Goya's Ghosts

source: Goya's Ghosts

Perhaps I missed something, but I found GOYA'S GHOSTS to be a tedious costume melodrama. As to the story it was trying to tell, I found that a confusing mish-mash that went off in all directions. And perhaps it should have been made by a Spanish director with the appropriate languages subtitled rather than in unconvincingly accented English. I can't judge the historical veracity of the story but it seemed to move along with a similar "artist's model's tragic fate" plot line as GIRL WITH A PEARL EARRING. Was the movie a commentary on the religious injustices of the Inquisition, false piety, torture then and now, or what???? I never seemed to be able to figure that one out. Natalie Portman's various characters also seemed ridiculously stereotypical. And ultimately the movie was crowned with the concluding melodrama of a disheveled Bardem's head and body hanging on the edge of cart heading off into the sunset…with Ines and Goya following along behind………Can't Milos Forman do better than that?

I had this DVD to watch, thinking that I would see a type of biography o painter Goya, but the movie was about everything but Goya. This movie is about a young woman taken away from her family by the Holy Inquisition, allegedly because she practiced Jewish rituals (only because the poor girl did not like eating pork!). The rest of the movie is about torture, humiliation, driven by a poor script (can't believe it is by JC Carrière as I could not believe this cr** is directed by Mr Milos Forman) centered on a religious man and that young woman and that is all. Ah, and there is Goya, I forgot, playing a completely peripheral role - that could be the role of John, Paul, Peter, Manuel, Joaquim, Jose or anyone. Very disappointing - one one these movies that will be forgotten for ever (if it has not had happened yet). Rent "The Name of the Rose" if you want a movie about the Holy Inquisition. And I don't know what you should rent, if you want to watch a movie about Spanish painter Goya. Maybe a director of a good caliber, not Forman, still needs to make it. PS: the Spanish painter, Goya - the title role who is lost in the plot - is portrayed by a Scandinavian actor, something that makes this film even more difficult to be taken seriously. Maybe next time we should send Javier Barden to play the biopic of Norwegian painter, Edvard Munch!

As the lead in a film that won a distinctive "Golden Turkey" award ("The Bride & the Beast") I am more than thrilled to relinquish this honor by passing the torch to this awfullest of awful movies. Twenty-five people to see "Goya's Ghosts" in a theater in Greece? Ha! ha! We beat you. My friend and I were two, an elderly lady in costume in the front row made three and then, two more arrived. After shock and awe, two trips to the bathroom, a box of popcorn and muffled laughter, I wept that Javier Bardem would have allowed himself to appear in this many-plotted sprint through history that not even the British Army with pipe and drums could save. Switching from a muted voiced, God-fearing and lascivious priest to a years-younger curly-wigged dilettante all in one movie was too much to bear. "The Portrait of Dorian Gray" backwards? And poor Natalie Portman, from innocent to freed "heretic, her jaw packed with Kleenex ala "Godfather" and oh-so-bad complexion that never cleared up carrying around a poor baby looking past the camera for her REAL mommy, pushed us over the edge. Authenticity in the titles only with the violent drawings of Goya...everything else was millions down the toilet ..all dressed up with no place to go. P.S. Yes, DO believe the critics on this one!

What a disappointment it was to learn that one of my favourite directors, Milos Forman, would go to Spain where animal cruelty laws do not apply and would exploit that loophole to abuse and kill animals for our entertainment. A chicken is trampled by horses, a real animal carcass is thrown into a field so that vultures can be shot, horses are abused and in obvious distress. And unlike civilized countries where this can all be done with special effects and animatronics, Forman took the cheap route and caused harm and death to actual living creatures. "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by how well it treats its animals." ~M.K. Gandhi Spain, you blew it. Milos, you blew it. I realize that there are those among you who do not care about real animals being killed or abused in films. That is your prerogative. But I, for one, wish someone had warned me before I wasted my money on this. In case there are others out there who feel the same way, this is your warning. Do an IMDb keyword search on "actual-animal-killed" if you want to know what other films to avoid. Hint: if it was filmed in Spain, Mexico, USA pre-1965, Korea, Philippines or China, you can bet the animal cruelty/killing on screen was real.

With a title like that, you will be forgiven for thinking this film is about the great painter, Goya. Then after half an hour you decide it is more about the Roman Catholic Inquisition. With even more latitude, perhaps it is just a snapshot of the period. With lurid characterisation, too many axes to grind and a scant regard for fact, Milos Forman dishes up a colourful but shambolic, rambling mish-mash that fails on all three accounts. Milos Forman (who lost his Jewish father to Nazi concentration camps), is the great director who painted the artist Mozart as a buffoon and got away with it. Won awards for it, in fact. His life in Czechoslovakia gave him a taste of diverse, repellent regimes, especially Communism. He also made the equally over-the-top but rather impressive, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. So, at the age of 74, how does he come to offer us this mess? In Goya's Ghosts, Goya is one step removed from buffoon. The main character is Brother Lorenzo, passionately acted by Javier Bardem. Natalie Portman is equally vibrant as Goya's model Ines (and later in the film, her own daughter). The tenuous connection with Goya is that he happens to paint both of them. Lorenzo tortures (and then rapes) Ines who he suspects of being a Jew. Her father tortures Lorenzo. Napoleon dashes in to liberate Spain (briefly). Ines gets out of the dungeon the Church has left her in and searches for her child. Goya is still painting but has gone deaf. His main preoccupation seems to be helping Ines. And so on. Historically, Goya was also a historian. As Forman had sadly relinquished the idea of a biopic of Goya the painter, this one fact could have been used to pull the whole film together – a large slice of history as seen by Goya. But the painter is too tangential to receive any weight. Similarly, a document of the terrors of the Inquisition should be done – compared to other despotic orders throughout time, the Holy See has been forgiven with barely a confession. Though one might ask if Forman is competent enough to be trusted with a factual account of anything. "I thought this could be the heart of a wonderful story," he says in the production notes. "There were a great many parallels between the Communist society we lived under and the Spanish Inquisition." But the story is too tenuous to hold our attention. Against our expectations and with a background of something major (the life of a great painter, the horrors of the Inquisition, and even the French Revolution), we are instead asked to feel involved in a concocted (if kind) infatuation of Goya's. The result is that we feel cheated. Background detail is appallingly handled. Goya went deaf in 1792 (when the film starts), not 15 years later. Napoleon is as believable as a cut-out from a cereal packet. We see the Church passing out a death sentence (when the normal procedure was for the Church to insist that the secular arm did that dirty work). Battles look overly-choreographed and stagey. A peppering of gratuitous naked bosoms hardly makes up for it. On the positive side, the production values are mostly good. The colours are vivid, the pacing excellent (at least until we give up on finding any worthwhile storyline.) Bardem is excellent, and Portman is a joy until she goes into overdrive as a mad woman. While it doesn't say very much about Goya, what it does say is nice, even if superficial and pretty irrelevant. I once had a late night drunken conversation where my friends and I asked each other, if you could choose a director to depict your life, who would it be? On his record, Forman would sadly have to be at the bottom of my list.

I won't be extremely detailed, just in case you want to see the movie. 1) What is this movie about? It is a kind of reflection about the dangers and abuse of power to manipulate the truth, put in the context of Goya's mature years, the excesses and the Inquisition and the cruelty of Napoleon's dominance in Europe, particularly Spain. As a matter of sketch to the people who doesn't know too much about it, Goya was a painter for Spanish royalty, but after seeing the rise of Napoleon, the way it starts to affect Spain and the cruelty surrounding it, he begins to be introspective (and even his health suffers for that) and uses his art to reflect that brutality and lauding the efforts of insurrections against that regime. As you see, the environment is interesting enough to make a good movie and I was curious to see it, because I am familiar with the context and it is not the first time this is put on screen. 2) Why you would like to see this film? I believe the strengths are similar to the reasons you would like to see "The Painted Veil", which in my opinion was the most "beautiful" (not confuse with best or deepest) film of 2006. Why do I mean by beautiful? Hypothetically (because there are no DVD's of them yet, or course), imagine yourself pressing the MUTE button and watching the film. Then, the experience is absolutely enjoyable. The same happens with "Goya's Ghosts", and probably this is the reason Portman was contemplated for the role. The director has made an effort to make a portrait of Spain at the time and it is worth watching. 3) Why you won't like to see this film? Keeping the comparison with the "The Painted Veil", the reason "Goya's Ghosts" does not work effectively as the former movie is the following: "The Painted Veil" works in what you expect, you know vaguely what the movie could offer (so you can decide in advance if the movie is worth watching or not), the literary dialogue is fine and the movie it is a success in it. But "Goya's Ghosts" is set in an interesting context in which something else can be said. The movie could generate some historical or political discussion, for example, but it doesn't; in those terms the film goes nowhere. Maybe that is reason some people says that the second half is bad. In other words, the film struggles between the intellectual side of the story and the entertainment part (so that is the reason you have those side stories in the film), but it is a disappointment in both. For the some of Natalie that would like to see some romantic story here, there is no such thing here. For people who would expect to see an biography of Goya's, his art and influence, there is no such thing here (I mentioned before how Goya's character is used in the movie). In my case, I just believe the concept was completely wasted. 5) On the performances. Remember when I said this movie would look good if you press the MUTE button? If you release the mute button, as I mentioned before, the film did not work for me; you would enjoy it much better if you use headphones. Given the fact that Bardem's character, his transformation and his contradictions carry the weight of the film, then the actor is the one who had more pressure. But unfortunately, the film is in English, and Bardem looks uncomfortable on it; it would be a much better movie (not excellent, but better) if the movie was set in Spanish, so Bardem could deliver a more convincing and believable performance (he is a very good actor). Natalie's role was not particularly challenging (but of course, people would promote the film as if Natalie is the one who carries it): The beautiful muse who is imprisoned and is released years later, carrying the weight of events in the past, etc. Her accent was a bit awkward but compared to Bardem, her performance is fine. I considered her a bit miscast, because she is not convincing when she has to talk, but remember, this is a movie to see with the MUTE button :)

I watched this movie a few days ago in Germany and I was very surprised that many critics did not like it. It was the first movie I have ever watched without anybody leaving the room until the very last second. Usually I find myself alone watching the credits. Nathalie Portman has to portrait three completely different kinds of women, young Inés, old Inés and Alicia. I think that an actress that is able to do so convincingly has to be very talented. As young Inés she is lively and charming, likes to laugh and seems to be bright and without any concerns. Years of prison make her an old, dirty person who has lost her mind. She desperately wants to have her daughter back to whom she gave birth shortly after being imprisoned and raped (?). She doesn't realize that her daughter must be all grown up and 'adopts' a little baby she finds in a tavern. Alicia, her grown-up daughter, is a prostitute, strong-willed and without any feeling of shame. Javier Bardem plays Alicia's father, a very dominant man. At first he belongs to the inquisition, but when Inés' father proves his believes wrong, he needs to flee the country and turns to the French Revolution. He sticks to his new believes even when he faces death. Therefor, he's not the plain bad person he seems to be at the beginning, but somebody who is in search of the truth, power and money. He's a loving husband to his wife later on in the movie. Every character develops throughout the film in a very logic and convincing way. Even Goya, who is the linking chain between the other characters, turns from a lively and funny person into a serious one. I loved the way everybody was connected to each other and how blindness and a few wrong decisions can destroy lives. I enjoyed every minute of this movie, it has great actors and a great story. I will definitely watch it again.

I had hesitated so much to go to see this movie – because I thought it is a period drama and I won't like the aristocracy, and I had assumed that this was a French or Spanish movie. To my surprise it is an English movie. The story is around a painter Francisco Goya (played by Stellan Skarsgard) during the turbulent times (1790-1810) when Napoleon invaded Madrid. But do not be mistaken – this is not the story of Goya. The Director (Milos Forman) uses painter Goya just to provide a canvas for two main characters to emerge–the corrupt Brother Lorenzo (played brilliantly by Javier Bardem) and the innocent Ines (played outstandingly by Natalie Portman). Ines after being wrongly detained by Christian church to prison is impregnated by Lorenzo, who runs away and later joins hands with Napoleon to come back (after 15 years) as a high official to find that Ines is the mother of his child – who is now the young street prostitute. With British invading Spain, Lorenzo is publicly prosecuted and the last scene shows Ines holding the hand of the dead body of Lorenzo taken out of the town in a horse cart. Hats off to Director Milos Forman (remember One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest and Amadeus) – who after 7 years of making movies took a sabbatical from his teaching career to make this movie. And what a marvelous movie he has made – worth the wait. The main plot is about the human race and its bigotry. The times are historic, yet significantly apply to today's world. Javier Bardem and Natalie Portman have given their award winning performances – especially Natalie Portman plays the role of the young Ines, old Ines and young prostitute daughter with such different range of get-over and acting that she astonishes us with her versatility and ease. But the movie belongs – all in all to Milos Forman. As is the class of all great directors the musical score is magnificent. The nuances of undertones of each character's thoughts are presented aptly with perfect casting. Milos always entertains us with his subtle comedy – but I would call it as a black humor (I published last week that I do not understand black humor of "Hot Fuzz"). Now after seeing this movie I can say that I now know and understand what is black humor perfectly well. If you like the movie do not miss the ecstatic painting displayed during the unveiling of last titles. They are masterly selected by the master crafts person Milos. If you are movie fan – and are philosophical doubter (tribute to my Guru Andreas Hensel – who is one) of everything – please go and see this wonderful movie. (Stars 8 out of 10)

A film by Milos Forman is always an event. This will probably not remain as one of the best in his career, and was surrounded by a level of controversy, not the least among critics who received it very differently. Yet, it is certainly a film to watch. The story actually does not have Goya (Stellan Skarsgård) in the center. It is rather the story of a corrupt morality policeman of the 18th century (Javier Bardem) imprisoning a young girl (Natalie Portman) on the unjust suspicion of practicing Judaism in secret. It is the story of a police state built on social injustice relying on pretended moral puritanism in order to save the system. This happens at the price of huge human suffering like the drama in the center of the story, and here is the painter as a witness, living the dilemma of becoming involved as a human or remaining a witness as an artist. We know what path Goya chose. I was not unhappy neither with the acting, nor with the story line, although it is a little bit too melo-dramatic and too much prone to coincidences. Forman is not so much focused on the drama or better say melo-drama, or even in the historical detail, although he seems to be on familiar ground getting back to the period in 'Amadeus'. What he is busy with seems to be more re-creating some of Goya's paintings and prints and tracing back the origin of inspiration of these masterpieces. In a way the film can be read as justification of the choice Goya made in life.