Directed by Stanley Tucci
Starring – Armie Hammer, Geoffrey Rush, Tony Shaloub
The Plot – In 1964, while on a short trip to Paris, the American writer and art-lover James Lord (Hammer) is asked by his friend, the world-renowned artist Alberto Giacometti (Rush), to sit for a portrait. The process, Giacometti assures Lord, will take only a few days. Flattered and intrigued, Lord agrees. So begins not only the story of an offbeat friendship, but, seen through the eyes of Lord, an insight into the beauty, frustration, profundity and, at times, downright chaos of the artistic process. ‘Final Portrait’ is a portrait of a genius, and of a friendship between two men who are utterly different, yet increasingly bonded through a single, ever-evolving act of creativity. It is a film which shines a light on the artistic process itself, by turns exhilarating, exasperating and bewildering, questioning whether the gift of a great artist is a blessing or a curse.
Rated R for adult language and some sexual situations involving nudity
– As a director, Stanley Tucci has always banked on these films that center around the creative process, and ‘Final Portrait’ is certainly no different. In his screenplay, he captures the involvement of art and how it isn’t a career that you can simply sit down and do. It’s very much a process of before, during, and after that speaks volumes to the kind of passion necessary for indulging in it. Through Giacometti’s life, we come to learn that it’s easy to get so lost in your work that you find it dominating the other aspects of your life that require attention.
– Cinematographer Danny Cohen is the real MVP here. With his unorthodox style in camera angles, Cohen often chooses to trail slightly behind the actors who move from room-to-room, as well as give us a unique perspective from the point of view of the artist. With a handheld style, he studies Lord from many angles in the same way that Giacometti does, and it’s in this refreshing perspective where we really immerse ourselves in the mind of the creator.
– The musical inclusion by composer Evan Lurie speaks waves to the turning of the creative wheel within the confines of the artist’s mind. The film of course has musical influence throughout, but it’s in those scenes of movements with the brush where those tones feel almost louder and more distinguished than those mentioned prior.
– Rush of genius. While the acting performances are a mixed bag to me, with Hammer’s Lord being terribly undercooked in his influence to the film, it is Geoffrey Rush who easily steals the show with easily his most dedicated role of the past decade. What Rush does that is so genius is truly capture the neuroticism of the tortured genius, emulating a ticking time bomb who just doesn’t have the passion anymore to blow. It’s still obvious to see Rush’s stern demeanor of humor leaking out of Giacometti, and that is what makes some of these dry sequences of exchange between he and Hammer more tolerable.
– Much of the set pieces like Giacometti’s studio are not only authentic in their visual capturing, but also metaphorical from a stance of what is going on within his mind. Everything feels tight, cluttered, and those unfinished projects that have stacked up feel like a reflection that some projects simply never finish.
– Off-color imbuement. This stance on almost colorless backdrops honor the blank canvas of friendship that slowly develops between the two male leads. The biggest difference within this studio is that it feels so far away from the beautiful Paris landscapes of the 60’s that the film occasionally gets to embrace, but the majority of such takes place in this callous contrast that articulately captures the tone inside this room of perfectionism.
– The first act of the film feels incredibly rushed, limiting the potential to truly understand the legacy of Giacometti as well as his final model. This stance comes into play later when you come to understand how truly underwritten these characters actually are.
– On that prior stance, I think that this film will be a tough sell to audiences. ‘Final Portrait’ is a film that focuses almost unanimously on the art, and rarely ever towards the artist. Because of such, Tucci as a screenwriter doesn’t delve too deep in understanding what makes him tick, instead choosing to watch the hands of the clock move from afar without understanding how.
– My feeling is that this story would work better as a play than a feature film. I say this because much of the structure already takes place in and around this apartment building that Giacometti owns. Beyond this, the film doesn’t follow the outlines of the three act structure that films especially today have become saddled with. Not to say that it’s not possible that this film could be entertaining without that, but this is a movie that hangs its hat on the performances more than the material, and there’s no better place for that ideal than the stage.
– There’s an overall lack of dramatic pull or urgency that leaves the second half of the film hanging on an easel untouched. The reason for this is the lack of overall variety or tension with conflicts that plague the pacing of the film. I could do without these things if the material was more expansive, but much of the concepts associated with the plot stay too grounded in ever capitalizing on the benefits of a revealing biopic.