Edvard Munch's Picture of Death, Illness, and Grief

In the world of art, Edvard Munch was one of the most expressionistic artists civilization has produced particularly in the late 1800’s, and renowned for his painting called The Scream. Munch, who grew up in Norway, was exposed to life’s most traumatic and dramatic experiences such as the loss of his love ones (one after the other) at the very early stage of his life, hence the reason why most of his artworks were deeply rooted in emotional pain and torment, as Dr. Frank Hoifodt, whose thesis was strictly focused on Munch’s life and art, quote “in his art, Munch turned again and again to the memory of illness, death and grief”. Furthermore, to paraphrase, Munch himself once said, “I paint what I saw and what I feel”, this simply suggests that his paintings were reflections of what he had lived through and experienced. His artwork was a form of his own reality and memory. To illustrate and illuminate the strong emotions from Munch’s work, I would like to analyze two of his paintings which I found equally riveting and compelling: Death in the Sickroom, and The Sick Child.

Death in the Sickroom, painted in 1893, both conveys the death of his sister Sophie and the universal suffering we humans all experienced at one point of our lives—the passing of our love ones. The mood of the room is eerie; it is filled and possessed with emotional anguish.  Interestingly, we neither see the physical body of the dead person nor an indication of a sick person, therefore, Munch was more concerned with the somber ambiance and deeper thoughts and feelings of the family in the picture. In this psycho-emotional painting, the focal point is the group of the three people in front of the painting. These three were closely drawn together and yet very far from each other. I say far from each other because their bodies are facing different directions as if they are in their own space with nobody beside them, and their minds are consumed with sadness, despair, and pain. In the group, there is a clear disconnection and isolation. Here, Munch was conveying that the disconnection of the three figures in front of the painting was a suggestion of mourning and isolation. Understandably, it is normal to feel the need to be temporarily alone when we are emotionally in pain, because this is human nature. Furthermore, this disconnection or the feel for isolation is seen all over the painting by the positioning of the hands (clasped hands) of the family members. For example, the old man with his hands clasped together that seems to be praying; the woman who is directly looking at us; and lastly, the woman sitting on a chair in the group has her hand clasped together as well.  This noticeably clasped hands is a classic example of kinesics or body language that exists in the non-verbal communication that reveals closeness or disinterest. In this case, Munch had championed communicating to us the emotion, as well as the message by a simple body language, proving that each one of these figures is in their own space in separate sphere.

In addition, the color of the painting also plays a huge role in creating this emotionally moving piece. Munch, deliberately used colors that are sad, gloomy, and weak to exemplify the emotion or feeling of weakness from the death of the love one, the burden of heavy pressure because of pain, and the atmosphere of being gloomy because of grief. The pale faces of the people suggest absence of life in both the physical and emotional.  The woman in front, for me, is the magnetic force that pulls audience, she has this white face reminiscent of a skull or a dead person that draws attention, and the only one in the painting that is actually interacting with the audience. She is directly facing us as if she is talking to us with her seemingly haunted expression, for us to feel the the sorrow she is holding; this for me is considerably the way for audience to feel the emotion beneath the canvas.   More so, the black clothing adds the sense of mourning because we associate black to death. Not to mention the dark, brownish, orange floor, a reminder of the sunset suggesting that there is no stopping or escaping the imminent darkness that is about to engulf Munch’s family.

Moreover, the space was even organized in a way that depicts emptiness. Munch eliminated all unnecessary furniture or things to showcase the feeling of void. Furthermore, the huge space of the floor creates a negative space in the painting along with the huge blank wall at the back that conveys emptiness. Noticeably, the lonely miniscule portrait on the wall appears to be lost in the vast space of the wall; this, for me, echoes the event that is happening in the painting-- sadness and isolation. Also, the room or the space in the painting shows no window or open door, which I believe was Munch’s way of showing that no one can escape death and bereavement. In sum, the purpose of the composition was not to show the “death” of a family member, but instead, to express the drudgery of the ones that are being left behind.

Secondly, The Sick Child, oil on canvas painted in 1896 was another depiction of Munch’s intense feeling of despair, lost, death, illness, and fragility of life mixed into one medium. Here, Munch was again exposing us to the sorrowful journey of his life, bringing us to the time when his sick sister was about to enter the mortality.  This painting evokes the powerful emotion because the two figures were drawn so close on the edge of the front of the canvas, as if we are inside the picture experiencing and witnessing the passing of the sick child. In the painting, we are being exposed and presented to the last hours of the dying child, and the agonizing feeling of anticipation being carried by the woman with bent back, and whose head is rested on the bed, suggesting that the burden is so heavy. The painting is primarily focused on the intense emotion that binds the two figures represented by the woman grasping the hand of the sick child with her both hands. Here, we can clearly feel that both figures are struggling to fight the tension of separation.

  Arguably, the organic emotion being shown by Munch in this painting is what makes this painting powerful.  Ironically, we can easily adapt or relate to it because of the rawness in the emotion, and the clarity of the message, yet it is embellished with dramatic elements such as the brushworks and the use of color contrast. Obviously, Munch was not interested in the accuracy of the human anatomy, unlike the works of Da Vinci. Munch’s deliberately loose brush strokes, the distorted face of the sick child and the empty face of the grieving woman are just perfect for the audience to empathize. More so, in this painting, Munch was not interested in the physical beauty of the body or life, rather he was much concerned in the intensity of human emotion. Even the contrasting colors of dark and light create the mood of solemnity, sacredness of the moment, and the unbearable, scathing human condition.

            Furthermore the face of the child was painted in pale, greenish skin tone with sunken eyes to illustrate her dreadful stage next to the woman with bright, healthy skin that is evident on the color of her hand. More so, the half-empty glass on the table suggests the remainder of the sick child’s life; this for me was artfully done to symbolize and convey the essence of water as the source of life. To bring out the sick child as the focal point, Munch masterfully used the headboard of the bed as border to encapsulate the sick child, suggesting that the child is now consumed in a state of perpetual suffering. In addition, the child’s suffering face melting on the pillow having a speck of light emanating from her head shows emotional readiness for her spirit to depart from her earthly body. While the mood of the painting is extremely sorrowful, the sick child seems to be accepting of her fate, and is longing to end the suffering to go to a place where she will be at peace; this for me, is incontestably a very smart and dramatic expression of emotional appeal. Similar to the Death in the Sickroom, the room also has no window or door, which for me is a clear indication of being trapped in the dreadful and drowning state of illness.

To conclude, the outstanding work of Munch is not only shown by how good he can draw or his knowledge of painting, but rather, in the unique way of presenting the style of emotion in his paintings based on his haunting experiences brought upon by the sufferings and lost of his love ones. Because of this, the emotional appeal in his masterpieces such as Death in the Sickroom and The Sick Child among others is vividly effective. These masterpieces are not just pictures of his bitter past, but also a general picture of human emotion consumed by death, illness, and grief. Certainly, the paintings of Munch do not solely rely on its narrative, because they also take us to their entry points, and transport us inside the paintings. This is done through the powerful and dramatic execution of emotional events and subjects in his paintings that are both distinctive and recognizable. To add, the most important part of Munch’s expression of emotion in his painting, is the sense of rawness, the feeling of true organic appeal in depicting human emotion. More so, his deep connection with the suffering and loss had enabled him to paint human condition through the most powerful channel known to man, which is emotion.

Rabbit Hole: Movie Review

Rabbit Hole filmed by John Cameron Mitchell is an adapted broadway play written by David Lindsay-Abaire which  was first commissioned in 2005 by South Coast Repertory.  Soon after, Rabbit Hole was produced  at Manhattan Theatre Club in New York City. The exemplary achievements of Rabbit Hole also paved the way for Cynthia Nixon, who played Beca in the broadway show which won her Best Actress for her performance in the 2006 Tony Awards. Four years later, the emotionally intense and  cognitively sensitive  broadway play is now available on the big cinema screen led by a flawless team-- Nicole Kidman (Beca) and Aaron Eckhart (Howie).

The film is a depiction of contrasting human spirit, grief, and hope due to the loss of a child. Nicole Kidman (Beca), played an emotionally tormented mother who could not cope with the loss of her son who died in a car accident right in front of their house. In bereavement, the once happy and lively Kidman shifted to a bitter, faithless, hopeless, and demised individual. While, on a contrary, Aaron Eckhart (Howie), played as  Beca’s husband portrayed the role of a laconic, phlegmatic  father who silently tried to look at life through a brighter lens regardless of their loss.

The dramatic sequence of the film was heavy. However, the effortless acting styles of both Kidman and Eckhart alleviated the weight , and thus lifted the strong emotional burden of the film. Kidman’s approach in the film reminded me of  Cindy Sheehan,  a mother who lost her son in Iraq--  illustrating an extremely painful grief, which later escalated with  loosing her husband. Though, the film did not go thru such extremes as Sheehan, the juxtaposition of maternal dolefulness  between Sheehan and Kidman was clear.

The incandescent and emotionally moving part of the film for me was the relationship between Kidman and the young adolescent boy who killed Kidman’s son.  The scene was shot at the park bench where the young adolescent boy was showing Kidman his comic books and telling her his future plans, while very mournful about what happened. Meanwhile, Kidman was assuring the young man not to blame himself for the accident; which for me was a starting sign of her  acceptance. But I will not spoil the film and definitely not tell you the rest.

There were so many touching moments in the film; no wonder critics view this film as one of the best films of the year and a very strong contender for  an array of film awards coming 2011. Highly recommended. Piece of advice: bring tissues; unless you have a heart of stone. For  this film I give 3 ½ stars.

Movie Review: Narnia, The Voyage of the Dream Treader

While the penultimate film  Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows received an upsetting reviews from the critics, The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader is indeed tailing Harry Potter.  Michael Apted, who according to the New York Times “ established his rapport with wee ones years ago with  7 Up!”, did try to spice up the new film from the last Narnia , however, it oddly dropped immensely compared to the first one. Furthermore, Apted brings this new film in 3D and a minor idiosyncrasies with Narnia's newest member--Eustace Scrubb played by Will Poulter.  Eustace, a loquacious, irritating, displeasing, pessimistic, cousin of Edmund and Lucy can effectively turn your emotions to a roller coaster ride--from hate to love. It was a very smart move from Apted to include such a remarkable actor in the picture, who was first seen in the independent film Son of Rambow.

The film started by digitally turning an archaic looking picture into a massive, gnawing, violent, wild ocean as an escape from London to the magical world of Narnia. While the three main characters (Edmund, Lucy and Eustace) were fighting the violent waves, Prince Caspian who was manning the Dawn Treader came to the rescue and welcomed the Majesties of Narnia, including the shocked Eustace who came to explore and discover Narnia for the very first time.

The story line was not that impressive, compared to the previous installment films of Narnia. There were not enough fight scenes, unimaginable characters, and exciting frames,  of which the first Narnia film had provided. When I think of Narnia, I instantly think of magic. Unfortunately, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader did not give me a magical feeling to call it a worth-while film. However, Prince Caspian maintained his magical appeal to me; and for sure for other girls or boys out there as well.

The interesting part of the plot was when Eustace turned into a dragon. The dragon did not just portray a typical untamed, emotionless beast, but rather a very compassionate, emotional, and anthropomorphic  giant creature—I was personally  moved when the dragon shed a tear.

On the bright side, there are countless moral lessons one can take home from this film. Truly, kids would pick up some tips on why they need to behave and be kind. Otherwise, the spell might turn them into another hideous creature. Since it is a holiday season, I think the film offers a message of love, giving, and compassion. For this film I give 2 ½ stars.

Movie Review: Disney's Tangled

Disney once again has proven its spot in Hollywood stardom with Tangled.  Unlike  its predecessors (Cinderella,  Sleeping Beauty and the 90’s renaissance Aladin, Beauty and the Beast, and more), Disney’s structure of Grimm Brother’s Rapunzelculminated the film with “coming to age”, “right of passage” tenor as its core. Though, at some point, I see the plot similar to Little Mermaid--heroine’s thirst for the outside world and ultimately disobeyed her father’s wish. However, Tangled, illustrated a more true-to-life experience to that of a teenager undergoing young adolescence period; not to mention, Rapunzel is indeed human; and not half-man half-fish heroine; therefore, audience can relate easily. More so, brilliantly, a wise critic even personified "Rapunzel" to that of Aung San Suu Kyi which i find absolutely wise and creative.

The story started when the beloved ,pregnant, Queen got illed; and the only thing that can rescue her from the near death situation is the magical plant-- hidden and protected by Gothel, a vicious witch who was obssessed with eternal youth. Nonetheless, the magical plant was given to the Queen, and she gave birth to a beautiful, golden haired princess, and named her Rapunzel.

Of course,  like most Disney movies, the witch or a villain has to stir some drama to the story. The angry, megalomaniac, witch stole the princess;  hid her at the top of the tower; raised her; injected growing Rapunzel with lies about the outside world to infuse fear; and kept Rapunzel’s hair  grew, reaching 70 feet long--the only thing that keeps Gothel’s eternal youth.

While Gothel was away, a rouged, yet handsome stranger, Flynn Ryder, stumbled in the heart of the forest; facilitated  Rapunzel ‘s escape; introduced her to the world she curiously admired from her window; and eventually fell in love with each other—a classic Disney movie theme.

 Song writers and lyricists, Allan Menken and Glenn Slater, successfully collaborated and created songs for Tangled that Oscar Awards cannot just ignore coming 2011 awards night. More so, I bet Tangled will be turned into another musical broadway sensation like “The Lion King”, “Beauty and the Beast” and “The Little Mermaid”; especially, the characters capable of talking in the film are all humans.

The best part of the movie for me was the nocturnal flying lantern scene; where the young couple were being engulfed by numerous, colorful, and enchanting floating lanterns in the middle of the lake/sea while Disney’s original ballad song “ I See the Light “ was being played. For me, this was the pinnacle of the virtual pallete of the film.

Though there were some disconnect in the film,--the dialogue of “Hey , Blondie” in times of Medieval Period-- Overall, Disney’s attempt to mix modern and traditional themes  was indeed a success. Flynn Ryder, who epitomized Robin Hood was another wise twist in the film. Not only that Robin Hood a.k.a. Flynn Ryder stole money from the rich, but also stole Rapunzel’s heart and virginity. What a wise thief! For this film I give 3 ½  stars.

Movie Review: Black Swan, supreme and imaginatively disturbing!

Black Swan is one of the conspicuous movie contenders for 2011 Oscar Awards. The psycho-sexual thriller movie depicts the struggle of a principal ballerina to separate reality and stage character from each other. Nina, played by Natalie Portman, was a perfectionist, dream achiever, and an ambitious ballerina who suffered from mental derangement resulting in paranoia and hallucination; and eventually, ended up in a horrific death, a classic melodrama tantamount to Shakespearean tragedies:  Macbeth, Othello’s Desdemona and more. However, most critics compared "Black Swan" to Roman Polanski’s Repulsion and other schizophrenic films such as Sybil, Benny and June, A Beautiful Mind, Twelve Monkeys, Fight Club, and more.

Impressively, director Darren Aronofsky, director of The Wrestler, wisely projected an extreme characterization of each actor in the film; which in my opinion, the reason why Portman is considered for the best actress coming 2011 Oscar. Portman, though not an authentic ballerina, did an astounding performance playing ballerina with a matrix of heavy, intense, emotional characterization; while Barbara Hershey, played as Portman’s over protective mother, rendered an impeccable acting in support to our lunatic heroine.

While the setting was a fictional ballet company located at Lincoln Center, the collective illustration of the ballet world was exaggerated with some non-fictional theme; particularly, the lecherous character of the head director, which in my opinion, was absolutely Hollywood. How could a reputable and paramount ballet company allow such a behavior?However, that is debatable and one may argue the opposite. That said, balletomanes might raise their eyebrows on that note.Nevertheless, kudos to director Aronofsky who took an extra mile to depict and capture the real dance sequence and choreography of the “Tchaikovsky” warhorse’s Swan Lake”in the film.

Overall, Black Swan is a dark, intense, and mentally challenging film that offers a highly subjective approach to the fate of a ballerina from being perfect to psychologically demented. Though the film is psychologically disturbing, it is sound; an irony analogous to Portman's bilateral persona of a virginal, placid girl but consumed by dubious and psychotic alter-ego. I promise you, you would not want to leave your chair. So, grab your popcorns and take care of any restroom activities. For this film, I give 4 stars!

The Tourist, Movie Review

Many critics have provided movie goers with their critical analyses about the faux-Hitchcockian guessing-game film, The Tourist, even before it was shown to the public. The scrutiny from the so-called film experts mostly described the film boring, unappealing, uninteresting, substanceless film, and many more negative remarks. The unfavorable criticisms took a different toll on me; ergo, picked my curiosity even more, and the I decided to watch it and see it with my own eye. I came to the theatre with an insensate, and  minimal expectations for the film to avoid any bias.

The film opened with Elise ( Angelina Jolie) who portrays a less evocative Audrey Hepburn, walking out of a prestigious hotel in Paris, wearing a monochromatic ensemble while sipping coffee on a sidewalk café.  Meanwhile, CIA agents were eyeing her from the distance; watching her every move to get some clues and information about her supposed lover Alexander Pierce—a man who stole millions of dollars from a British business tycoon.

On a train ride, Elise met with Frank Tupelo (Johhny Depp), a mathematics teacher from America who is supposedly a tourist exploring Europe.The storyline continued with a chasing; puzzle-like plot, where Elise’s was summoned through letters from Alexander;  Elise’s elegant wardrobes; and panoramic  European  locations. Finally, the two fell in love. Elise, who once in love with Alexander, and has been trying to protect him from the British officials, gave up and decided to give Alexander to the British authorities.

After watching the film, I looked back at the critic’s voice, and I understood why they felt the film extremely boring. Critics were looking for an Angelina-type of movie where she was expected to jump off the building, chase and wreck some cars, and operate a state-of-the-art, high powered, automatic weapon. Sadly, this film will not treat you with those kinds of action stunts. The film, though it seems like an action movie, frankly, is not. While the film is not a psychological thriller, ironically, the film is comparable to that of  Matt Damons’s The Talented Mr. Ripley. To pick your curiosity, I will not tell you why I compared it to Anthony Minghella’s film in 1999—The Talented Mr. Ripley. Find out for yourself.

The German director Florian Henckle von Donnersmarck, whose debut film, The Lives of Others, won the Oscars a few years back, did an amazing job, in my opinion, in bringing out the working chemistry from the two prominent actors in Hollywood.  Don’t expect Salt-like plot, or Mr and Mrs. Smith action, rather expect a nice, entertaining, smart, and full of climatic sequence storyline. Jolie and Depp, indeed created a well- balanced partnership regardless of their off-screen personalities. Unlike, Jolie’s previous films, where she was being typecasted with action films, The Tourist, on a contrary, is a twist from a current crime thriller genre that surely calmed down Jolie’s femme-fatale character ; but maintaining her old, diva, Hollywood glamor appeal on the screen.

Finally, I do not agree with most of the critics about their negative remarks. Just a good ole reminder, come watch the film without expectations and leave your perceptions from Jolie’s and Depp’s previous films, and you will not be dissapointed. Movies are meant to have different characters, settings, acting styles,  and plots; so why expect the same drama, acting, character from your favorite stars? For this film I give 3 stars.