaves. The final blow comes when he sees in one morning the dead quince on the ground.
The artist gives up in his mission at the end and to my surprise, he let himself to become the object of art. This time with him laying on the bed and the film shows the almost finished painting, which is presumably done by his wife. In one scene, the painting and his actual lying on the bed is somewhat close to each other in reality that there is a sense that there's no difference between reality and the created objects. The artist falls asleep when his wife is making some final touch on the painting or (is he dead?). Realising this, the wife leaves him. I got the impression that the artist has given up his work and his life, too.
This film is particularly good at portraying the artist at work without pushing the ups and the downs of the artistic process. There are few memorable scenes; for example, when his old friend visits him and they sing together while the old friend is trying to keep the leave stable and the artist draws it. One scene is good, too, where the Chinese lady and the interpreter discuss with the artist about his work. All these scenes--in fact almost all the scenes-are done with no ups and downs of human life found in narrative-driven films.
Because of the style of Erice's presentation of the subject matter, this film is open to many interpretations. I think Erice seems to suggest that we love to capture everything into what we call art but we can never capture the "truth" of the stuff. The film also suggests filmmaking is also working under the same principal with painting and hence, is defeated in the same manner. To illustrate, it shows film camera, with no operator but replacing the artist's standing point, "capturing" the quince tree at night with the helps of artificial lighting. This is very interesting. We are being shown the artists in the artistic process. Then, we are shown (although somewhat suggestively) the filmmakers in similar process. It's like saying making films and making a drawing is voyeuristic in nature.
Two things happen simultaneously although the film focuses more on the artist. Erice is very restrained and reserved about making clear about the two events that they almost go unnoticed (although I think this is justifiable.) The effect is not something that calls for itself. Neither it is self-conscious. It is very low-key. It is like nothing happens during my viewing of the film. I realised something only when I was done with the film.
Consider some of these things:
The processes: 1. The artist is working on the painting on the quince tree. The film actually shows in quite detail some of the process. 2. At the same time, three workers are renovating the artist's house. The film shows they are doing it in the passing.
The first results: 1. The artist didn't finish the work. 2. The three workers managed to finish their works.
The second results: 1. When the artist decides to stop drawing the quince tree, he plucks the quinces and keeps three of them in his studio, together with the two unfinished stuff (a drawing and a painting of the quince tree) 2. After the workers are finished with the work, one of them plucks the quince and together they eat the quince.
What are these "facts" about if they have meaning at all in the film? What the heck is Erice trying to suggest? Is Erice saying that artist's work is always unfinished or to be finished. Or is Erice saying the artists and the non-artists have different ideas what the objects are supposed to mean in real world? Or whatever he means, is Erice saying we cannot take it very seriously because he just wants to show that the way it is?
I think Erice wants to make a distinction between seeing and looking at. Two differences between seeing and looking away. (1) Seeing (e.g. artists, philosophers, etc): seeing the world in order to know what it is out there and seeing things as they are in reality. Seeing is like penetrating to extract the truth about the objects seen. By contrast, (2) Looking away (e.g. ordinary people): Looking away from the world and things no matter how beautiful and however real or true they are, if any different at all. The quince, for example, can be self-useful to people like the workers and the artist's wife because the quince can be used for many purposes like eating, making into jam, etc. I think the artist belongs to the former while the workers the latter.
This film recalls a natural comparison to Rivette's La Belle Nouseise, another story about the artist's struggle to finish his artistic work. Both rely on a very low-key presentation. Both shows in detail the artistic process. In Rivette's film, the artist is struggling to capture "the essence" of the human body. Erice's film shows the artist trying to contain the truth about natural objects. The ending is somewhat different, though. The artist in Rivette's film decides not to show the finished work to anyone and this is almost anti-climatic (in a good sense, of course) because all the materials point to his desire to finish his once-abandoned masterpiece. In Erice's world, the artist does not finish his work and we know that the artist feels somewhat "upset" about this. Another disturbing thing about El Sol del Membrillo is that his wife and his children know in the passing that the artist does not finish the painting and the drawing but Erice is not concerned to show any dramatic revelation about this thing as though there's no big deal about it.
El Sol del Membrillo is one of 1990s' most underrated films. Highly recommended.