User Reviews

If you're wondering whether or not to become an art historian, watch this film to help you make the decision. You will either be inspired or realize that art history is not for you. Greenaway examines Rembrandt's painting to such an intense degree that it can seem ludicrous or amazingly astute. He identifies 34 so-called Mysteries about the painting and explains his theories about these mysteries.

I personally found many of his theories far-fetched but was fascinated that someone would go the extent that he went in analyzing a single painting.

I recently sat through Peter Greenaway's film "Nightwatching," a messy biopic/thriller/bore telling the story of Rembrandt and his famous painting "The Night Watch." I trashed the film, and did not like it. Then, I noticed a documentary on the two disc special edition (Region 1) of "Nightwatching." The documentary was titled "Rembrandt's J'Accuse," and in it, Greenaway himself brings to light all of his conspiracy theories that he failed to dramatize in the main film. This documentary should have been the work released to film festivals and theaters around the world. The film opens in front of the building where the painting hangs, and Peter Greenaway appears in a small box in the middle of the screen, where he spends the rest of the film presenting his case in a fantastic bit of film narration. Using other works by Rembrandt and his contemporaries, Greenaway identifies thirty-four mysteries about the painting that he plans to discuss and solve. Before you bolt for the remote (as I almost did), each "mystery" is mercifully, briefly presented. Greenaway then uses scenes from "Nightwatching," plus new footage of him questioning the film's actors while they are still in character, and comes up with a strong case for Rembrandt's painted murder accusation, and how the conspirators eventually got the upper hand, ruining the master.

Why, oh, why wasn't this film the centerpiece of Greenaway's "The Night Watch" project? This film is infinitely more interesting than "Nightwatching." While Greenaway still comes off as pompous (this society is "visually illiterate" thanks to our text-based upbringing), this 100 minute enhanced discussion and lecture flew by. I learned more here than in any other documentary I have seen about artists, although my 17th century knowledge was infantile since I gravitate to documentaries about Dali and Warhol. The use of the actors playing their "Nightwatching" roles is a wonderful idea, and Greenaway seems to be enjoying the interaction. He was sure to include some of the other film's nudity and profanity to keep viewers awake, but I thought using carefully chosen scenes from the first film only illustrated how badly that thing had to be edited. I remembered all the scenes shown, and they made more sense now that they are put into context. Watching "Rembrandt's J'Accuse" before "Nightwatching" might be a better idea. Greenaway's indulgences are difficult to decipher, but are more palatable here, even if his main thrust is still a bit flimsy. On an ironic side note, after trashing this stupid text-based society of ours, which might explain his meandering screenplays, I noticed his name was misspelled on both the first film's DVD onscreen menu, and the special edition cover box, when trumpeting his interviews about the film. Now THAT is funny.

This film is unexpectedly amazing. Superbly written, acted and directed. The music is excellent too. The few viewers in my cinema screening were so affected nobody even moved from their seat until all credits rolled and the screen went completely black.

I share Greenaway's fascination with the the Icarus and Daedalus flight myth, thew way they have been portrayed in art, and heartily recommend the print monographs he has done on that topic. Greenaway takes us full off the rails with J'Accuse. It is all his visual interpretation skills applied to what maybe an insane and paranoid conspiracy theory, or an intentional puzzle left for us by the genius of Rembrandt. is he right or wrong? Take your pick. Are we delving into the hidden mind of Rembrandt, or solely into Greenaways point of view? In the end it doesn't matter. It is the journey Greenaway takes us though, which is undeniably exquisite.

He has his big fascination for the 1600s and his movies have many times been composed like a painting from the time. Both the arrangement of actors, the light and the color.

This time Greenaway seems to have taken the full consequences of it and presents the story behind Rembrandt's "Nightwatching" as some kind of detective plot. Cynical, brutal of course and with lots of naked bodies.

But there's mannerism in it now and letting the actors use a body language and way of talking like it was today, has this time stopped functioning. Greenaway is now in desperate need of renewing his arrangements, his lights and his colors. We are slowly having enough.

Greenaway's documentary companion piece to NIGHTWATCHING, and it shares the same problems. Some parts are very interesting, others throw far too much information at you at once, making it exceedingly hard to follow what Greenaway is getting at. There are also several inferences and leaps of logic that seem like "stretching it" to say the least, but I suppose that's part of critical analysis. While it's extremely impressive that Greenaway has put so much thought, time and effort into interpreting a single work of art, he doesn't succeed in making his obsession contagious.

5/10