'National Gallery' is a remarkable film about the experience of art in all its manifestations

( Unrated ) ( Monitor Movie Guide )

'Gallery' is directed by Frederick Wiseman. In the film, Wiseman wants to instill in the audience a love for the artwork that is almost sacramental.

Courtesy of Zipporah Films

Frederick Wiseman’s documentary “National Gallery” is for art lovers, movie lovers – basically for anybody. Ostensibly a film about London’s famous museum, it’s really about the experience of art in all its manifestations. Wiseman makes movies about institutions in ways that inevitably anatomize the societies they inhabit. In “National Gallery,” filmed over 12 weeks in 2012, he touches on the business of running the museum, with the board meetings and logistics and PR people, but, in a larger sense, he is going after something much more elusive. He wants to instill in us a love for this artwork that is almost sacramental.

The National Gallery houses art almost exclusively from the 14th to the end of the 19th century, so the movie’s magisterially antiquated tone is set early. Wiseman and his longtime cinematographer John Davey give us shot after shot of great paintings – by Caravaggio, Holbein, Titian, Leonardo da Vinci, J.M.W. Turner, Rembrandt, and many others – and their emotional and visual power is too great to take in all at once. (Each of these masterpieces is a universe of feeling unto itself.) Wiseman recognizes the transcendence of this art, which is why, unlike many other films of his that often focus on the procedural dailiness of institutions, “National Gallery” is more concerned with the art itself, especially the ways in which it is preserved and restored, than in what surrounds it. 

Not that there isn’t a judicious sampling of those surroundings. In one sequence, the museum’s director, art historian Nicholas Penny, barely tolerates a publicist at a board meeting who suggests a way to make the museum more audience-friendly (i.e., dumbed down). There are discussions about the suitability of using the museum’s facade for a video display of the London Marathon. Big surprise: Penny is not on board for this. It’s not that he’s an effete snoot; he just wants the museum to serve as a citadel for beauty. When, later in the film, he lectures on Poussin’s “The Triumph of Pan,” he looks like a man who wants to be nowhere else in the world. 

Penny is joined at the museum by a cadre of art lovers whose ferocity for such beauty matches his own. While cleaning Rembrandt’s “Portrait of Frederick Rihel on Horseback,” Larry Keith, the director of conservation, discusses the painting in ways that bring us deep inside the great Dutch artist’s methods, even revealing the existence of a painting concealed beneath the one we see. Another time, we get a sort of impromptu master class on Leonardo’s “The Virgin of the Rocks,” which a lecturer perfectly describes as “this wonderful mixture of observation and imagination.” Wiseman shows us the faces of the art patrons, all shapes, ages, colors, as they pass through the galleries. Many of them, unsurprisingly, are rapt. 

As is always the case, Wiseman does not provide any voice-over commentary. In “National Gallery,” which runs three hours, he certainly did not need to: The museum’s historians and lecturers are founts of explication.

One docent, speaking of the function of religious art in the Middle Ages, talks about how paintings served as a “sacramental channel.” Later on, what at first looks like a drawing class turns out to be a class for visually impaired people on “looking” at a Pissarro painting. Says another speaker: “Paintings change, and how you look at them changes as well.” How could they not? It is almost the definition of great art that, as you grow older, there is always more to discover. The last shot in this remarkable film is a heart-stopping full-frame close-up of a late Rembrandt portrait. At age 84, Wiseman may have selected this final image as a kind of communion: a way of sounding the hushed mysteries of age. Grade: A (This film is not rated.)

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.