Plantiana Yawn. Poorly Filmed Snooze Fest.

Unlimitedia Sick Product of a Sick System

ShangLuda Admirable film.

Erica Derrick By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Red-125 National Gallery (2014) was directed by Frederick Wiseman. Wiseman is also listed as writer, co-producer, and editor. Although this is obviously very much a Wiseman film, Wiseman himself never appears in it. This is typical of Wiseman. He finds ways to go where no other cinematographer could go, and he films what he sees. Moreover, there's never a hint that people are aware of the camera's presence, and there's no voice-over. What he sees is what you get. There's no explanations and no talking heads.Because National Gallery is about a major art gallery, this film doesn't have the sizzle and pop that occur in some of Wiseman's other documentaries. For example, Astoria (2000) is about a multi-ethnic neighborhood in Queens, NY. Naturally it's more lively and inherently more interesting than National Gallery.However, Wiseman is a great director, and he makes a relatively quiet art gallery a place where we see quiet internal struggles, and some great discussions of the paintings themselves, and the technical aspect of restoring paintings and even of making frames.I was very interested in the board room scenes. It became clear to me that there was a subsurface struggle between the director and most of his staff. The staff wanted to make the museum more user-friendly. For example, the U.S. National Gallery and the Metropolitan Museum in NYC are user-friendly. People from all the strata of society feel comfortable there. From context, that isn't so at the National Gallery.The staff would like to change that, but it becomes apparent that the director is looking for middle- and upper-class attendance. If Bill Rugby doesn't feel at home at the museum, the director doesn't really care.Nobody on the staff wants to confront him directly, so they keep agreeing with him, and then saying, "Yes, but . . . " He ignores these oblique suggestions, and he prevails.The movie is three hours long, and there are many segments. Some segments worked really well, but some of the segments didn't work for me at all. For example, there's a special program at the gallery for visually impaired people. A lecturer has a work of art, and describes it in terms of lines and angles. The visually impaired people are supposed to "see" the painting in this way. It didn't look like any of them could, indeed, visualize the painting. And, unfortunately, this scene went on and on. It's a three-hour movie, so Wiseman could allow this scene to go on and on, but it wasn't enjoyable for me.This isn't a movie that you should watch for excitement and revelation. On the other hand, if you love art, and art museums, it's the movie for you.We saw National Gallery on DVD. It worked very well on the small screen.

marsupial3300 If you are familiar with Wiseman's work, you know that he is a true documentarian. No Michael Moore-type bias, no opinions, just a pure document for you to do with what you will. I enjoyed every minute and learned much about the day-to-day life in London's National Gallery. I loved the staff lectures on different paintings, the restoration sections were fascinating, and even the board meetings were interesting (even though I hate meetings in real life LOL).I'm only sorry Frederick Wiseman is getting older and cannot be with us for another 80 years so he can make even more documentaries. Brilliant, beautiful, sublime….

Scott44 "National Gallery" (2014, Frederick Wiseman), a documentary about the renowned British art museum, makes a strong case for major arts institutions. With a three-hour running time, we finish with a firm idea of both the inestimable value and fragility of The National Gallery. With a haphazard, seemingly random structure, the documentary shows people regardless of their actual involvement with the museum. We see patrons silently absorbing art; board members discussing their goals; curators discussing philosophy and techniques; janitors; wall painters; a board meeting where the discussion is about an unwelcome public marathon; budget cuts discussed at another board meeting; various educators, various video crews, museum guides analyzing master works; a male and a female nude model separately posing for what appears to be an advanced art class; adventurous Arctic activists bravely hoisting a banner at the museum's entrance; a pianist performing amid priceless paintings and a reasonably erotic, heterosexual ballet dance. Wiseman makes a compelling statement about the worth of visual arts, and it couldn't arrive to this brutal world at a better time.Curiously, Wiseman does not introduce museum employees with captions or inform the viewer what event is occurring. This helps makes his statement universal. Rather than just a story of the National Gallery, the viewer is encouraged to gain appreciation for his or her local cultural institutions. There are some memorable segments. I really enjoy the brief excerpts of lectures where experts interpret details in master works. The discussion of Paul Reubens's "Samson and Delilah (1609- 1610)" is interesting. So is the curator's lecture describing a Rembrandt portrait with a hidden second composition of the same subject. One of the senior museum big shots tells a laugh-out-loud joke about Moses and the Ten Commandments. Another museum guide informs a group of adolescents, several of whom are Black, that the Gallery owes its early funding to the Slave Trade. Leonardo da Vinci's power is also expressed or suggested multiple times. Finally, the ballet dance that is staged in the vicinity of two large master works reminds us that visual arts tickle the public's imagination in many ways.It is an uneven journey, but it finishes with rising interest. "The National Gallery" will likely be enjoyed by artists of many disciplines who wish to be reminded of culture's power. It sure would be nice if the arts flourished in this particularly barbaric period while the world's militaries languished.

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