Famed artist Alberto Giacometti was a very influential sculptor and painter during the 1950s and 60s. His work is influenced by artistic styles such as Cubism and Surrealism. Stanley Tucci’s newest film, Final Portrait, takes a small look at a time in the artist’s life when he was struggling to continue his art while dealing with his own personal demons. It features great performances by Geoffrey Rush, Tony Shalhoub and Armie Hammer, but just like some of Giacometti’s art, it’s beautiful but very messy.
It’s Paris 1964. An old friend of Alberto Giacometti, James Lord, an American critic, is asked to be a model for Giacometti latest portrait. Giacometti says it will only take a few days to paint Lord. Flattered by the request, Lord complies. But as the days turns into weeks, Lord soon realizes his entire life has been wasted by the erratic genius. Between joy and frustration Lord sees the logic of such a great artist but also the chaotic vision, and the demons that make him who he is.
Veterans Geoffrey Rush and Tony Shalhoub act brilliantly. They bounce off one another wonderfully as brothers, Alberto and Diego Giacometti. They’re a delight to watch as they argue thoughout their art calibrations. Adding nicely to the mix is Armie Hammer, who is becoming quite an accomplished actor in his own right. Each bring their certain strength to the screen, which gives way to some very compelling acting as they have meaningful conversations about art and life.
Rush looks amazing as he embodies the look and feel of Giacometti. We’re seeing just a small glimpse of Alberto towards the end of his life. He seems to have lost the drive to do art, but doesn’t know what else to do, so he continues nevertheless. Even if it kills him. He sees beauty in everything and feels this need to show it to the world. But when his vision can’t be realized he dives head first into his vices: drinking, women, smoking, etc. We see him start the Lord portrait numerous times as he can never get it right. If Lord hadn’t put his foot down and call it done, Giacometti may have never finished the piece.
Frankly the acting is the best part of the movie. The movie is filmed dark and gloomy. Which is odd: most filmmakers who have a story set in Paris love to show off its wonderfulness, but here Paris just looks boring and dreary. The cinematographer, Danny Cohen, is Oscar nominated. He knows what he’s doing. So this was a choice made by writer/director Stanley Tucci. It’s an odd choice for a film about art. Now it could be argued that because Giacometti’s work is mostly dark and moody that maybe Tucci wanted the film to look and feel like Giacometti’s work. It just makes the movie look sad. Which may have been the point, but it hurts the film over all.
The most glaring negative in the film is the pacing and editing. The movie at times feels like it’s ramping up to a comedic scene or a major dramatic fight filled with tension, but then nothing happens. The scene just ends with no climax. Most of the movie is like that. Not unlike Giacometti, never being able to finish the piece we’re watching him paint, the movie never finds its own footing and continues with no ending in sight. And then, right when you feel the movie is about to really begin, it ends. It’s such an anticlimactic ending. Just stops. Everything gets wrapped up and credits roll. It was very jarring and completely takes you out of the movie, but by that time, you no longer care.
It’s a very interesting movie and enjoyable in some strange way. That’s mostly due to the great acting by three incredible actors who are captivating to watch. But over all, the entire movie is sloppy and never knows what it wants to be. And maybe that was Tucci’s goal, to make the movie like the art that inspired the story. But that’s really artsy even for this film. The concept is better than the execution.
