Celebrated ‘Mr. Turner’ leaves viewers wanting more

April 30, 2015 | G. Michael Dobbs
news@thereminder.com

Timothy Spall plays British painter J.M.W. Turner in the film “Mr. Turner.”
Reminder Publications submitted photo

A celebrated film that didn’t cause much celebration with me is featured in this week’s film review.

On DVD: Mr. Turner

This film is the cinematic equivalent of opening a biography mid-way through and randomly glancing at pages until you arrive at the death of the subject. You may be able to glean something about the person in question, but you certainly won’t have the context to understand the person’s life at a deeper level.

Director Mike Leigh’s film of the life of the celebrated 19th century British landscape painter J.M.W. Turner is a somewhat frustrating experience. Turner (played by Timothy Spall) is a highly contradictory person who kept elements of his life secret and Leigh’s film left me wanting to know more about him.

Focusing on the last 25 years of his life, the film takes as many opportunities as it can to present Turner walking around Great Britain seeking subject matter for his painting. The cinematography overall is great, but those scenes reproduce the natural light that Turner depicted in his work. Long before the late Thomas Kinkade trademarked himself as “the painter of light,” Turner was apparently known by this nickname.

 As depicted in this film, Turner could be callous and monosyllabic, using grunts to convey one-word sentences. He could also be articulate and open with fellow artists. He refused to acknowledge the children that came out of a relationship with a widow, yet he revered what was left of his family, his father. He was famous and yet led a double life by having a relationship with another widow using her last name.

There is no moment in the film that attempts to offer an explanation as to why Turner behaved in the manner that he did. Without context, without some moment of examination, audiences are left with simply a collection of scenes from a life.

Take for instance, Turner’s style of painting. There are several key scenes in which we see him working. In one in particular he almost attacks the canvas, even spitting on it. There are references to Turner using food and other non-paint sources for color in his work, but again we don’t know why he chose his methods.   

Toward the end of the film there is a scene in which Turner is the butt of a cruel joke performed in a music hall about his technique. So, was the average middle class English population aware of Turner and the controversy about his work that it would be the subject of music hall material?   

In the extensive “making of” feature, Leigh acknowledges that one aspect of the film is “made up.” Turner had a housekeeper who managed his home for her entire life. In the film she is played as someone who is in love with Turner and is the recipient of sexual advances from him. She appears to welcome those moments and is jealous that Turner is living with another woman.

Leigh said this subplot is fictional. Turner did indeed have a long-time housekeeper, but there is no evidence of a sexual relationship. What is known is that Turner left her a substantial amount of money and dictated that nothing could be done with his home until she had passed, making sure she had a place to live. This fact, though, was not in the film, Leigh noted. Why not attempt to be more authentic with the facts?

It is the lack of completion that damages this film. The film is shot brilliantly and beautifully reproduces its period. Spall pulls out every trick in his actor’s book in depicting Turner. He grunts, wheezes, cries and trembles his way through the film. In one scene he sketches a clothed prostitute. He begins sobbing and issues forth a series of sounds that were truly impressive in an uncontrolled showing of grief. The problem was I had no idea why he was crying, and that is the problem with this film.

Share this: