FILM 7: David/Schama

The main difference that I picked up on was that David’s film was more about the history during the time period. There was a heavy emphasis on the French Revolution and how that affected David’s paintings. Caravaggio’s video was very dark and more about the events in Caravaggio’s life rather than history. That film gave the impression that Caravaggio had a dark approach to his art. This film about David was the opposite. Schama used reenactment again but it was not portraying David as a troubled man. I actually had sympathy for David from this film rather than Caravaggio, who I had no sympathy for whatsoever. There were paintings that had dark meaning or imagery, but that was not the overall theme. I also thought that this film about David was more of a telling of his life, where with Caravaggio it was to give the viewer an impression of him. The films were the same in the sense that Schama went through the major events in their lives and gave insight as to how this affected their art. Schama had used a lot of reenactment in both films as well.  

I thought the most interesting painting was the one with the execution of Brutus’s sons. I thought it was surprising that the only form of remorse that Brutus had shown was through his feet. Schama said that his right foot being over his left was the only sign of his “repressed emotion.” I also thought the lighting was interesting because it is pointed out that the light is on his wife, who is suffering from the execution of her sons. When I first looked at the painting as a whole, she is the first person I saw. This controlled my eye because she is showing such visual signs of remorse in her face and arm movement that I felt sympathy for her. Yet her husband, who ordered the execution, has no visible sign of suffering except his feet, which does not catch one’s eye at all. Schama describes the painting as “chilling,” like other paintings by David. Schama also explains that there is a knife in the middle of the painting, which portrays the severing of the family. David was marked by a knife and this family in the painting has been marked by one as well. I really liked how this painting was dark, yet intriguing and reflected David’s life as well.  

I thought David was a pretty good guy. I didn’t think he did anything exceptionally wrong throughout his life. His paintings seemed to tell the truth to the extent that he believed it. If you think about it, this is what all artists do. They paint what they feel is truth and that is exactly what David did. I believe because of the time period and the French Revolution, people were doing much worse things than David’s art. For example, Brutus ordering his sons to be murdered. It does matter whether or not paintings tell truth, but I also think truth is relative when it comes to art. An artist can paint whatever they believe and that is truth to them. Whether or not others believe or buy into it is their own prerogative.

Which film (Caravaggio or David) do you believe did a better job of explaining the background of the paintings? Did Schama portray each of them fairly?