My take on La Belle Noiseuse is that the movie is about art and its ultimate meaning.
The question is, what is the meaning of doing art, or art? Virtually every character in the film is involved in this quest for ultimate meaning. It is in my view the meaning of life, when you connect to that pure awareness and are able to utilize it.
The agent wants the art to sell. This seems very low level in the quest. Note that he is brain damaged. Frenhofer states that he wants to cut everything away from her and let it happen, emerge. At first he is attached to his work, manipulating both it and the girl. Then it becomes more free. And yet there is no satisfaction. The characters remain opaquely.
I felt that what he actually is doing on film is somewhat mediocre though interesting. Perhaps that doesn't matter in regards to the story. The point is that he has spent his entire life doing this process. That he almost "got there" but didn't. And then there is this mysterious element of "don't let him do your face" and putting the cross on the back of the completed piece which made me think of Faust, that he sold out to the devil to do this thing. And yet there is never satisfaction.
No one has mentioned that Frenhofer's wife does taxidermy, which in a way is another level of doing a parody of art, when you just try to keep or reproduce some actual thing. This is an interesting aspect of the story. Also the model is a writer who tried to throw herself in front of a train before her husband met her. And her husband a photographer.
I think the exploration involved in the film is about the process. There can be no result, either you find that invisible center which directs and connects you to the ultimate which does shine through great masterpieces, or you don't. But that all this, writing, painting etc. can be a dead end if you get caught up in it too materially. (This is my own view, not part of what I saw) To me the movie faltered when he walled up the painting and also when she saw it and we the viewers did not. I think there has to have been a bit more exposition there to make it either satisfying or comprehensible as to the reasons for this. Perhaps walling up the painting is what he's done with that part of himself his entire life.
Overall, this is an interesting film. But only to watch on video in two sittings. It is waaaaay too long.
Because of all the things that I thought about, and the other interesting and insightful comments people have made, I think this is a thoughtful, beautiful film well worth watching.
The question is, what is the meaning of doing art, or art? Virtually every character in the film is involved in this quest for ultimate meaning. It is in my view the meaning of life, when you connect to that pure awareness and are able to utilize it.
The agent wants the art to sell. This seems very low level in the quest. Note that he is brain damaged. Frenhofer states that he wants to cut everything away from her and let it happen, emerge. At first he is attached to his work, manipulating both it and the girl. Then it becomes more free. And yet there is no satisfaction. The characters remain opaquely.
I felt that what he actually is doing on film is somewhat mediocre though interesting. Perhaps that doesn't matter in regards to the story. The point is that he has spent his entire life doing this process. That he almost "got there" but didn't. And then there is this mysterious element of "don't let him do your face" and putting the cross on the back of the completed piece which made me think of Faust, that he sold out to the devil to do this thing. And yet there is never satisfaction.
No one has mentioned that Frenhofer's wife does taxidermy, which in a way is another level of doing a parody of art, when you just try to keep or reproduce some actual thing. This is an interesting aspect of the story. Also the model is a writer who tried to throw herself in front of a train before her husband met her. And her husband a photographer.
I think the exploration involved in the film is about the process. There can be no result, either you find that invisible center which directs and connects you to the ultimate which does shine through great masterpieces, or you don't. But that all this, writing, painting etc. can be a dead end if you get caught up in it too materially. (This is my own view, not part of what I saw) To me the movie faltered when he walled up the painting and also when she saw it and we the viewers did not. I think there has to have been a bit more exposition there to make it either satisfying or comprehensible as to the reasons for this. Perhaps walling up the painting is what he's done with that part of himself his entire life.
Overall, this is an interesting film. But only to watch on video in two sittings. It is waaaaay too long.
Because of all the things that I thought about, and the other interesting and insightful comments people have made, I think this is a thoughtful, beautiful film well worth watching.