User Reviews

The Mill and the Cross is a movie inside of a painting, specifically The Way to Calvary (1564) by Pieter Bruegel the Elder. Pieter Bruegel (Rutger Hauer) is the main character in the film which takes turns following him as he decides how his painting will take shape and who will be in it and also follows the local peasants who go about their daily business in middle of 16th century Flanders. The background is always the actual painting's background with the mill high up on a rock looking down on a large field where most of the action occurs.

Bruegel's patron is Nicolaes Jonghelinck (Michael York), a successful Flemish banker who spends his time learning from Bruegel about the people in the painting and what each section represents and also pontificates to nobody in particular about the current state of affairs in Flanders. In 1564, Spain ruled what is now Antwerp and Flanders. The Spanish militia seen in the painting in their red tunics seemed to be preoccupied with chasing down and torturing Protestant heretics. There are gruesome scenes in the film with a man tied to a wagon wheel hoisted up in the air with no defense at all while the birds have at him. A woman's fate is no better as she is shoved alive into an open grave while the red tunics fill the dirt in on top of her.

The Way to Calvary itself does not show these particular atrocities. Instead, it has Jesus in the center hoisting his own cross towards his crucifixion. The exact moment the painting captures is Simon helping him with the cross because Jesus stumbled and fell down. Everyone's eyes are on Simon at this time instead of Jesus. In the foreground is Mary (Charlotte Rampling). She is helpless as she sits on the sidelines because there is nothing she can do to prevent the red tunics from carrying out their mission. The rest of the painting shows hundreds of peasants either watching the proceeding or going about their chores. Children play games on the hillside, a local peddler sells his bread, a horn player dances around, and above them all, the miller observes from his windmill.

The Mill and the Cross is at its best when Bruegel is explaining his inspiration and how he plans to incorporate all of his ideas and scenes into one large landscape. He looks closely at a spider's web to discover where the anchor point on his painting will be and how to section off the rest of the action. Just as intriguing are the scenes of everyday life in 1564 Flanders. A young couple gets out of bed and takes their cow to the field for the day. Bruegel's wife and children wake up after him and get ready for breakfast which is a small slice of bread. The miller and his apprentice ready the mill for the day's tasks and the large wheels and gears moan into action.

Rutger Hauer is excellent as Pieter Bruegel and he appears to be serving his artistic penance to atone for his ridiculous participation in Hobo with a Shotgun earlier this year. Michael York is taking a break from his voice over work and TV appearances to finally show up in a serious film again. Charlotte Rampling is sort of the odd man out here. Her screen time is sparse as Mary and she spends most of the time misty eyed observing all of the peasant movements around her.

The Mill and the Cross is a Polish production directed by Lech Majewski who also aided in adapting the screenplay from a book of the same name by Michael Francis Gibson. The film was an official selection at this year's Sundance Film Festival and will most likely earn an Oscar nod for Best Costume Design. The costumes are remarkable and frequently take center stage over the performers.

The Mill and the Cross is a bit reminiscent of The Girl with a Pearl Earring but instead of showing how the painting is made from the outside, this time, the filmmakers actually take you inside of the painting itself and walks on the same landscape as its subjects. There is little dialogue in the film which is not a problem because it is so absorbing to just sit back and watch the peasants wander around the area and Bruegel figure out how to tie everything together. I will not give it away, but the final shot of the film is as wonderful as the rest as the camera backs up and reveals something to the audience.

If you are a movie patron with patience and an interest in art history, The Mill and the Cross is for you. If you get bored in movies without guns, flash bangs, and screaming, stay away.

The Mill and the Cross (2011)

Maybe I anticipated this for too long, hearing about its production, and teaching in an Art History department myself. The result is both astonishing and boring as heck. I know, there is a kind of absorption that happens through silence and slow appreciation. And there is even the astonishment of looking without really thinking, or feeling, for the narrative or the characters.

This is, for sure, a visually wonderful movie. The way it works out the scenery and milieu of a period based on a single painting is brilliant and ambitious. The mise-en-scene might in fact be the only and singular point of it all. So on that level, eleven stars. Terrific. Mind-blowing.

But that exercise in naturalistic re-creation, in enlivening a masterpiece on canvas by Bruegel from 1564, is not, to me, enough. You will know after ten minutes whether to continue. I have heard of people being just spellbound by it all, so that hopefully would be your feeling.

I tried to make the characters have meaning on some level, either in their interactions, or in their actions alone, or through what they did to the world around them. Much of what happens feels more medieval than Renaissance, to me, but I'm sure that was researched thoroughly. (Bruegel was painting at a time when the Renaissance from Italy had made its way thoroughly north to the lowland countries and beyond.)

It is fun (and indicative of the seriousness here) that both Michael York and Charlotte Rampling took part, late in their careers. That was one of the draws, for sure. But don't expect revelations there, either. Expect in fact only what the director, Lech Majewski, intended—a film version of the painting, set in its larger context but always based on and drawing from this one admittedly fantastic painting. Which might be your starting point, before launching into this one and half hour homage.

The Mill and the Cross is a painting (so not a lot of plot!) come to life and it is unlike any movie I have ever seen before (and I have seen a few)! Directed by Polish filmmaker, Lech Majewski, it is a recreation and interpretation of the famous 1564 painting by Pieter Bruegel, "The Way to Calvary".

Glacially-paced and nearly-silent (at first) ... one film critic (Stephen Cole of "Globe and Mail") said that this film's detractors will likely lament that watching this "is like watching a painting dry" (a point I can understand some having). If it doesn't grab one's interest early-on -- the film's opening is the painting coming to life and than slowly drying back onto the canvas -- there is no point in watching it.

Another film about the inspiration of a painting (that I loved) -- The Girl with the Pearl Earring -- told a possible story of how a Vermeer masterpiece came into being AND each scene was as lovely as a painted picture. Here each scene looks like a painting as well; but this story isn't necessarily one about a "what-if" (although as a film it technically is). Instead, The Mill and the Cross pretends to show us THIS painting (not the inspiration behind it) as it is being painted.

The painting is of the re-imagined crucifixion of Christ in 16th Century Flanders while the region is under BRUTAL Spanish occupation. As Bruegel (Rutger Hauer - Batman Begins, Hobo with a Shotgun, Blade Runner) draws and explains his painting, the scene comes to life so that the audience sees what Bruegel "sees". The premise and style are highly unusual but I appreciated the delicate take (layer-upon-layer of computer imaging) of telling this story.

The Mill and the Cross isn't content with looking at a piece of art -- this film is about experiencing it which is rather marvelous as the Flanders countryside comes to life (and it is as if the audience has stumbled upon the same setting/scene as Bruegel). We get bits and pieces of story but no major plot other than the painting and its scenes/images coming to life.

This wasn't a favorite of mine by any means; but I do like the originality of it and anybody with a serious interest in art might want to check it out.

I found this film to inspire the same contemplative mood and heightened awareness of similar films that build power without reliance on lots of dialogue, music or usual cinematic cues. If you appreciated "Into Great Silence" or "Vision" or "The Tree of Life" or even "2001" you will appreciate the poetic quality of this film. It is important for us to slow down occasionally and allow some films to affect us without the necessity of being slammed over the head with noise and speed and highly charged emotions. After all, for a film placed in its time, that is a more realistic portrayal of life during those centuries. This film illuminates the artistic process and aims of the artist. We are fortunate that the makers of this film dared to create this unique journey into a canvas of one of the world's great artists.

It can be said that Lech Majewski's 2011 film depicts "art imitating life, imitating art, imitating life, which also typifies the layer upon layer of meaning and implication to be found in the film. Pieter Bruegel the Elder's 1564 painting "The Way to Calvary" creates the story line for this completely unconventional portrayal of life in the 1600's and Bruegel's technique or the process he may of worked through while creating the painting. Bruegal's painting is much more than a back drop and can almost be seen as a central character, perhaps even a brilliant supporting actor.

As the film weaves in and out of scenes found in the painting, the characters are brought to life portraying their personal reality behind the snippet of time in which they are actually portrayed. In a further layer in the film consider the juxtaposition of good and evil, peasants innocently awaking to begin a day's work, the musicians playing and dancing with merry abandon, contrasted with the whipping and murder of the young husband by the Spaniards. As Bruegel considers the crucifixion scene he actually begins to interact with the painting. He signals to the miller (a euphemism for God) to stop; and as the miller brings the mill (and seemingly life itself) to a standstill the moment is so unsettling as the windmill, looking mysteriously like the cross Christ has suffered on, turns counterclockwise.

The final shot in this lusciously disconcerting film pans out from the painting "The Way to Calvary" as it hangs in Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna, and leaves one to ponder the art each of us has seen, and the snapshots in time that art depicts. Majewski's brilliant film gives pause to consider the lives lived behind all the images of all the art over the ages, and so much more.

An art movie about the 16th century's arts. It was based on the book of the same name which details the landscaper Pieter Bruegel's painting 'The Procession to Calvary'. A movie specially made for classical painting lovers.

The movie had very less talkings and everything should be learnt by watching the pictures which depicts painting like series of frames. So there's nothing much to talk about the movie. One of the best ever production designs. Frankly, I was less enjoyed due to lack of knowledge about Bruegel, but glad I saw it and come to know few things about 1500s culture through his paintings.

After all, I was not stranger to 'The Procession to Calvary' only by a few weeks before watching this movie. Recently I saw a movie called 'Museum Hours' and it helped a bit to understand this movie. In that movie a guide, an expert briefs in a scene about this painting and the reason behind it.

It was a very unique movie, which still won't exactly portray as it had happened. A glimpse about the idea of it might have been like that. More like an imaginary world created behind the magnificent art work. Not suitable for all, especially those who watch movies for entertainment should stay away from it.

The Mill and the Cross (2011)

The Polish film "The Mill and the Cross" was co-written and directed by Lech Majewski It stars Rutger Hauer as Pieter Bruegel, and co-stars Charlotte Rampling and Michael York.

The film consists of an attempt to bring to life Bruegel's 1564 painting, "The Procession to Calvary." I have seen this painting in the Kunsthistoriche Museum in Vienna. Once you've seen it, you don't forget it, because it is filled with people and action. (Although, in the painting, Jesus has just collapsed under the weight of the cross, so, in a sense, action has been frozen for a few seconds.)

The painting is also remarkable for a very strange symbol--a windmill placed high atop a stony crag. In the film, Bruegel explains that the miller looks down from his mill and sees everything that is happening below, just as God looks down from heaven and can see everything. So, the mill and the miller work symbolically. However, in a practical sense, the mill would never be that high on an large, steep, stony crag. If a mill were really in that location, no one could bring the wheat to the mill or take away the flour.

The other dominant vertical structure is a cartwheel, raised high on a long pole. This was the device used by the Spanish rulers of the Netherlands to execute and display prisoners. The prisoner was tied to the wheel, and the wheel was hoisted far up in the air. The device prevented anyone from helping the person--if alive--or removing the body. Only the carrion birds could reach the body, which they did, with predictable results.

Technology in the 21st Century makes everything possible, so it's no surprise that the painting is reproduced in the film in a real landscape. Sometimes all the figures are frozen, but other times you can see a cow moving or some other action taking place. The special effects are routine by now, but the manner in which they are used is not routine.

We really have the sense that we are looking at a landscape, and the artist is putting it down on canvas before our eyes. This is a highly creative way to look at life the way an artist sees it, and then look at the way life is transformed and committed to canvas.

We saw this film on the large screen at the excellent Rochester Polish Film Festival. It really will work better in a theater. However, if that's not an option, it's worth seeing on DVD.

I really like when the come out with a film like this. I like costume dramas, but this one is so interesting because it was made based on a painting and it works with a very interesting subject of Protestantism in Flanders and tryouts of Spanish militia to eradicate it. Not a lot of the films was made about the subject, and it clearly shows desperation of the Spanish militia to eradicate, at that time, very strong Protestant movement in Flanders. How state of the affairs came to that? I would track it down to Pope Alexander VI Borgia and total corruption of the Curria of the late 1490s. It was inevitable that someone like Martin Luther to show up, and it was a downhill for the northern Europe from that time onwards as far as Roman Catholicism.

Beside that, cinematography is great and costimography as well. True holiday for the eyes. I enjoyed every moment of it.

Many thanks to the Rotterdam filmfestival 2011 for screening this guided tour through Christ Carrying the Cross, the painting by Pieter Bruegel the Elder. I learned a lot about the ideas behind it and the way it was set up. Seeing it explained gradually throughout the story, will let me remember it better than reading about it in a book.

We also learned a lot about how people lived those days. A special mention should be devoted to the parts where this film demonstrates that life goes on, regardless of politics, war, and religions. We also saw many forgotten customs about bread, threshold cleaning, and much more that I want to leave as an exercise to the close observer.

A dramatic moment at ¾ of the film is where the painter raises his hand, and life comes to a stand still, including the mill on the hill that stops by a hand signal of the miller. It seems no coincidence that the miller very much resembles how our Lord is pictured usually, and also that he oversees the whole panorama from his high position. As soon as he signals the mill to resume working, the whole picture relives from its frozen state.

A large part of the audience stayed for the final Q&A. We got much information about the post production effort required to get the colors right, and creating the different layers to get everything in focus. Further, the film maker told he wanted to make a feature film from the start. It was considered a Mission Impossible by the people around him. How wrong they were!

All in all, a lot goes on in the film, much more than I could oversee during the screening. Maybe I should try to grasp more of the fine details during a second viewing. I don't think I saw everything that the film makers did put into this production.

This gorgeous reconstruction of Bruegel's painting is ultimately more impressive than inspiring. There is no character, no narrative, no emotion in this piece and there's not that much analysis, either, despite the director's claims. I just saw it at the SF Film Fest, and the likable and knowledgeable director gave a lengthy lecture a) on how long it took to find the fabric for the costumes and b) on the loss of our ability to read pictorial symbols. Sadly, the latter was not related to (or within) the film directly--that would have been interesting indeed!--and neither is the impressive (expensive) production design enough to make this work compelling.

If you are interested in symbology and art history, see Peter Greenaway's, far superior Nightwatching, a film with a plot and lively characters as well as a fascinating view into the meanings (and the USE of meanings and symbols) of another famous Dutch painting, which, despite also suffering from some bombastic elements, still manages to engage the viewer in its own right as a movie.

Also Derek Jarman's Caravaggio comes to mind as a film that uses tableaux to evoke the painter of the title. Despite--or perhaps due to--being somewhat opaque and strange, the Greenaway and Jarman films (and almost any of their work) are far more interesting than The Mill and the Cross, because they use the medium of film to SHOW and not TELL. This literal and slavish reproduction of the painting was impressive in its verisimilitude but ultimately pointless and superficial.

I just saw this film as part of the 54th San Francisco International Film Festival in a screening at SFMOMA. What a work of art! A clear labor of love, this layered re-telling of the significance of, and meaning in Pieter Bruegel's masterpiece, "The Way to Calvary" is one of the finest embodiments of a canvas brought to life I have ever seen. Rutger Hauer is Pieter Bruegel, Sir Michael York is his patron, and the mesmerizingly beautiful Charlotte Rampling is the Virgin Mary. The unnamed figures in the painting (well over 100) are brought to life, and what a life it must have been in the 16th Century. Simple and with clear order, yet brutal and harsh. Not only is "The Mill and the Cross" a re-creation of the painting it is 16th Century Flanders (as Bruegel saw it). The film also acts as a Passion Play, and given I saw it Easter Weekend it couldn't have seemed more appropriate.

This has a novel concept that feels reasonably well executed. Certainly, the stylization and aesthetic is top notch, at least. I think their not really talking about the significance or the piece beyond larger themes does make it difficult to connect with, and it is Quite a slow burn, but it's captivating in its own way. I'm sure if I was a fan of Bruegel and had more context, it would have resonated with me more strongly.

There isn't that much acting to speak of, but what was there of it, was serviceable and not altogether spectacular. It did make me want to read Tóibín's Testaments of Mary again; never a bad thing.

My wife and I visited a fair amount of art museums so you could say we're interested in art, and Pieter Bruegel's work has got our attention more than once, especially mine since I'm a Belgian, but in all fairness The Mill And The Cross is just not my kind of movie. I'm not saying it's not well done, it's definitely special and out of the ordinary, very creative and interesting to see how people lived at that time, but it could have used more dialogues and some kind of a story. Don't watch this movie for the acting as that is just the insignificant part, and to be honest some extras are clearly not used to be in front of a camera. The Mill And The Cross is the story behind Pieter Bruegel the Elder's 1564 painting "The Way to Calvary". Every scene of the movie looks like it could be a painting of Pieter Bruegel. It's special, I'll give you that, but as a movie it's just not my thing, I'd rather go to a museum again and look at his work there.

In his brilliant short comment on Pieter Brueghel, the elder, Aldous Huxley states that Brueghel's vision on mankind is still highly topical. His paintings are allegories and show him as 'a man profoundly convinced of the reality of evil and of the horrors which this mortal life, not to mention eternity, hold in store for suffering humanity. The world is a horrible place; but in spite of this, or precisely because of this, men and women eat, drink and dance.'

Pieter Brueghel's 'Way to Calvary' transcends its theme. It is a profoundly bitter condemnation of the occupation of Flanders by the Spanish Catholic king. The Flemings are crucified or broken on the wheel, while their possessions are confiscated and their families destroyed.

Lech Majewski transformed masterfully Brueghel's masterpiece into an impressive movie. The reconstruction of the idyllic landscapes, of the colorful atmosphere of the 16th century cities, of the epochal clothing and of the cold-blooded reign and the executions by the Spanish mercenaries are simply phenomenal, helped most significantly by a brilliant cast and a fantastic color grading. Lech Majewski's impressive scenes, ranging from simple serene family joys to compulsive sadistic flogging, speak for themselves, while keen commentators, like Breughel himself, critic harshly the savagery of the representatives of the Catholic king.

A must see.

First, the film is based both on an excellent script and the work of a superb artist, Flemish master Pieter Bruegel. Next, the fact that the screenwriters and the director had the insight to make this film gives us hope that civilization has evolved. The original analysis of Bruegel's work by Michael Francis Gibson, who wrote the book on which the script was based, inspired Majewski to create the film--a feat, nothing less. One art form--painting--comes alive in another art form, film. Brilliantly conceived and executed.

It is ultimately of little consequence that the film was not a 'box- office success' of epic proportions. Whoever wants to understand both art and the forces that shape civilization-- please see this film.

long time after the final credits, its flavor remains. like a shadow. because it is more than an aesthetic delight. or stage for cast, costumes, recreation of a painting, descend in the essence of a century. it is invitation to reflection. about life, characters, art and sacrifice, about history and about forms of freedom. about the birth of beauty as build of a wall. about the silence . and about a meet. across the scenes, I am the impression to look out the large window. because the realism of the each detail, the metamorphose of painting, the force of colors are more than small parts from a huge portrait. a poem in images. this could be a good definition. and fascinating birth of a world. who becomes yours.

I love this movie! I watch it after I take my THC edibles. It's so beautifully filmed. Just swept me away. Wish more movies were directed like this. HIGHly recommend watching it.

This is simply a fake.

Nothing close to Bruegel whatsoever. Bruegel's colors are transparent and clear, lighting is soft. He applied thin layers of paint to achieve this effect. In the movie, on the contrary, colors are running rampant in the most tasteless computer generated sort of way.

Bruegel's palette is certainly not bright. Maybe the director had Flemish 15th century art with its bright colors in mind? But no, he didn't. Flemish masters used glazing to let the light travel through multiple layers of paint to achieve marvellous illusions of tangibility and depth. In the movie though, the colors seem to be borrowed from a candy store. Bold and artificial. Everything in this film is digitally enhanced but acting. Acting is a pure zero while the visuals are a zero digitally enhanced.

The lighting indoors reminds of Caravaggio at best, but it's way too crude. The first scene with the lovers is lit with Caravaggio in mind but the director decided to throw in a bit of Flemish Art. Hence a brightly lit window. Unfortunately, the result is a caravagesque painting torn and another one, Flemish, visible through a hole.

So, what's this film about? Spanish oppression. Well, with no plot, no acting, no drama it's a worthless comment. About the recreation of Bruegel's famous painting? No way. The painting is shown in the movie and it's obvious that it has nothing to do with it artistically. Well, even though out of place, could it be on Barogue art? The lighting indoors is certainly meant to be Baroque. That can be true but than the director has not succeed. If you are interested in Baroque, there are quite a few infinitely better films. Even an entertaining and unpretentious "Alatriste" succeeded in recreating Velasquez way better than "The Miller and the Cross" in recreating anything.

This film is nothing but European artsy pop junk. Will there be an end to artsy directors fooling the public?

I gave the movie two stars because at least some viewers might get interested in Pieter Brugel's art after seeing a "Road to Calvary" painting.

A painter. In a Spanish Empire region. Birth of a masterpiece. Lights, shadows, eve and evening of a world. Gorgeous cast. Minimalist interpretation. A masterpiece. In many measure but more exactly, just a meditation. About time, cruelty, sense of life, sacrifices, blindness, miller and crosses, ages, love and punishment, innocence, fight and presence of Christ in every crumb of day. Not the beautiful images, not the precise acting are key. Not the mothers or sketches, music or marches of conquerors are secret, But only silence. The silence as spine of words. The silence of Saint Mary, Mother of God , wife of Bruegel, mirror of time waves before crucifixion. Behind pulling on wheel. Behind dance as blood of land. Behind each face and each gesture. The movie is not history of a painting. It is a poem about basic feelings and never end fight. Or, maybe, just a delicate wing of a butterfly or injured bird.

A film on a painting and its painter, placed in the perspective of the socio-politics that the painter witnessed in his lifetime. Stunning visuals. Incredible art direction/production design. Polish director Majewski's creative contributions in this film reminds one of the Italian director Olmi's contributions in his "The Tree of Wooden Clogs." Majewski in his film, like Olmi, is the director, co-scriptwriter, producer, editor (under the nom de plume Eliot Ems) and music composer. Gorecki's "Miserere" is also used.. Feast for eyes and ears.

The Mill and the Cross is one of the best films I've ever seen, profound in both its imagery and understated message that addresses both spirituality, the perversion of religion by politics, and a lost way of near idyllic simple life that transcends the political chaos and executions of heretics during the Spanish Inquisition that are compared to Christ's crucifixion. I equate this movie to Kublick's visual poem of 2001 without the histrionic melodrama of his Barry Lyndon. It is incredible to me that this great film did not reach a higher audience or attract more of a following. Highest recommendation.