The Mill and the Cross certainly is a visual spectacle. With its very elaborate scenery and the painstaking efforts that went into the recreation of the painting, it's a technical masterpiece.
Sadly, that's all that can be said in favor of the film.
The storyline, if there really is any, jumps around from scene to scene in a seemingly random manner. None of the characters really interact and the acting is more like posing for a painting than acting. That might have been the goal, but it doesn't work here. In a sense, it's really not a movie but it rather has the style of a dramatized documentary.
But it isn't a documentary either. At no time was any care given to real historical realism. In the film a reference is made to the city of Antwerp, but the city you can visit today (and please do, I'll give you a tour) looks more historically representative of the era than the film. I read and heard that enormous care was given to elements like the choice of the right kind of materials for the clothing. That may be true. But it brings nothing to the film as an experience, nor is it informative in any way. I read reviews where the reality with which the way of life in 16th century Flanders was depicted is greatly applauded. They are misguided. None of the building style, interiors, music or daily customs depicted are found anywhere in 16th century Flanders. They look like 13th century Poland. Because a lot of it was shot there. The landscape may resemble that of the painting, but clashes with reality. You might argue that it was the film maker's intent to closely resemble this highly symbolic painting. And I would agree. But he does this with great superficiality. It would have been much more interesting to show and contrast 16th century reality with the symbolism in the painting. But the director seems unable or unwilling to make the distinction. And thus we are left with a succession of 'tableaux' that visually resemble what's on the painting, with no reference to reality, then or now.
You might argue that the director put in a lot of symbolism, some of his own. But the way the director tries to cram every pixel (the film was recorded digitally) with symbolism seems random too: a bit like a poet who believes his job is done when his sentences rhyme in a pleasing way, never mind the content. Sometimes he even attempts to be critical or sarcastic. Watching the scenes near the end where people are dancing and singing is downright painful. But there is no message in this. No-one cares? Life goes on? Life is hard and then you die? One person might call it an ode to the resilience of the ordinary people, but it might also be a protest against the callousness of the masses. The film takes no position.
The director seems to know exactly what certain markets expect in terms of 'historical Europe' but seems to have no interest in the history and culture itself.
If you are interested in a better film where symbolism, tempo, acting and story have a meaning, then I refer you to a real masterpiece about art, oppression and persecution: Andrei Rublev by the Russian master Andrei Tarkovski.
Sadly, that's all that can be said in favor of the film.
The storyline, if there really is any, jumps around from scene to scene in a seemingly random manner. None of the characters really interact and the acting is more like posing for a painting than acting. That might have been the goal, but it doesn't work here. In a sense, it's really not a movie but it rather has the style of a dramatized documentary.
But it isn't a documentary either. At no time was any care given to real historical realism. In the film a reference is made to the city of Antwerp, but the city you can visit today (and please do, I'll give you a tour) looks more historically representative of the era than the film. I read and heard that enormous care was given to elements like the choice of the right kind of materials for the clothing. That may be true. But it brings nothing to the film as an experience, nor is it informative in any way. I read reviews where the reality with which the way of life in 16th century Flanders was depicted is greatly applauded. They are misguided. None of the building style, interiors, music or daily customs depicted are found anywhere in 16th century Flanders. They look like 13th century Poland. Because a lot of it was shot there. The landscape may resemble that of the painting, but clashes with reality. You might argue that it was the film maker's intent to closely resemble this highly symbolic painting. And I would agree. But he does this with great superficiality. It would have been much more interesting to show and contrast 16th century reality with the symbolism in the painting. But the director seems unable or unwilling to make the distinction. And thus we are left with a succession of 'tableaux' that visually resemble what's on the painting, with no reference to reality, then or now.
You might argue that the director put in a lot of symbolism, some of his own. But the way the director tries to cram every pixel (the film was recorded digitally) with symbolism seems random too: a bit like a poet who believes his job is done when his sentences rhyme in a pleasing way, never mind the content. Sometimes he even attempts to be critical or sarcastic. Watching the scenes near the end where people are dancing and singing is downright painful. But there is no message in this. No-one cares? Life goes on? Life is hard and then you die? One person might call it an ode to the resilience of the ordinary people, but it might also be a protest against the callousness of the masses. The film takes no position.
The director seems to know exactly what certain markets expect in terms of 'historical Europe' but seems to have no interest in the history and culture itself.
If you are interested in a better film where symbolism, tempo, acting and story have a meaning, then I refer you to a real masterpiece about art, oppression and persecution: Andrei Rublev by the Russian master Andrei Tarkovski.