<p>The film ‘Portrait of a Lady on Fire’ may never earn the fan following that ‘Parasite’, Bong Joon Ho’s black comedy thriller about class struggles, has earned, even at BIFFes where both the movies have arrived. However, there is a case to be made that we may have overlooked the brilliance of Céline Sciamma’s story of 18th century passion.</p>.<p>This is not to say that Bong Joon-ho’s film is lacking in merit. Plus, its serial victories, from Cannes to the Oscars, have opened the door for smaller industries, including India’s.</p>.<p>But ‘Parasite’ stays comfortably in the arena of genre fiction, with it’s comedy, violence and plot twists making it easily likeable. ‘Portrait’, on the other hand, is what has already been called a slow burn. There is no physical violence and has no laugh-out-loud humour. It simply takes the story of two female lovers in the 18th century and pushes it to an ingeniously original point.</p>.<p>The story: An aristocratic young lady is set to marry a nobleman from Milan whom she has never seen. Her sister was engaged to the man before, but she killed herself, with a genuine possibility that a fear of the marriage was what pushed her off the cliff. Pun intended. The young lady’s mother now wants a portrait to be sent to the nobleman, which he must approve.</p>.<p>A young woman artist is brought in for the job, and they fall in love. Eventually they go their two separate ways, something the viewer anticipates from the very beginning.<br />What separates the love story of the Artist and the Aristocrat (here onwards capitalised) is not this story, but in Sciamma’s ability to nuance the mundane.</p>.<p>Take the title. If you know something about the film from its trailer, you will deduce from the phrase ‘Portrait of a Lady on Fire’ that it is the woman on the fire, and not the portrait. There is the obvious image, even in the trailer, of the Aristocrat’s dress catching fire. It’s a fair and common-sensical deduction. But with a filmmaker as intelligent as Sciamma, you would be right to ask more questions.</p>.<p>Your doubts would be strengthened by the fact that the Artist does set a portrait of a woman of fire. It was a barely finished portrait of the Aristocrat by the painter who was there to do the Artist’s job before the Artist was hired. Her reasons for setting the predecessor’s work on fire are unclear, but it is a stark image of the successor dethroning the predecessor. The title, therefore, may not only refer to the fact that the Artist saw her sweetheart’s dress catch fire, but also that her own portrait of her, which is of paramount significance to their relationship, may be set to fire, or something equally dishonourable, where the Aristocrat moves next.</p>.<p>The film is often very classical. And while the story of Orpheus looms large over the film, it is in an important sense very Shakespearean. The Artist knows that she will lose the Aristocrat, and that’s when she begins seeing visions of the Aristocrat in a wedding gown. There is, however, something ghostly about the vision, as it is not entirely imagined and not entirely real. It’s like the ghost of Hamlet the father, whose existence can always be questioned. This theory is strengthened by the fact that there is an indication that the writer wants to follow in the footsteps of her sister.</p>.<p>In a sense, Sciamma is exploring ambiguity further than it has gone before.</p>.<p>But just as this is a movie of love, it is also a movie of loyalty. The Aristocrat offers the Artist the permission to draw her, and one of her lasting worries is that she may move on from this old passion in her husband’s house. Before parting, the Artist draws a nude sketch of herself on page 28 of the book. </p>.<p>Sciamma turns this around wonderfully in the most remarkable scene about lasting love. Years later, the Artist finds a portrait of the Aristocrat at a gallery. She realises that someone else has been given permission to paint her. So, is she not special anymore? But she looks at the painting a bit closer and realises that in the portrait, the Aristocrat is holding a book.</p>.<p>Her forefinger bookmarks the page, and you can see that the page number is 28.</p>
<p>The film ‘Portrait of a Lady on Fire’ may never earn the fan following that ‘Parasite’, Bong Joon Ho’s black comedy thriller about class struggles, has earned, even at BIFFes where both the movies have arrived. However, there is a case to be made that we may have overlooked the brilliance of Céline Sciamma’s story of 18th century passion.</p>.<p>This is not to say that Bong Joon-ho’s film is lacking in merit. Plus, its serial victories, from Cannes to the Oscars, have opened the door for smaller industries, including India’s.</p>.<p>But ‘Parasite’ stays comfortably in the arena of genre fiction, with it’s comedy, violence and plot twists making it easily likeable. ‘Portrait’, on the other hand, is what has already been called a slow burn. There is no physical violence and has no laugh-out-loud humour. It simply takes the story of two female lovers in the 18th century and pushes it to an ingeniously original point.</p>.<p>The story: An aristocratic young lady is set to marry a nobleman from Milan whom she has never seen. Her sister was engaged to the man before, but she killed herself, with a genuine possibility that a fear of the marriage was what pushed her off the cliff. Pun intended. The young lady’s mother now wants a portrait to be sent to the nobleman, which he must approve.</p>.<p>A young woman artist is brought in for the job, and they fall in love. Eventually they go their two separate ways, something the viewer anticipates from the very beginning.<br />What separates the love story of the Artist and the Aristocrat (here onwards capitalised) is not this story, but in Sciamma’s ability to nuance the mundane.</p>.<p>Take the title. If you know something about the film from its trailer, you will deduce from the phrase ‘Portrait of a Lady on Fire’ that it is the woman on the fire, and not the portrait. There is the obvious image, even in the trailer, of the Aristocrat’s dress catching fire. It’s a fair and common-sensical deduction. But with a filmmaker as intelligent as Sciamma, you would be right to ask more questions.</p>.<p>Your doubts would be strengthened by the fact that the Artist does set a portrait of a woman of fire. It was a barely finished portrait of the Aristocrat by the painter who was there to do the Artist’s job before the Artist was hired. Her reasons for setting the predecessor’s work on fire are unclear, but it is a stark image of the successor dethroning the predecessor. The title, therefore, may not only refer to the fact that the Artist saw her sweetheart’s dress catch fire, but also that her own portrait of her, which is of paramount significance to their relationship, may be set to fire, or something equally dishonourable, where the Aristocrat moves next.</p>.<p>The film is often very classical. And while the story of Orpheus looms large over the film, it is in an important sense very Shakespearean. The Artist knows that she will lose the Aristocrat, and that’s when she begins seeing visions of the Aristocrat in a wedding gown. There is, however, something ghostly about the vision, as it is not entirely imagined and not entirely real. It’s like the ghost of Hamlet the father, whose existence can always be questioned. This theory is strengthened by the fact that there is an indication that the writer wants to follow in the footsteps of her sister.</p>.<p>In a sense, Sciamma is exploring ambiguity further than it has gone before.</p>.<p>But just as this is a movie of love, it is also a movie of loyalty. The Aristocrat offers the Artist the permission to draw her, and one of her lasting worries is that she may move on from this old passion in her husband’s house. Before parting, the Artist draws a nude sketch of herself on page 28 of the book. </p>.<p>Sciamma turns this around wonderfully in the most remarkable scene about lasting love. Years later, the Artist finds a portrait of the Aristocrat at a gallery. She realises that someone else has been given permission to paint her. So, is she not special anymore? But she looks at the painting a bit closer and realises that in the portrait, the Aristocrat is holding a book.</p>.<p>Her forefinger bookmarks the page, and you can see that the page number is 28.</p>
