Looks like the déjà vu train is still in service, only now
we’ve gone from things I’d much rather not fixate on to something actually
worth remembering. Specifically, we’re dealing with a slice of art-world satire
wrapped up in genre thrills, much like last year’s Velvet Buzzsaw. However,
while the two carry a certain similarity in tone, their respective approaches
to the art world are somewhat different. Where Buzzsaw was informed by the
perspective of the artist and largely stayed with it, even when focusing on
other characters, The Burnt Orange Heresy is more intently trained on the role
of the art critic… and why it’s really not worth taking all that
seriously.
It starts on one hell of a note as well, with James giving a
presentation about a seemingly-humdrum painting, detailing the history behind
it, and then pulling back the curtain to reveal that was all bullshit and he
was the one who made it. He even opens with the line “Art would not exist
without criticism.” ‘The Power Of The Critic’ indeed.
The barbs thrown at the place of the critic within the art
world are honestly pretty accurate, showing James to be a properly pretentious
narcissist who sees artists as being obligated to share their art with everyone
else. Or, more accurately, with the people rich enough to afford museum access
and those who supply to museums in the first place, like art collector Joseph (Mick Jagger). Some will be confused by his name being here. Those who
have seen him in Nicholas Roeg’s Performance (or saw his ill-fated turn as the
Emperor of China in an episode of Faerie Tale Theatre) won’t even bat an
eyelid.
Now, as a critic myself, this should be a bit
confronting, much like some of the better features from last year wound up
being. But that would imply that I see something of myself in the equal parts caricature
and worst-case-scenario that is Figueras; I may enjoy writing about films, but
the day I take myself that seriously is the day I stop this whole
enterprise. Also… not gonna lie, there’s some definite truth about this film’s
take on art criticism, albeit of a quite specific variety. How a critic’s
flowery wording about a given piece of art might not even represent the
artist’s true intent, how marketing for art at this level is treated with more
import than the art itself, and how a critic’s words can be fixated upon so
intently that they end up overriding the art entirely. Almost like… the critic
painting over the artist’s work.
I vibe with this for basically the same reason as I did with
Velvet Buzzsaw, although not quite as much. The acting is damn solid,
the pacing is incredibly taut for the kind of wonky noir-thriller it is, and I
find myself both confronted and bemused by the stance taken on art appraisal.
Confronted because it fed some of my fears that I could be talking absolute
bollocks whenever I review a film on here, and bemused because even if I was, I
do this shit for fun more than anything else. I write what I think about a given
film, and whether you agree or disagree, it’s just my opinion at the end of the
day.
I find this whole deal to be darkly humourous for the same
reason I wouldn’t be surprised most audiences would write it off as being up
its own arse: It kind of is, but it also vehemently takes the piss out of those
who approach art that way. It’s a chance for me to cool off and remember why I
write these reviews to begin with, and at a time when it feels like the world
is shifting beneath my feet more erratically than ever… I take some comfort in
that.
No comments:
Post a Comment