Doubt becomes a sin only if it grows into stubbornness and perseverance, that is, into pride. Father Grigorio Pain is the key to the soul, and it is time for all of us to understand it, otherwise we will reach a dead end. Lorenzo Casamarez Beware of those who are baptized from right to left. This is a clear sign of heresy. Pay attention to those who claim that matter consists of tiny particles called atoms, for this nonsense is incompatible with the dogma of Holy Communion. The body of Christ is present in every veil, yet it is not material. Therefore, it does not consist of atoms, as well as a coating. Finally, do not pass by those who suggest that life like ours is possible on other planets. The earth is at the center of the created world. God has placed man on earth in his image and likeness. Therefore, Earth is the queen of all luminaries, the only planet that knows what conscience, sin and redemption are. Lorenzo Casamarez Live people age a little every day, and their painted images remain the same. These images quickly become false. Francisco Goya One morning, at dawn, after a sleepless night, the former monk lost his faith. It came to him suddenly as a revelation. Lorenzo saw the veil of continuous fog in which he had lived until now, realized its cause, vanity, artificiality and futility. He immediately drew the line between myth and sound speech. He believed that man was going from nowhere to nowhere, and that his fate, his dignity and his strength depended entirely on what he could understand and accomplish in that short period of time, and not on the brilliant but illusory and deceptive prospect of eternal life. Therefore, it was necessary to act in this light. Think not of the salvation of your soul, but of happiness. Both the book and the movie are great. It is read in one breath and the movie also goes well through the Inquisition. Javier Bardem, Natalie Portman, Skarsgård - brilliantly perform their roles. Very good movie. I recommend it. 👍
Milos Forman’s favorite (or sick) topic is personality versus system. Foreman knew well (and how could he not have known) that in such confrontations, the person would most often be destroyed by the system. In Ghosts of Goya, it's not communism, it's not a fool, it's not an army. This time the great and terrible Spanish Inquisition. And times are tough. Times in which everyone has to survive. Some do it, some don't. Napoleonic wars. Everyone seemed to get used to the old power, as it was overthrown, and a new one came. And then she was deposed, and the old one came back. The struggle of some elites with others constantly grinded the fate of random people. It is already clear that from each frame should smell lightness and inspiration. In this film, Foreman looks at the person from a different angle than in earlier films. It doesn't seem to exist in the first place. She'll grow out of her own problems. Life is such that it is only necessary to change in time, to waver behind the party line and then it will be possible to survive, and maybe to succeed somewhere. But to what extent can one change the masks and declare oneself real this time, renouncing what has been said and done before? Ultimately, the choice will be to die or to stop being yourself but survive. Unfortunately, some viewers were deceived, believing that the film is a biography of the artist Francisco. No, Goya here is a storyteller, a witness of the age. We see the fate of people through his eyes. The film is called “Ghosts of Goya”. In fact, it is a magnificent drama with typical Formian messages.
A movie is not a book, not a film adaptation of a book, and, especially, not a biopic about Goya.
The main message of the film, in my opinion, is the vicissitudes of the fate you choose, and the unpredictability of this choice.
A film that asks questions, makes you think if you are willing to see life as it appears in history, without too much embellishment and with a hard look through you.
You can not feed illusions - they are dangerous, like a dream for the mind, giving birth to monsters, and to dispel any of them, this picture is wonderfully suited.
The illusions of the right path, which is imagined behind visible lighthouses, the service of the Church, the state, its quiet family or happiness free from it, meet on their way in any era the test of strength.
The film is not about specific people, or time, a film about the choice that you would make, comrade viewer, in such conditions, and precisely, how close the characters of the picture pass through your heart, and how much your head is subjected to serious thoughts.
Movie, harsh? Of course, because his task is not entertainment, but the comprehension of life and man, and in this matter without severity and honesty can not do.
And the audience will look for answers to the questions that arise.
Cinema is what it should be, and it should be perceived without reference to what you heard or read, it is original, lively and deep, just do not look down on it, but as if you face similar and not easy crossroads of your life.
I really liked the film in general and as one of the best films about artists - and the image of the great Goya here is revealed somewhat unexpectedly, because we know very little about his last years. . .
Films, books about artists, as a rule, describe their most productive years, the peak of creativity, and suddenly in the interpretation of Milos Forman, an artist at the crossroads of eras, and then the old forgotten Goya, deaf, but sharp and attentive to what is happening ... it is thanks to his brilliant drawings and engravings of recent years that we know about what was happening in Spain at the beginning of the 19th, or rather not that but that... The artist should keep his finger on the pulse of time, and Goya was certainly one of those who knew how to see, understand and deeply feel the relevance and here it is shown literally by hints - but the red tape through the whole film are shots with his sketches and work on the images of contemporaries.
Some believe that he, too, was mentally ill - so powerful and even terrible his work. But we now understand that the artist is not necessarily crazy if he paints horrors and blood, but rather his attitude to the world. And Goya lived at a time when the struggle of ideas and wars gave rise to such horror, which was reflected in the mirror on the faces of people in the works of Goya ... of course, he is characterized by hyperbolization, and this is a group portrait of Spain. He was ahead of time, was the first expressionist even before the appearance of this concept, just as Hieronymus Bosch, whose picture is in the film, was a surrealist 2 centuries before Dali and Miro. . The plot itself is absolutely strong, I won’t repeat, I join the rave reviews, Foreman is certainly brilliant, the actors’ play and the surroundings are all fine. . But the main character I still consider Francisco Goya!
The real world is not perfect, but we are destined to try to change it.
Director Milos Forman is best known for his cult film “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest”, for which Jack Nicholson received his first Oscar, and the film “Man on the Moon”, where Jim Carrey performed one of his best roles. These films can be called the best in the career of a director, but there is one that was undeservedly forgotten by the audience and completely rejected by critics. And I'm talking about the 2006 film "Ghosts of Goya."
As the title suggests, the film follows the life of the great artist Francisco Goya (Stellan Skarsgård). But, surprisingly, he is not the main character of the plot, since the main character here is time - what it does to people and where it can lead. An artist’s muse named Iness (Natalie Portman) was imprisoned on orders from the Spanish Inquisition. Francisco asks for the help of his friend, brother Lorenzo (Javier Bardem), to correct the situation and help Iness return home. Throughout the film, we are shown how the fates of three heroes - Francisco, Iness and Lorenzo - change.
So why is time the main character of the movie? Because it is the circumstances of a certain time that affect everything that happens here. Characters are only victims of the cruelty of what is happening. Goya is an artist, someone who can stop a moment and transfer it to the canvas. Lorenzo is subject to harsh reality, who acts only for his own good, according to his desires and needs. Iness is the innocent victim of this world, in which only ghosts remain.
The plot of the film is interesting and unusual, and makes you think again how terrible people lived and continue to live in our world. People who hide behind the church and the word of God in order to do their dark deeds. But what is most terrible is that they do not feel guilty, because they “act according to the canons and do God’s will.” How disgusting what is shown in the picture is very vivid and realistic.
Such thoughts lead us to sad results – unfortunately, such people exist. There are those who are willing to change their faith, views and worldview for their own benefit. In the film, an example of this man is Lorenzo, who seems to me a kind of reinterpretation of Claude Frollo from Victor Hugo’s novel The Hunchback of Notre Dame. That Lorenzo and Claude tried to remain faithful to God, but only one circumstance disturbed their minds - the appearance of a woman. And all these feelings were perfectly demonstrated by the actor Javier Bardem. At a certain point, you're afraid of his character, but you end up despising him. He is a wolf who chases prey - he will not stop until he has benefited himself.
Iness is a representative of the group of people who should always be protected from “wolves”, they can be called “sheep”. She is innocent and pure, and only cruel times do anything to her. Throughout the film, it changes a lot, and the change was brilliantly played by my favorite actress Natalie Portman. In a way, it's one of her best roles, as she's shown three images in the whole picture, and they're all so different and different. After all, to show a girl who innocently suffered from time and its cruel orders, to play her complete reincarnation, not many modern actresses can.
And finally, Goya. Francisco Goya is a creator, an artist who through paintings shows people what they really are. It may not be their form, but it is their soul. Through his work, he encourages them to think and change. As an artist, he tries to inspire people by showing their true faces. At all costs he will protect the “sheep” from the “wolves”, and let the church continue to oppose his works, because he is not afraid to show the truth of his time.
Not much has changed since then, though. To this day, the strong oppress the weak, and artists continue to call people to think. But, as always, art is listened to at the last minute. A man will listen and trust politicians, the church, but not his soul and heart. This is perfectly illustrated in the painting “Ghosts of Goya”, since almost no one tries to understand the essence of Goya’s paintings. Why do his people have such scary faces, why do they seem like ghosts? Because many people have already become these ghosts, having lost their humanity and love in their hearts.
When we talk about this, we go back to the film itself. And it is fair to ask one important question - why this film did not appeal to the audience and did not like critics. Perhaps many began to find fault with some plot twists that seem too simple and successfully coincided. But to be honest, for me, the feelings and emotions I experienced while watching were stronger than logic and analytical perception. The main thing is the idea of the film, its call to think and look at your life, at its time, which is not much different from what is shown in “Ghosts of Goya”. People are still stupid and cruel. But what prevents us from at least trying to help this world? Maybe just like Goya, creating something beautiful? I believe that a person who wants to help the world with his art will always find his response, and at least one trillion he can change part of this harsh and cruel world.
10 out of 10
The film tells about one of the famous artists of Spain of the late 18th - early 19th centuries - Francisco José de Goya y Lucientes. The film also reveals the stories of the noble families of Spain, ordinary residents, the church and their interaction with each other through the prism of the tragic events that filled the historical reality that Goya himself captured. Amazing paintings left in the legacy of world culture from this artist served as starting points in the creation of the plot of the film. And the unique range of colors in the paintings of that time moved to the screen, which of course looks like a truly animated canvas.
The film was directed by the famous director Milos Forman, who shot in 1975 Flying Over the Cuckoo's Nest.
The cast is very serious, it is Stellan Skarsgård (as Goya), Javier Bardem, Natalie Portman, Randy Quaid and other wonderful actors.
The film is shot at a high professional level, with excellent acting, magnificent stylization (under Goya’s paintings), excellent costumes and makeup, and most importantly it is an amazing and unpredictable plot. All this makes the film in my understanding worthy of high appreciation by the critic-viewer, but the film did not receive proper assessment from the viewer and turned out to be a failure at the box office.
9 out of 10
After reading a rather interesting book “History of Art” by G. Ernst, which described the course of the history of painting, architecture and in which there are quite a lot of color illustrations of famous works of art of different eras and countries of the world, there was a desire to see a film-biography of some artist. On this subject found the film “Ghosts of Goya”. Since it has a high average rating on this site and because the director is Milos Forman, "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest," which made a positive impression on me, decided to watch.
I gave a low grade because I didn’t know what was going on. Let me give you a couple of examples.
Lorenzo seduced Inness, but his motives were not shown before he tracked her down for detention. It feels like he decided to take any girl. Portman herself, who plays a prisoner, cried during her arrest as if she was parodying a cry. Perhaps this is due to the atmosphere of the picture, where the episodes changed too quickly and all the actions did not produce the desired impression of drama. After the priest Lorenzo father Inness, imprisoned, tried a note of appreciation that he could not be capable, it was expected that Inness will be released. They had to let her go because her father showed the note to a powerful man in Spain (like the king). However, the film takes place 15 years later, and Inness has been locked up all this time. Why they did not show the reason why she was not released, especially Lorenzo escaped.
The action in the film unfolded chaoticly, and the last 10 minutes watched with difficulty. Both the path of Goya as an artist, and the fate of Inness after imprisonment, and the coup in Spain, and the return of Lorenzo after an escape with a changed outlook on life, and the search for her daughter Inness – many elements, and, in my opinion, they should be described more thoroughly and linked more clearly. There was no drama or depth. There was a lack of atmosphere. The soundtrack is not remembered.
The only thing I admired was the performance of H. Bardem. He naturally portrayed the power of nature. The image was colorful.
A sad, moving story. A story that expresses the spirit of the cruel, ignorant and unjust times of the past. The creators surprisingly accurately managed to breathe life and transfer engravings and paintings of the magnificent artist Francisco Goya, who exposes the vices of his time in his work. This film should not be taken as a biography of the artist, but rather tells about the events that influenced his work.
The tragic fate of Ines will not leave anyone indifferent, for her fate you worry from beginning to end. Natalie Portman is great, I don’t know how she does it, but in this film she played three images and they all turned out to be full and interesting.
The cast is great, every character is in their place and they all play flawlessly. Costumes and makeup artists also tried, they fully embodied the atmosphere and image of the Napoleonic Wars on the screen. Some may be embarrassed by the film’s tragic ending, but I think that’s how it should have ended.
If you had a bad day from the beginning, and the mood is darker than the clouds, then postpone this film for brighter times. "Ghosts of Goya" will take you through a troubled and creepy time. 19th century, Spain, the reign of the Inquisition, which was replaced by the revolution and invasion of Napoleon's army.
The brilliant Milos Forman (he directed “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest” with Jack Nicholson) reveals to us the whole essence of the vicissitudes of human history through the painter Francisco Goya and his muse Inesse. Powerful sinners condemn the righteous to hell, wars and revolutions change and shuffle power. Today you are God, and tomorrow you are the one who judged yesterday.
The main roles are played by talented Stellan Skarsgard, Natalie Portman and Javier Bardem. Believe them, sympathize with them, hate them. Perfect directing, docking of frames and music completely immerse in the plot of this picture. The script of the film is so good that it is not surprising that one of the highlights of 2007 in French literature was the release of the published literary script by Milos Forman and Jean-Claude Career “Ghosts of Goya”.
This movie will not be easy for you to watch. Even rare ironic moments fully fit the definition of “laughter through tears.” But after going through all the trials, you can enrich yourself mentally. You will remember this film for a long time, think about it, and the last shots of the film will remain in your soul forever.
I think from the first line it is worth reporting that now, at the time of writing the review of the film "Ghosts of Goya", I am under a huge impression immediately after watching, so my review will not contain a single negative comment. I also want to warn you that I am not very familiar with history, and an artist like Francisco Goya had a chance to learn only today, therefore, it is unlikely that my opinion in many aspects can be considered objective.
Actually, I came across this masterpiece not out of a desire to replenish my knowledge about the Inquisition in Spain or about the work of one of the great masters of fine art, but studying the filmography of the beautiful Natalie Portman, so most of the story I will devote to how well she managed to enter the role of each of her characters, because the actress very convincingly, excitingly played three completely different people.
At first we see her as the artist’s muse, an incredibly beautiful face and soul of a girl, so young and innocent, who has not yet known life, but by an absurd accident, a gigantic injustice, she becomes the victim of suspicious persecutors of certain traitors who forced Iness under terrible torture to admit her guilt before the Lord. From this moment begins a completely different life of the heroine ... she is literally snatched from the warm circle of family and friends, forcing to spend those supposedly the best years in prison. After 15 years of imprisonment from the former Iness remains only a starving shell and a sincere, passionate nature of a girl who lost touch with her mind and gave herself to the idea of finding her daughter, whose role Natalie played just as magnificently. At this point, in order to avoid spoilers who are already asking to get into my story, I stop going into details.
The other actors were also on top. No character has made me disappointed in the film. Everyone plays the role as it seemed and should. There is nothing to doubt the sincerity of the heroes.
The film covers a huge range of problems, leaves a lot of thoughts behind, opens your eyes to things that you never thought about before. Of course, it motivates to learn, develop spiritually and morally.
Summing up, I want to say that it is impossible to convey properly all the emotions that have been experienced. It is impossible to understand all the ideas put forward by the creators. It is impossible to describe all the charms of design and execution. It's worth seeing.
I’ve been wanting to see this movie for a long time, and I finally got there. The impetus was the recent study of the work of Francisco Goya at lectures on foreign art of the XIX century.
I want to highlight what I thought was an important topic in this film. This topic I outlined in the title of my review: the context of the time in which the great Spanish artist lived and worked.
In my opinion, and not only in my opinion, it is important to understand the conditions in which the artist created his works, since these conditions are directly reflected in his work. And that's exactly what the movie shows. The Inquisition, which lasted in Spain, already seized the beginning of the XIX century, people who for one wrong move or word were subjected to a sacred trial with all the ensuing consequences, the invasion of Napoleon's army in Spain and the bloody lawlessness that it brought. All these factors were reflected in the work of the great Goya (remember the series of etchings “Caprichos” and “The Disasters of War”). And maybe, without these events, we would have known another Goya, or maybe we did not know about such an artist at all. Therefore, in my opinion, the idea of the director to show not even the artist himself, but the environment in which he lived and worked is no less valuable than if Milos Forman created a feature biopic about Francisco Goya.
I would like to mention two more points.
A powerful ending, or rather the titles, the background for which are the works of the Master. They are the result, conclusion, reflection of the events shown in the film.
Actors play. Everyone was good in their roles, but especially Natalie Portman. It takes a lot of skill and talent to play three completely different people.
Bottom line: the original idea, plus the great acting, plus the wonderful work of the artists, is ten points. And a place of honor in my film library.
“Ghosts of Goya” is a beautiful historical film that immerses the viewer in Spain during the sunset of the Holy Inquisition. In the last days of its existence, this monstrous machine cripples the life of a very young beauty Iness with its millstones. The hardest tests fall on the share of her family.
Everything in the film is balanced and balanced to the smallest detail. Dirt and purity of soul, love and betrayal, honesty and lies. But it would still be a beautiful historical film, if not for the last few minutes. I don't know if the filmmakers put that meaning into what's going on. But still.
After suffering, Iness is finally smiling. She finds her daughter and reunites with her lover, and now they will undoubtedly live happily ever after. And only from the outside you can see how crazy and ghostly this happiness is. Inesse’s daughter has long been not a small innocent child, but instead of the man of her dreams, a dead body.
But how many women, and men, around the world harbor such illusions? On the one hand, people who deny evil in loved ones can be understood. Isn’t it crazy not to see the obvious? Is it worth deceiving oneself from the real world with a shroud of illusions? Or is it better to be honest with oneself so that thoughts and words do not diverge from deeds? Otherwise, we run the risk of getting stuck in our own lies, remaining disembodied ghosts for an outside observer.
10 out of 10
In feudal Spain, the Grand Inquisition desperately clings to life, introducing new rules and prohibitions, reviving inhuman torture and the burning of apostates. Charles IV is on the throne, but the ball is actually ruled by the queen's lover, Godoy. In France, a revolution is gaining momentum, the result of which is the invasion of Bonaparte's army in Spain. The king abdicates in favor of his son Ferdinand, and when, under pressure from the French, he leaves the throne, and Napoleon’s brother is proclaimed ruler, a fierce guerrilla war begins in the country. After some time, the British army under the leadership of Wellington enters Spain, Ferdinand returns to the throne, who, not shying away from the politics of terror, recreates and strengthens the Inquisition in his rights and deploys a global illiberal program. The country is exhausted under the yoke of torture and starvation, which eventually leads to a protracted civil war and a new coup d'état in 1823. It is this historical background meets the viewer film Milos Forman about the famous Spanish painter Francisco Goya.
It is worth mentioning that the characters and historical and political realities are very well spelled out in the book released by Foreman himself and screenwriter Claude Career a year after the premiere of the film. In the very picture, the events are maximally curtailed and unfold mainly in Madrid, to which the thunderous rumbles of the approaching protracted wars are already beginning to reach. But the chaotic nature of rapidly changing events is designed not so much to reflect historical changes as to shade the human drama, composed of confrontation with society and conflict with itself. In the crucible of a troubled era, three fall: the famous painter Francisco Goya, the daughter of a rich merchant, falsely accused of apostasy and Judaism (which is interesting, the role of Goya’s muse was played by Natalie Portman, a Jew by faith), and a young ambitious monk Lorenzo.
Swedish Stellan Skarsgard looks almost an exact copy of the Spanish painter. In any case, the detailed similarity with those portraits and self-portraits that have survived to our time is noticeable even with the naked eye. The actor may not show all his talent here, but he plays his part firmly and convincingly. It is a pity that the character of Lorenzo is not fully revealed, although the Spaniard Bardem, perhaps, fits most into the entourage and looks most convincing, playing both ardent faith and no less passionate disappointment. Despite the relatively small timekeeping of the tape, he manages to fully show the changes that have occurred with his hero with that share of tear, which does not look like a replay. By the way, it is said that Lorenzo had a real prototype, the Secretary General of the Spanish Inquisition, in the late eighteenth century wrote "Critical History of the Inquisition of Spain." Natalie Portman, invited by the director for her resemblance to the girl depicted in the painting by Francisco Goya “The Milkwoman of Bordeaux”, also acts as a victim of cruel circumstances, very vividly and convincingly turning from a young flowering girl into a tortured creature, deprived of everything that is dear to her: position, family, even reason. And life in the dungeons of the inquisitor’s prison can hardly be called a change for the better. Abandoned, lost heroes unsuccessfully try to find at least a drop of light in the hell around.
In the film, we see Goya already an artist who has received a certain fame: he is close to the royal court, has a special status, and in Madrid there is a persistent rumor that the painter sold his soul to the Devil himself. And, although in his works there are still echoes of the former joyously sublime motives - the luxurious gilding of the royal chambers, the elegance of the figures, the sophistication of the lines and the height of the bright sky - Goya is increasingly occupied by dislike of the realities in which he is forced to live, gloomy dissatisfaction with the situation in the country and genuine interest in the ideas of the French Revolution. During this time, he creates a series of engravings that reveal the ugliness of the moral, political and spiritual foundations of the Spanish “old order”, which immediately attracts the attention of the Inquisition, an organization that survives its days and remembers the former greatness. Frighteningly gloomy works are still far from the famous “Black paintings”, but already here Goya’s talent as an outstanding engraver, instantly grasping the essence of things and events, is manifested. Already here you can see broken figures, disfigured features of faces more like masks, and an undisguised mockery of modern Spain, which has become vulgar, lost its former pride and greatness. Step by step, he reveals behind the mud of the pavements and the luxury of rich rooms vices, misfortunes, sorrows, sufferings and the endless darkness of the human soul.
As the plot develops, the situation escalates, the colors thicken, the horrors of war and desperate Spanish resistance are drawn more clearly in the life and mind of Francisco. The streets of the city are literally flooded with blood, dilapidated and looted houses are filled with corpses, a dense powder cloud hangs over the city, hiding the light of the hot Madrid sun from the exhausted citizens, and there is no end to all this. Goya by this time already suffers several serious diseases, paralysis and almost completely loses hearing. Many tragedies, both personal and international, leave their indelible mark both in the artist’s soul and in his art. The world of Goya is a world inhabited by real demons, a world where restless people-ghosts rush into a stronghold of darkness, chaos, cruelty and disbelief. Where they, creatures caught in an endless series of desperate and bloody skirmishes over the past, present and future, try to find their way among the raging flames around them. This is a world in which the spirit of Enlightenment and the triumph of reason over superstition gain strength, and the search for truth and self, the benefit of the world and the people who inhabit it, comes to the first place. But nevertheless, Goya still remains committed to the theory that “the dream of the mind gives birth to monsters.”
* series of 82 engravings by Francisco Goya (1810-1820)
From the first frames, the picture attracts attention with elegance, smoothness, thoughtfulness of the production. In the following, he attracts the soul by the spine and begins to frantically dig into it, exposing more and more questions to the enchanted viewer.
A sensitive attitude to history and the extreme level of play of the triumvirate of actors Bardem - Skarsgård - Portman cannot leave indifferent any thoughtful and sophisticated viewer - two trump cards, beating any combination of pseudo-flaws found. The plot, plot, artists, scenery, unpredictability, depth - none of the parameters is below a level sufficient to chain to the screen and not let go to the final credits.
An inalienable feature of deep cinema clearly appears in this amazing instance - during the viewing you often want to ask the reflective question: "What would I do myself?" The complexity of the answer is brilliantly demonstrated in the astounding, most unexpected in the film, which is already full of such twists and turns, a scene with torture while the Inquisitor Lorenzo is in prison. Who, a few moments before, had been sure of God's help, as if it were something unquestionable. As they say, all science, do not rush to answer.
109 minutes of conversation with the film/director/world
I am amazed at how subtly some directors model the vicissitudes of human lives against the backdrop of large-scale historical events. In this case, it is a Napoleonic war. As for the part of human lives, the director takes the example of a quiet rich family whose daughter Ines (Natalie Portman) is a kind of inspirer of the artist Francisco Goya (Stellan Skarsgård) and falls under the court of the Spanish Inquisition, under torture, recognizing himself Jewish.
I just want to point out that it is useless to disassemble this film. He is very holistic, raising a lot of important topics with the help of significant and principled situations, where the question “Who am I?” is solved – in general, for each character. This is the picture, when viewing which (I personally have) somewhere in the middle, understanding and being afraid of what is happening, involuntarily pause and turn your eyes to the top, trying to cope with emotions, asking billions of questions, immediately answering them and so on. To be honest, there are a lot of these moments for me. And when I try to do something about it, I realize that I'm just retelling the film in detail. So just look at it:
Just a few words about Natalie Portman. For the first time I see her beautiful and delicate appearance in the form of the tortured distorted face of a woman who came out of the “holy” prison. Very unexpected!
Historical "facts" must be facts, scriptwriters must understand that.
The film attracts the reality of the narrative, the development of the plot, costumes and scenery. From the very first minutes you penetrate into the harsh world of Spanish civilization, where faith in God is supported by fear, and before the Holy Inquisition everyone trembles. Of course, it was not without historical blunders. For example, I found it strange that those sentenced to death were kept in prison for several years. I confess that this thought did not occur to me during the first viewing, and only after reviewing the film a week later, I realized a lot, and also concluded that it is somewhat easier for a person who has not studied history to watch the film. In fact, this is not the right thing to do.
I almost do not write reviews of historical paintings, and I do not write biographical ones at all: too much responsibility. “Ghosts of Goya” hooked me by the fact that here I saw the quality of the actors, moderately revealed characters, the realism of costumes and the atmosphere of that century. Indeed, the filmmakers observed the canons of the genre of historical drama. But alas, they had to work hard on the script to create not just a drama, but a drama with intrigue and real characters.
In terms of camera work, the film does not stand out: this is especially noticeable during the shooting of extras and on the streets. Perhaps the limited budget (which, it should be noted, turned out to be quite solid for its time) did not allow you to fully “give everything” in order to dress more extras, and show the streets of the city. The accompanying music fits the film, and I also liked the idea of showing a famous artist during the credits.
The moral of the film is quite cruel and intrusive, and I do not rule out the fact that critics did not approve of the film because it showed the “true” face of the church. The fate of the characters of the film, and the fate of the real characters I will not compare, I will only say that we were shown two small excerpts from the life of Francisco Goya, and there they showed in detail how to make engravings, and their subsequent imprint on paper. Returning to morality, I would add that it is not limited to what the Inquisition has achieved, the very irony of the fate of the heroes, their actions, make you think about many things, including our reality.
I don’t think you can watch a movie with kids under 13. It is possible that they will fall asleep, or even worse: they will not understand the essence and put an end to this genre. It is better to watch in private, this is the case, although I personally watched the film twice - myself and with my family. There are no bed scenes, only hints, and words like "whores" and the like. Summing up the line, I would add that if it were not for the comparison with history, I would give the film the highest rating. So please understand, besides, it is not at all difficult.
8 out of 10
I love Goya very much, I don’t know much about history (especially Spanish) and I don’t know the director who made the film. So I will talk about what I know or learned from watching.
Actors. "All actors are in their seats, except Natalie Portman" - so I thought in the first minutes of watching. But the opening doors of the Spanish Inquisition have convinced me. Quite impressive, although a big role was played by makeup and skewed jaw. Goya is very similar to Goya, but I lacked the “demon” in his eyes, which he himself painted. There’s something crazy about his self-portraits that you can see right away – he’s actually seen ghosts. But in the film it was a rich, well-fed and satisfied with life court artist, drawing high-society figures. Lorenzo is the one who delighted with his many-sided changes. True, villains are always more interesting than positive heroes. And so it turned out – we see not only the villain, but also a loving father, making sure that the carriage and family have gone so far that they will not catch up with her. All he lacked was that the family hearth that he initially tried to compensate for the violence of Inessa.
Plot. This is going to be an almost unambiguous downside. Yes, I understand that history and the artist who paints it are inseparable, but! The film had everything – the Inquisition, torture, sentences, coups, revolutions – but I never saw the artist there. On the one hand, I understand that the whole film is like the big picture he paints every day, smear after stroke, what he sees but no longer hears. And I understand the name - all these people, faces pass by him like the ghosts of the era, its vivid expressions. But there was no one here who created it. Biography here, alas, and did not smell. And I was so hoping to see the process of working on Maha Nude and Maha Dressed!
4 out of 10
You cannot make a movie about an artist without the artist.
Hasn't Foreman talked about it yet? On the Evil from the History Textbooks: in any situation of unjust power, revolutions, wrong politics, religion without God and other suffocating forms of unfreedom. How relevant is that? Freedom (as an artistic theme and as a philosophical phenomenon) today is increasingly understood in terms of the future or the present, not the past. I think its definitions, torn (with or without blood) out of the French or, let us suppose, Russian revolution, are gradually becoming obsolete.
However, the historical layer of Milos Forman’s film clearly claims, if not for revelation, then for the globality of the generalization exactly. But somehow he passed by me... Or did he run away from the other side? What's the antonym of history? Enduring? Eternity? ...
I watched "Ghosts..." with Vertinsky's sad and funny poem in my head. A poem in which a certain woman with gray eyes is compared to the paintings of Goya.
So natural, simple and affectionate
You're having some kind of revenge,
My soul was wrapped in a fairy tale,
This is a crazy story by Goya.
To the tune of your words lethargic
It's so easy and warm to die.
This is a funny and tragic story.
And the end and the beginning are bright.
Of course, de Goya is not a storyteller. I understand.
He may be three times crazy, funny and tragic... but he didn’t make anything up. No history. Not the Inquisition. No blood. Not the agony of romanticism. No time to scream. Not my own deafness. Not the silence of the truth.
It seems to have been a beauty (like a fairy tale). Beauty is superfluous, alien in an era that so wanted to replace it with justice, or rather, first God’s judgment, and then the court (where bloodier and more human) of freedom, equality, brotherhood.
This beauty has become the ghost of not history, not time, no! Talent. Invisible to others, but resurrected again and again by the obsession of the man devoted to her; which became his bloodless revolution, his desperate rebellion, his risk, his principle, the task of conscience.
Of course, I understand that Goya was not beautiful. He knew how to see and depict ugliness and evil (almost like Bosch – it is no coincidence that Foreman showed Bosch’s Hell in full size!). He could draw it truthfully, terribly accurately, as if taking a cast from the face of a corpse. He was able to capture the truth, no matter how ugly and evil it was (remember the face of the Queen, in life lying about himself, and on the canvas “opened” to the last ugly arrogant wrinkle? Remember the king playing the violin? Goya lied that she was beautiful. I would not have been able to paint it on a canvas and would have painted it like the Queen!
Drawing, Goya denied lies and evil, killed them in the name of beauty. The weapon he had was his hand. That's it.
And, I dare think, kindness. She is not so much against evil as for beauty. So was the Formian Mozart. Such is any good genius, probably (good - first, genius - second).
When I thought I was dying, I had her face in front of me. I didn't help her. I will not betray her again.
De Goya doesn't just say this about Inesse - about beauty. “I will not betray” means I will see her everywhere and in everything. Even in the mad face of Iness, disfigured by the Inquisition, even in the rude face of her daughter-prostitute Alicia, even in the cart with the corpse of her enemy friend - a hunter for coveted power, who lost in a dispute for her and the era and eternity. And even the artist, who was afraid of the authorities, did not understand and did not want, but received in full.
And this power is the power of his eternal canvases, on which there are always three allies of eternity: birth, death, beauty. And their strange opposition is time.
Beautiful final scene of the film, which, in my opinion, confirms this.
Innocently mutilated beauty (eternal beauty) goes after the cart with the corpse of the molested monk-inquisitor (later a revolutionary rebel against the monarchy), call him a time man, and kisses his (time) hand. In this case, holding a child - a new life.
It sounds like a naive children's song, it is sung by curious boys and, dancing, running for the cart.
Concludes this strange procession – the Artist, the contemplative, rejected sounds, naive and inquisitive, like children. He'll always go like this. Go and go. Learning, observing Eternity/Time, Birth/Death and, of course, Beauty. Stopping, holding them with a brush. And perhaps even saving.
If beauty can be saved at all...
P.S. By the way, don't you notice she's dying now? No Inquisition. It is thrown, like N. Portman, into a narrow dungeon, into the wonders of Photoshop, into the equalization of fashion, into the precision of the Beauty Industry.
Do you know of any crazy Goya who could save her?
I’m not going to go into details and analyze how accurately the story presented by Milos Foreman is historical. Anyway, this artwork is beautiful. It's bright, bloody, realistic.
Somehow involuntarily the film sends at the end to the biography of Goya. And you can actually see its reflection. Although it is more reasonable, of course, the viewer to such pictures (claiming the definition of "historical" in the genre) approach with some knowledge.
Goya was on the sidelines. However, to some extent this is logical, because he is an artist, which means that he can not be in the center, his fate is intertwined with the fate of the people around him, and creativity has become the background of the depicted. Excellent background
It was through Milos Forman that I became so familiar with Goya’s creativity and style. Goya is a realist, and his paintings do not lie, but unprincipled, sold to anyone, and he is no better than his “good friend” Lorenzo. He's addicted, his hand draws, and his eyes squint into the customer's wallet, and -- no, it's not a vice. It's his job. However, in this case, are his accusations against the “whore-Lorenzo”, which is also sold to anyone who comes to power, fair?
I think it is worth paying attention in the characters to this quality: to this duality, to the meanness of nature and at the same time – the ordinary human sense of attachment, because nothing human is alien to them, no matter who rules the country. Goya is attached to his eternal muse, he does not leave her in joy or madness. Trying to do anything to save her. The Inquisition, the intervention, the Napoleonic invasion allowed him to maneuver his practical nature, but (in the film) his muse remained to a madhouse. He is deeply unhappy, and if he was to blame for anything, he paid a lot, health, shocks and periodic humiliation, which he was forced to demonstrate every time with a change of power.
And "brother" Lorenzo... The character is more than just dual. He forced himself to sympathize, even in his sinful passion, then forced himself to hate and again to sympathize and... admire. Because in the last moment of his life, he was able to prove to Goya that he was not a "whore" and would rather die than repent. A strong character, dishonest, renegade, but on the cliff atoned for his treachery with a principled silent, unrepentant loyalty to the ideals of the revolution. No one needs these ideas anymore.
The film is very strong, bright. Impressive realistic drama against the background of historical events. Demonstration of how “who was nothing becomes everything” and vice versa; how conscience is sold and an ideal is betrayed.
It’s the first and only Milos Forman movie I’ve seen. The first time it happened was when I was 15. And then he left the impression that the act of viewing was not in vain.
Now my impressions are in the form of semi-related theses.
Thesis One. The thesis is important. The name of the painting indicates that the artist is present here. And not just as a spirit, a memory, an allusion. Played, brilliantly played by Skarsgård, he is alive, flesh and blood, and if spirit, then together with everything, the spirit of the age in which he lived and worked. But the title not means that the film is about his creative journey. Nope. Goya, in a sense, is not quite an ordinary ghost, because he, who is in the same row with his contemporaries, managed to capture them at important moments in the history of the country, as well as their own now ghostly life. Ghosts—the people around Goya—are also related to what happens to him. But nothing more. Goya simply provides the then reality with an artistic veil, which does not mean that the film is exclusively about him.
Thesis Two. The depicted epoch is not so much the Middle Ages at all - the 18th - 19th centuries. However, the film still manages to feel the dirt and darkness as they were before. Why? How? The answer is simple and historically and religiously conditioned – The Inquisition. What it is, there is no need to explain. The Inquisition in Spain is a special subject. There, as nowhere else, cleansing with fire, garrots, boots (and God (haha) knows what else) was applied to heretics. The zeal and effectiveness of the actions of worshippers can only be marveled. But it's too dark, too dirty, too destructive. Another event - the confrontation with the French - also adds dirt and blood. That's how we get what we got back then. Of course, Goya succeeded in capturing it all. All the horror, all the suffering is captured in his sketches, engravings (I am now especially about the series of engravings Los Desastros de la Guerra - Disasters of War).
Given the fact that Skarsgård is very similar to Goya, and Natalie Portman really resembles a girl painted once by a real Goya, from the point of view of at least the cast of this film was destined to appear.
Thesis Four.Separately highlight Javier Bardem and Natalie Portman. For the first time I saw Bardem in this movie, and it seemed to me that it was not Gary Oldman alone who could play the roles of the “bad guys”. Bardem is more than capable of that, too. But my "bad" ones here are not entirely fair, of course. The way fate and reality turn the lives of all the heroes here is simply incredible, but all these sharp turns must be taken into account for a more adequate assessment. As for Portman, she convinced me of her professionalism. The naivety and modesty of Ines Do, a pathetic twisted jaw and obsessive thoughts about the baby Ines After, the wildness and emancipation of Alicia - everything turned out to be on her shoulder and character.
The Fifth and Last Thesis Going back to Goya here. It is known that the creator was a multifaceted painter, a portrait painter, a painter, and human vices that do not depend on public rank, and the suffering of human, unthinkable, but nevertheless real. In the film, this can also be understood, but as you can see, the life of Goya himself relative to the ghosts next to him is not so turbulent. That’s probably the reason he’s separated from other characters. Whatever relationship he has with anyone, he is suspended, he is always suspended.
But always very close, enough to see and sketch a sketch or two.
I don’t think anyone will regret watching it, except maybe those who are looking forward to an autobiography. The film is full of amazing scenes, be prepared.
I watched the film out of a desire to compare / draw parallels with the Girl with a Pearl Earring. In advance, I was sure that these are completely different stories, because they are about such different artists. But the reason was different.
Unlike the contemplative, almost meditative "Girl..," which is essentially a film adaptation of one particular canvas and an anthem to the art and subtle matter on which it rests, "Ghosts..." is a historical film. A film about the cruelty of the Inquisition, the cruelty of the revolution, the cruelty of individual people and social mores in general. The artist here is only an observer, a storyteller and a link. The muse has nothing but the face she loses and the twisted motherhood. The emphasis is not on relationships between people, but on circumstances that intertwine and break fates.
The most meaningful episode of the film is a scene in the square, where the paths of deaf Goya, sentenced to death by Lorenzo, a distraught Iness with a stranger’s baby in her arms and Alicia intersect. Laughing in the arms of an English officer, she does not know that there, in the human sea raging under her balcony, her mother came with the baby, whom she takes for her, to the execution of her father, sketched in a notebook by one of Spain's greatest artists. Alicia represents vitality, she is a flower breaking through stones, she is the embodied future because she has no past, only pride and an instinct for self-preservation.
Children dancing to a cheerful melody around a cart with a corpse and a crazy woman are also echoes of this future, tomorrow of a tormented, dishonored, betrayed and subjugated country.
Goya, too, is still alive, still writing, and perhaps this means that whatever era sits on the throne, she will always have her own court painter. And his price for this honor will be ghosts, which sooner or later become ordinary people, seized and chained in the dungeons of time.
7 out of 10
At first, you see this movie as a failure for Foreman. This is not the creator of “Amadeus” and “Cuckoo’s Nest”, films with a stunningly evenly growing tension, a finely thought out and strict plot. In "Ghosts of Goya" the script at first seems chaotic and cocky, the theme - "horrors of the Inquisition" - somewhat conventional and outdated, the trick with two roles Portman - cheap. And above all, what is Goya doing there? Javier Bardem and Portman would have played their drama without him.
That's it. And it's really not "Amadeus" or "Cuckoo's Nest." This is more of an autobiography, with a very important and probably deliberately put aside in the background bitter confession about himself. In prim and suspicious Spain, where even absurd dogmas of faith must not be questioned, and the control of spiritual tribunals tends to become complete, it is quite easy to distinguish between the communist ideocracy of the Czech Republic - and then it will become clear that the Aesopian hidden under the guise of an implausible story about the "horrors of the Inquisition." But Bonaparte’s Spain of “freedom” turns out to be no less rigid ideocracy, where women are not forced to cohabit by torture, but simply brought to the panel. This, of course, is not the West to which the Red Inquisition fled. Foreman is rather an image of the West beckoning freedom from puritanical frameworks and absurd dogmas, created by the imagination of Czech dissidents such as Foreman, Ivan Passer or Kundera and Dr. Havel. It's too easy. Illusions are always too simple. And this illusion of “beautiful America,” whose forbidden fruits have long been taught to love, Foreman paid tribute in the musical Hair. But the illusion falls apart from the touch of reality. And in a new country, in a new brave world, the artist recognizes the former faces, “ghosts.” These are not the grotesque ghosts of his "Capricios," they are ghosts in a very different sense. They come from the past where they were buried.
A cunning fanatic Catholic performed by Bardem becomes an enthusiastic whistleblower of the former, harsh Spain, fanatically devoted to the idea of destroying the old and dark, building the new and bright. And what happened to Portman’s innocent victim, we’ve already said. It doesn’t matter if she plays a new character and Bardem plays the same person. It is important that these faces return, but with what a discouraging change!
And then it becomes clear that Goya is the central character of the film, and as in Amadeus and other Foreman films, it is about the same thing: the artist and society. "The Artist" isn't necessarily a painter or composer, it can be an artistic, rebellious person, as Nicholson appeared in "Cuckoo's Nest" or a pornographic publisher in "The People vs. Larry Flint." All these Forman characters are put by the will of circumstances into conflicting relations with society, and it does not matter whether it is a society of communist hypocrites-sanctimonies or a bourgeois-glamorous “pernicious” one. West. People are always against it.
But Foreman in Goya's Ghosts doesn't linger on that claim. He goes further, showing the helplessness and passivity of the artist. The rebel is not he, but the former most zealous and skillful persecutor. Goya remains on the sidelines. Therefore, together with the director, he can sympathize with the old bishop, who was not so fanatical before, but also did not change the old radicalism for a new one. Therefore, he, along with the director, remains aloof from the events that he happened to be an observer of. And therefore, not he, but a figure, energetic in the past, pre-Napoleonic era, and in the new, in the era of reforms and liberation from ideological “prejudice”, gets the loyalty of the heroine, the former heroine Natalie Portman. Goya's deafness takes on an almost symbolic meaning, a sign of his escapism, an escape from events that erupt outside his workshop. And in Goya, you will learn the embodiment of Foreman’s meditation about himself, about his fate as a filmmaker who vividly responded to the changing reality, but now looks back on the past years and understands that rapid changes were a play of illusions in which eternal human types were repeated, independent of ideological climate, forms of life and worldview, conservatism and progress. They are independent, because we are reflected in the world around us, and consciously or unconsciously, we rise again and again on the same rake, youth persistently returns in ghostly likenesses. And what is much worse, these ghosts scream about themselves, but the artist is deaf.
7 out of 10
A magnificent work of art, which was created on historical events from the archive with the help of the magnificent director Milos Forman.
I will say right away that the film is brilliant and I need to see it. And like many Foreman films, this film is also multifaceted, that is, it can be viewed from different sides.
Foreman not accidentally called the film “Ghosts of Goya”, he meant not what many would think after watching the film, but that was dedicated to the human essence in bad qualities, which is still preserved in our society.
Foreman touches on millions of themes: church, history, feelings, but one of the most important is what people are capable of doing for their own good.
Great acting, which I didn’t even doubt. Bravo!
You can talk and write about the film for a very long time, but it is best to watch it.
10 out of 10
He talked about everything — about mental hospitals, about genius, about sex, about politics and much more — and he was listened to. We did. Now he is old and looks at everything from a height of age and life seems to him an instant. All this really passes very quickly and the most beautiful flowers wither and there is not a single fate that has not known misfortune, and good and evil often change places. Yes, there will be new flowers and new shades, and the blackest evil (ah, damn!) can sparkle with dignity. Absolute heroes and unambiguous villains are only in the movies, but not in this. There is only the fragility and impermanence of human destinies, which is more like life than movies. He seems to feel sorry for them all, good and bad, and to look at them has become a habit. All this was before and will be later. Such a movie is shot very rarely, it is not for mega-box office and not in order to “state itself”. This is the filigree work of a great master who learned a lot, saw a lot and who knows how to tell it.
Francisco Goya entered the history of art as an artist who embodies dark dreams and fantasies in his engravings. “The dream of the mind gives birth to monsters” is the title of Goya’s etching from the satirical cycle “Caprichos”, fragments of which are in the opening credits of the film; he signed the engraving with the following phrase: “Imagination in combination with the mind produces wonderful works of art, and monsters produce precisely the dream of the mind.” It is this nightmare of the mind of the time, from which everyone wants to wake up, Milos Forman showed in the film, combining political satire and melodrama.
Ghosts traces a chaotic situation in the history of 18th-century Spain: from one tyranny to another and then to the third. No principles, no ideals, no honesty. But despite the political background, the film is more about human tragedy. Not biographical: for a refined Foreman, it wouldn't be interesting. He uses the figure of a painter, wishing to provide a canvas for two main characters: brother Lorenzo and innocent Iness. Goya is represented in the film as the eye and brush of history, a symbolic artist who manages to create his paintings in a devastating historical time. Goya's ghosts are those people and events witnessed by Goya and turned into drawings and paintings; but the term "ghost" also refers to what people look like when things change. The quasi-liberal monk and the young girl and all the other people in the film are just pawns of history, who then disappear. Ghosts. Because they can be destroyed at any time. The principles on which denunciations are built are absurd: you read Voltaire - a heretic! you say that matter consists of the smallest particles - you propagate diabolical ideas! if a man does his duty, covering his penis with his palm, perhaps he is circumcised, then - a secret Jew! you say "temple" and not "church" - Protestant!
Thus, Inesse Bilbatua, summoned by the Holy Inquisition, was accused of “following Jewish customs”, simply for refusing to eat pork in the tavern. As a result, the artist’s muse stayed in prison for 15 years. And returning, half-crazy, with a distorted soul and body, begins to search for her daughter. With the British invasion of Spain, Lorenzo was publicly prosecuted. Foreman’s man is always shown in the fight against the regime, with some inevitable circumstances (Amadeus, Valmon, Flying Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, People vs. Larry Flint, Man on the Moon). Almost all his heroes are loners who resist the press regime.
In satirical moments, the powerful are so openly ridiculed! When Goya asked Lorenzo if he wanted a portrait with or without hands, he replied, “What’s the difference?” And when I got the answer that the difference in price: one hand is 2,000 and two hands are 3,000, I immediately hid them. Another moment that makes you smile. To the question of Goya to the masculine and far from young Queen of Spain about how she would like to remain in the memory of her descendants, she sincerely answers: “As I am, young and beautiful.”
Natalie Portman in the roles of young and old Inesse and her daughter surprises in her versatility and ease. Shockingly looks the image of a dried-up old woman with a distorted jaw, in which the beautiful Portman is not immediately recognized. Magnificent Spaniard Javier Bardem with a medieval snout perfectly fits into the role of brother Lorenzo; playing with the grace of the snake, shows not the best of his qualities: easily abandons his beliefs, while taking an absolutely opposite position, and enjoys life, forgetting how many crippled fates behind him. Stellan Skarsgård is somewhat passive (his role, I think, should not be outstanding in this film), and in some moments he is also a gullible simpleton. But, nevertheless, it is difficult to reconcile the affable and slightly dull image of Goya, which embodied Skarsgård, with the harsh and gloomy works of the artist.
Gurman Foreman avoids showing the realism of war. It is known that the sole purpose of this war is to gain power through the suffering of the conquered, who have one right: to spin on their own bones and flesh. Only the flickering engravings of “Black Paintings” of the last period of Goya reveal the nightmarish view of war and human suffering.
After reading Lyon Feuchtwanger’s novel Goya, I decided to find a film adaptation, and found this film. Not quite a film adaptation, but it was not so stated, although clearly traced plots of the book.
I want to note that the title of the film is a reference to the period of Francisco’s life, when due to severe emotional experiences, he had an exacerbation of the disease – deafness. And for the same reason, coupled with the above mental problems, he began to hallucinate, which led Goya to create, and most importantly to the publication of “Caprichos” – the great challenge to the Spanish Holy Inquisition.
About the movie.
The heavy burden of the Holy Inquisition still prevails over Spain. And the more the spirit of enlightenment penetrates into the minds of people, the more it squeezes its fist. The film tells us about a certain part of the life of the first court painter Francisco Goya y Lucientes - the most famous painter of history. Not yet fully deafened Goya produces a series of engravings – “Caprichos”, in which he shows Spain as it is – bound by an immoral monarchy and the hand of the Holy Inquisition. Mocking sins and righteousness, he provokes the Inquisition, which decides to return to medieval torture, a more meticulous search for heretics and more frequent executions.
Thanks to this, in the casemates of the Inquisition gets a young girl from a respected family - Iness. Goya is trying to help her ...
About the film:
I liked the movie, it was beautiful. The main thing is that the director completely fulfilled his task - he perfectly showed the horror of the mores of those times. And most importantly, this horror was even before Europe was liberated from fanatics and kings.
I want to note separately that you can see all these horrors and the spiritual “vulgarity” of Goya’s contemporaries on these “Caprichos” – his engravings. I have a strong suspicion that the script was written from these prints. This is not in the negative for the screenwriters, it is their great asset to create a symbiosis of a series of prints and cinema.
About Actors:
This is one of the best films of Natalie Portman in her filmography. To portray three different women, two of them with a difficult fate, is worthy of great actresses. I admire her.
Javier Bardem. Javier Bardem? Javier Bardem! This is the first movie where I saw this actor. And not the last. His play is beautiful, his image is terrible. For me, this actor went on the same degree as Al Pacino, Delon, Del Toro.
Not exactly Goya, but very similar. He showed his character as described in the novel. A huge plus Stellan Skarsgård.
In general:
I really liked it. I suggest you watch it. And also, I highly recommend before / after viewing read the novel by Lyon Feuchtwanger “Goya” and watch a series of engravings by Francisco de Goya – “Caprichos”.
8 out of 10
Tell me what's true. The times were savage: the Holy Inquisition on the one hand, a stupid king and a pathetic queen, and even then not “their own” on the other. People did not know who to obey, who to believe, from whom to expect help. Here Francisco Goya took a neutral side - obeyed both. Or rather, he who paid flattered him. Although such a talented person was very difficult at the time. After all, for one of his caricatures about the then church, he could be burned at the stake. It is not for nothing that there is a central dialogue between Francisco and Lorenzo’s brother about comparing people to prostitutes, and Spain to a brothel. That's what it was. I am not a fan of movies about those days. I don’t want to watch them very much. But this one made me look at him to the end. Namely, the amazing acting. The inimitable Bardem, the incomparable Natalie Portman. Skarsgård in the role of Goya also looked great, however, despite the title of the film, Goya here is not so much. One of those films that successfully conveyed the atmosphere of that time. 8 out of 10 Original