Rembrandt

Rembrandt

Rembrandt

source: Rembrandt

Alexander Korda's Rembrandt (1936) portrays the life of the troubled Dutch artist Rembrandt van Rijn (1606-1669).We see his grief over the death of his beloved wife Saskia, we see him falling in love with the maid and fighting with the creditors.There is some brilliant writing from June Head and Lajos Biró, and it's based on the story by Carl Zuckmayer.Charles Laughton does excellent job as Rembrandt.Gertrude Lawrence is terrific as Geertje Dircx.Elsa Lanchester, the real-life wife of Laughton, plays the maid/lover Hendrickje Stoffels in a brilliant way.Edward Chapman is great as Fabrizius.Roger Livesey is superb as Beggar Saul.John Bryning is very good as Titus van Rijn.In this black and white movie you see some great use of light and shadow.The movie contains of many memorable moments.Like the fuss over The Night Watch, which was not a big hit at the time.Or when the artist takes the beggar from the street and makes him King Saul, also telling the story of the king.It is most touching when Rembrandt paints another portrait of his fair Hendrickje, and she dies.They say all the same things they said the first time he was painting her.If you are interested in Rembrandt as an artist and as a man, then you have to see this movie.

Rembrandt really intrigued me, I like art and I like Charles Laughton. While rather slow in spots and rather sketchy in the script, this is quite a good film. The re-creations of the paintings are truly excellent, especially the self-portrait that does convince you that Laughton and Rembrandt are one and the same. The production values are terrific, as is the music, while the story was interesting. In terms of acting, Charles Laughton is remarkably affecting as the Dutch master, while Elsa Lanchester and Gertrude Lawrence are good respectively in their roles. In conclusion, this was good on the whole, worth seeing for the paintings and Laughton. 8/10 Bethany Cox

The year is 1742,and Rembrandt Van Rijn's most recent painting of some revered political figures is laughed off as a piece of folly at it's unveiling in Amsterdam. His shrewish wife,Geertje Dirx is constantly browbeating him to start painting portraits to pay the bills. After some years passes, a nearly broke Rembrandt (played to the nines by Charles Laughton)takes interest in a much younger woman,Hendrickje Stoffels (Elsa Lanchester,who absolutely glows in this film),causing Rembrandt to divorce his long suffering wife,Geertje to marry Hendrickje,resulting in the couple being excommunicated by the Church (who was actually doing both of them a favour). The Von Rijn's are now living from hand to mouth,with Hendrickje being diagnosed with a fatal illness (Cancer?---we're never told just what). Some years later,Rembrandt his all but living as a pauper,begging for a living (it's well known that Rembrandt pretty much died in obscurity). Alexander Korda directs this masterful film with a flair for the dramatic,with a screenplay written by Carl Zuckmayer,June Head & Lajos Biro. As with most Korda productions,the lavish production design is by Korda's brother,Vincent Korda. The film's beautiful camera work is by French cinematographer,Georges Perinal,shot in black & white,which goes for a painterly look (I wonder if they had intended to shoot in colour,as at times the images resemble one of Rembrandt's paintings). The rest of the cast is masterfully chosen from some of England's finest in the business. This is another film in the endless series of films dealing with art & artists (even if the events in this film were totally fictitious,it would still merit solid entertainment). Pre ratings (but passed by the National Board of Review)

Perhaps the finest performance of Charles Laughton's remarkable career, you almost feel you are looking at the real Rembrandt. Laughton delivers several soliloquies that that help to convey the philosophical side of Rembrandt, and the ideas shine like diamonds. A year before, in Ruggles of Red Gap, as a British valet in America, Laughton recites the Gettysburg Address to some bar patrons, and it was the highlight of that wonderful film. In both films, his delivery is more natural, sincere and moving than even Laurence Olivier. I have long been an admirer of Rembrandt and the Dutch school of that period, being of Dutch-French descent. The set design and cinematography is truly extraordinary, with scene after scene looking like they stepped out of an old Dutch painting, they are so authentic and beautifully composed. You have the feeling cinematographer Georges Périnal would have loved to have been a photographer in 1600s Holland. Any gripe that it was not actually filmed in Holland is pointless; while there are many old buildings, including Rembrandt's Amsterdam home, still standing, 1936 Holland was no longer 1636 Holland. Elsa Lanchester, Laughton's wife, fits perfectly the role of a Dutch peasant servant girl. The viewer might follow this by watching Witness for the Prosecution, which again pairs Laughton and Lanchester much later in their careers, when their performances had fallen into a well worn -- or should I say finely polished -- groove. Gertrude Lawrence's performance seems a bit overwrought. She was a great stage actress who did not appear in many films, so this is a rare opportunity to see her. I was once in the Metropolitan admiring one of his paintings when two middle aged women walked up; one peered at the small brass plaque bearing the artist's name, announced to the other: "It is by someone named van Rijn," and they both walked off. Well, I, at least, knew who "van Rijn" was, but I didn't, actually. I didn't know the person. This movie gives me a feeling of the man behind the paintings, and it is different from what I had imagined. You feel Rembrandt was a Rodney Dangerfield of artists, which may have been exaggerated. You also see an artist who wants to paint real people, and who loves the country life more than the city, which matches his paintings. You see a person with deep understanding of people, life, philosophy, an understanding that informs his art works, and which is the source of his true greatness, beyond his great technique. But like any "non-fiction" movie, you wonder how much is completely true. But if this prompts you to read up on his life, then who is to complain? When I first glanced at this, I dreaded encountering a rickety old horse, but was utterly surprised. The script and storyline are finely crafted; the encounter with the beggar when Rembrandt is in dire straights, himself, provides an unusual degree of insight through the fine writing. This is a wordy film, but the words say something. I am at the point where I don't often run into old gems I haven't seen. Rembrandt is a fine film with artistic and historic merit, but it desperately needs digital remastering to restore the beauty the black and white photography must once have had. I don't think you could remake this film with more beautiful cinematography or a greater lead performance than delivered by Charles Laughton.

Rembrandt (1936) Biographic movies--biopics--have to not only be convincing but also overcome the preconceptions of the audience. For an artist like Rembrandt, who died three centuries earlier, those preconceptions are pure fantasy, but they come from the reality of the paintings. So Charles Laughton is a great choice for the role, and he gives a perky, nuanced performance, as usual. A lot of facts are known about Rembrandt's life through legal records and indirect accounts, but few of his own words are recorded (he wrote some very short letters to a patron, that's all that remain). So Laughton's demeanor is everything--shrewd, funny, dedicated. He's the profound and stubborn artist we might imagine, someone bucking the trends in art around him. And he loves beautiful younger women (one of them played with verve by Elsa Lanchester), this much is widely accepted. Director Alexander Korda creates a bright, clean Amsterdam for Laughton's meandering, and it would be nice to believe it looked something like that (it was shot in the famous British movie-making lot called Denham Studios). Certainly the cinematography is beautiful, inside and out. But certainly the movie takes liberties with the facts, moving some dates around to avoid making his affairs seem immoral. And the negative response to the unveiling of the Nightwatch is generally known to be false (and unfortunately this is a major point in the movie). It also doesn't make clear how it was Rembrandt's wild spending that led to his bankruptcy. But as a drama about a man with talent and ambition, increasingly misunderstood and impoverished, it's a great story, packaged with overall symmetry, and poignant to the end. It deals with his life as a person more than his work, his art. And it's impressive in its own way, very much part of Korda's canon of historical movies from the 1930s.

This biography of the painter, Rembrandt, is nice to look at because the costumes appear appropriate and the film appears to have been filmed in or around 17th century Holland. However, according to IMDb, the film was made in England--not Holland. If this is true, Alexander Korda oversaw a wonderful recreation of the place--complete with houses that look like those you'd see in Amsterdam. Unfortunately, while the film looked very good, the script seemed very sketchy and episodic. Instead of telling a coherent story, it only showed portions of his life. Instead of focusing on his early years, the film finds him at mid-life--already a success. It also finds him in financial difficulties. However, all his financial successes are pretty much ignored--focusing on his long downfall--which wasn't exactly like his life really was. Sure, he had lots of financial problems due to reckless spending, but at the same time he was very prolific as well as popular--something you'd never suspect if you watch this film! It's entertaining in many places, but confusing and shallow as well. Overall, interesting to watch but not a film I'd recommend to anyone who really wants to learn about the great artist.

I thought "Rembrandt" was a very good movie. I expected it to not be very good because I had heard that Gertrude Lawrence's acting was not exactly cream of the crop. I thought it was not bad at all. She did a fine job. The reason I watched the movie was for Gertie. I knew I recognized the name "Elsa Lanchester" also. I just researched and found out that she played the character of Katie Nanna in "Mary Poppins". Duh. So for the record, Elsa Lanchester was from Mary Poppins. I hope it doesn't distract anybody else the way it distracted me. I didn't get to watch the movie as well as I would have liked to, because Elsa Lanchester was bothering me like crazy. I might have to watch it again sometime, if I can get my hands on it. It might be one of those movies where you have to watch it a few times to really GET it. Be prepared to watch it one day, and then again the next day. I really do recommend it, however. And also, a fine acting job by Charles Laughton. I've never heard of him before, but he did a very good job of making me believe he was truly miserable. A very good and classic movie.