Albrecht Altorfer’s engraving, Christ Expelling the Money Changers (c.1519), is an image that captures the story of Jesus removing the traders, they he felt were corrupting, the temple. The color is black and white. It was originally a (47x47) woodcut that was published a book. There is the long hall of the temple giving the engraving depth with Jesus in the foreground towering above two moneychangers. Jesus is standing over them in a position ready to strike the moneychangers that are cowering on the ground collecting their money. The lighting is a contrast of light and dark. The light is shining in from the upper left window of the tilt and goes to Jesus where it is reflecting in to a bright halo around him. Below are the merchants in dark colors because Jesus is blocking the light.
The engraving is dated in the early 16th century, c. 1519 according the National Gallery of Art. It is from Germany and created at the time of the Northern Renaissance.
The engraving addresses the story Jesus kicking the merchants out of the temple as expressed in it’s title. The way the lighting is dark around the merchants shows the view that money is corrupting and dark. The shadows lead the viewer to only guess what was going on the dark hollows of the temple. Money has been viewed as a corrupter and as an object that leads men askew of faith. The image shows that even in the presence of Jesus that the merchants were concerened with their profits as they are portrayed counting there last bit of money before being kicked out.
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Movie Review
The life of the thief is examined in Pickpocket, a 1959 French film that follows around the unemployed Michel who is inent on finding the morality in stealing as a means for survival. The film questions the norms of how one is to earn income and asks what if your skill set is to be thief and that is what you’re good at.
Upon failing his first attempt of pick pocketing at a racetrack Michel is taken to the police station and tells the inspector of his view that some men do not need to collect earning in the conventional way. That “supermen”, like himself, can acquire incomes by other means. Pickpocket suggests a man can justify his income via crime because it is what he is good at. If one is good at growing things they become a farmer, if one is good at stealing they become a pickpocket. That is how Michel rationalizes his actions.
What makes this film unique is that Michel is the narrator and you hear his thoughts throughout the film. One his first attempt at pick pocketing you can hear his regret and almost feel his anxiety. One false move and he is caught. Upon being caught by the police and released for lack of evidence he confides in his friend that he would like a legit job. This seems unlikely to work for Michel, he may have been discouraged due to failure, but he seems to steal not just for the income but for the thrill and that he actually becomes good at it. When he runs in to a professional thief he is trained and perfects his skills. This is when he realizes that he cannot go back to a job that you work and receive pay.
Michel has a sick mother that eventually dies. He cannot bring himself to visit her till she is very near death. This is just a side of his weakness, in that he appears ashamed of his actions but still lives for the feeling of success after each steal. No one ever asks how he is able to support himself with having a job; it is just an unspoken fact of how he gets his money.
The film lacks any character development. The film is being narrator by Michel but we hardly know anything about him. Many plot turns arrive but have no closure. The lone female lead, Jeanne, has a child at the end and no clue is given as to whom the father is. Michel himself just goes away for a period of time then comes back. Adding to the lack of character development is the small amount of dialogue. There are only a handful of words spoken in each scene. It makes the characters seem cold or emotionless, in film one way for characters to express themselves to the audience is through dialogue and this film removes that mode of expression.
Upon failing his first attempt of pick pocketing at a racetrack Michel is taken to the police station and tells the inspector of his view that some men do not need to collect earning in the conventional way. That “supermen”, like himself, can acquire incomes by other means. Pickpocket suggests a man can justify his income via crime because it is what he is good at. If one is good at growing things they become a farmer, if one is good at stealing they become a pickpocket. That is how Michel rationalizes his actions.
What makes this film unique is that Michel is the narrator and you hear his thoughts throughout the film. One his first attempt at pick pocketing you can hear his regret and almost feel his anxiety. One false move and he is caught. Upon being caught by the police and released for lack of evidence he confides in his friend that he would like a legit job. This seems unlikely to work for Michel, he may have been discouraged due to failure, but he seems to steal not just for the income but for the thrill and that he actually becomes good at it. When he runs in to a professional thief he is trained and perfects his skills. This is when he realizes that he cannot go back to a job that you work and receive pay.
Michel has a sick mother that eventually dies. He cannot bring himself to visit her till she is very near death. This is just a side of his weakness, in that he appears ashamed of his actions but still lives for the feeling of success after each steal. No one ever asks how he is able to support himself with having a job; it is just an unspoken fact of how he gets his money.
The film lacks any character development. The film is being narrator by Michel but we hardly know anything about him. Many plot turns arrive but have no closure. The lone female lead, Jeanne, has a child at the end and no clue is given as to whom the father is. Michel himself just goes away for a period of time then comes back. Adding to the lack of character development is the small amount of dialogue. There are only a handful of words spoken in each scene. It makes the characters seem cold or emotionless, in film one way for characters to express themselves to the audience is through dialogue and this film removes that mode of expression.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)