★ 1 / 10
The Burnt Orange Heresy feels like it wants
tmdb28039023
The Burnt Orange Heresy feels like it wants to do for painting what The Ninth Gate did for books. The problem is that there were books in Polanski’s film, and…
The Burnt Orange Heresy feels like it wants to do for painting what The Ninth Gate did for books. The problem is that there were books in Polanski’s film, and not just mere props, but objets d'art in their own right. In contrast, there’s precious little painting in this movie; in fact, there’s literally less than meets the eye.
James Figueras (Claes Bang) is nominally an art critic, but sounds more like a shill. He has written a book called The Power of the Critic, and gives lectures about, well, the power of the critic. In one such lecture he resorts to "an oratorical gesture": a cock-and-bull story about a tortured Norwegian artists who, haunted by the portraits of Nazi officers he was forced to paint in a concentration camp, swore never to touch a brush again and took up finger painting.
The anecdote is so far-fetched that we know it to be a crock five seconds before James admits as much, but the point is that "because of what I, as a critic and an expert, have shared with you ... I have shaped your experience of this painting ... I single-handedly made you believe that this [a non-descript painting that James himself "slapped down without any real care or inspiration"] was a masterpiece."
Now, all James did was appeal to his audience’s emotions. His spiel, made up or not, provided no objective insight, no "expert" opinion. Wouldn’t his case for the power of the critic have been more convincing if he had produced in-depth arguments on technique, style, composition, etc., instead of feeding his listeners a sob story whose power lies in the telling and not in the teller, thus rendering James’s status as art critic moot? Perhaps he should have titled his book The Power of Rhetoric.
Having said all that, it’s safe to say that James is actually meant to be a hack (no problem there; my beef is with how transparent of a hack he is). That talking up one’s own sense of power is a sign of weakness is a irony that’s lost on the character, but not necessarily on the filmmakers, who make James an embezzling pillhead; in that sense, his bragging about a power he doesn’t really have makes sense when we see it as typical junky behavior — not much different than when he says "I can end it [his pill-taking habit] ... I'm just waiting for the right moment."
Unfortunately, this is about the only thing the filmmakers get right. The movie’s downfall begins with the introduction of wealthy art collector Joseph Cassidy (Mick Jagger fidgeting like he’d rather be anywhere else), who sits on the board of "The Debney Trust;" in that capacity, he is "to offer the great man accommodations" — the great man being reclusive painter Jerome Debney (Donald Sutherland).
Debney lives in "dilapidated little house ... at the edge of [Cassidy’s] property," but cares little or nothing for his host, routinely rejecting Cassidy’s daily invitation to join him for lunch. Cassidy recruits James to "procure" him a Debney painting in exchange for an exclusive interview with "the great man"; the way Cassidy pitches this to James is half bribe, half blackmail, and full nonsense.
Clearly, Cassidy has never heard of the whole 'if the mountain won't come to Muhammad, then Muhammad must go to the mountain' thing; what exactly it is that impedes him from going himself to the dilapidated little house and dealing directly with Debney shall remain an unfathomable mystery, equal to the riddle of why doesn’t the rich man doesn’t even attempt to bribe, not James but Debney, with something other than lunch. It shouldn’t be too hard to ply the geezer with money or some other substantial offering (Debney does confess to a weakness for a "local widow"); this is the same man, after all, who has a "charitable trust" named after him. Moreover, it will become apparent that what Cassidy wants is an art thief, rather than an art critic (insofar as James can be said to be one).
In Cassidy’s defense, though, Debney turns out to be crazier than a s--thouse rat, and as James is bound to discover, there is a powerful reason that Cassidy can’t get his hands on Debney’s work — and by 'powerful,' I mean 'really, really stupid;' I won’t reveal it, but suffice it to say that it’s even dumber than the Norwegian finger painter stuff.
Read full review
★ 7 / 10
Such a treat to see these actors chew up the scenery!
RMurray847
When I first heard of THE BURNT ORANGE HERESY, fairly early in 2020, I was eager to see almost anything "new" that might be coming out, because of the pandemic…
When I first heard of THE BURNT ORANGE HERESY, fairly early in 2020, I was eager to see almost anything "new" that might be coming out, because of the pandemic shut-down. It didn't become available for purchase until late in the year, if memory serves, but I bought it. And then, it sat on my shelf until early 2022. By the time I got it, there was more new content available. Shinier, flashier "new' movies to watch. But I finally got around to it the other day, and I'm sure glad I did.Claes Bang is James, an lecturer on art criticism in Milan who we soon see is filled with self-loathing at not being a great artist, or at least the curator of a major museum and an important person in the art world. It seems he was headed in that direction, but his own shady ethics tripped him up. Early in the film, he meets the intriguing Berenice (Elizabeth Debicki) an American on some kind of extended holiday from her small Minnesota town. The two strike up a fling and James invites Berenice to join him on his upcoming visit to the Lake Como home of the filthy rich and very renowned art collector Joseph Cassidy (Mick Jagger). James hopes he might be landing a gig writing about Cassidy's collection, but no, he's given the chance to interview Jerome Debney (Donald Sutherland), the most reclusive famous artist in the world, an opportunity to start his downward career back upward again. All he must do is compromise his already pretty malleable ethics.First off, this is a very talky film. It does deal with a "caper" of sorts, but it's mostly clever, educated people trying to out-clever each other. The dialogue is rich and witty and sounds nothing like how real people would talk. HOWEVER, it's still a blast to revel for 90 brisk minutes in a world full of people who live in a very distinct, hermetic world. And it's a film that's neatly constructed enough that we have no trouble understanding the plot and the stakes. We have no issues quickly understanding that no one in the film is really showing their true selves (or if they are, their true selves are pretty slimy).The cast is terrific; they're the best reason to see this film. I very much enjoyed the plot and the dialogue and even the scenery. But these are not characters we'll warm up to immediately, if at all. It takes some great performances to draw the viewer in. Bang (who was terrific in THE SQUARE, another movie in which he plays a person in the highest echelons of art) is great. He's charming and witty, but you can always smell the desperation on him. Debicki is the closest we have to a "heart" in this film, and she may be the character we root for. But there is plenty of mystery about her too, and she is a striking figure. Sutherland is delightful as the reclusive artist, full of a great mix of sliminess and charm. He always seem one step ahead of everyone. Everyone, that is, except Jagger's billionaire. Jagger's character is clearly a "bad guy", but he brings such sting to every insult he casually let's drop from his lips. It may not be the technically greatest performance you'll ever see, but Jagger is clearly so deeply delighted with playing this character, you cannot help but love every minute of his fairly brief appearance.As the machinations of plot get ever more complex, and the ethical (and criminal) choices made play out, the pace of the film matches. Director Giuseppe Capotondi apparently understands that this thing is so talky that it needs to move fast. He lets us enjoy the actors, but things keep moving. It's too outrageous to allow us much time to think about it. This is a caper/heist film in which the heist is NOT the payoff. It's the build up to it, and the rather unexpected aftermath that are key. I can easily envision a director taking a leisurely approach to this: let's spend lots of time looking at these lovely people and lovely scenery. But Capotondi doesn't waste a minute. And in the end, when the final moments play out, I had a big smile on my face. It all played out just like the tone and characters suggested it might all along.It's a cerebral thriller, with juicy dialogue and acting. I'm very glad I finally got around to watching it!
Read full review
66%
TOMATOMETER
· 120 reviews
81%
AUDIENCE
6.1/10
6.9K
•••
Thank You FREEMAN!!