The Year 2003: Girl with a Pearl Earring (Peter Webber)

Aged only 19 years old, 2003 was the year of Scarlett Johansson, her meteoric rise to fame during the early noughties thrust the actress into several major films, Girl with a Pearl Earring, Peter Webber's stylish and stunningly designed adaptation of Tracy Chevilier's novel about the relationship between 17th century Dutch artist Johannes Vermeer and his model for his acclaimed masterpiece, again put Johannson in the spotlight. Counting Down The Zeroes welcomes Andrew Kendall of Encore's World of Film & TV, who's passion for the best in film shines through in his great eclectic blog, takes on a film where 'the art direction, cinematography and costumes are lush' but despite all that it can't help it from being 'a complete bore'.

Girl With A Pearl Earring was more or less a hit back in 2003. It wasn’t massively popular but it was moderately well reviewed and did fine at the Oscars in terms of nominations – it raked in about three – and there was a substantial amount of buzz for the lead performance of Scarlett Johansson which was only just a little overshadowed by her superior work in Lost in Translation. Girl with a Pearl Earring is not as good as it thinks it is. That’s essentially my problem with it, but many films are directed and shot luminously even if they are very trite, but Girl With A Pearl Earring is a complete bore, which makes it even more unforgivable. It isn’t long at all – a mere hour and a half is not bad for a prestige picture as persons would have us believe it is – but oh how that 90 minutes drag.

Let’s look at some of my issues with it. The script is not horrible, but it’s very, very vague. They probably were going for some sort of austere and/or mysterious tone but it seems so indistinct. I had read the book before I saw the film, so I knew what I was getting into [or thought I did]. Take for instance Griet’s romance with Pieter, we see there’s some sort of flirtation, he follows her to church and all of a sudden they’re taking these very romantic walks and he’s asking to see her hair. When did this happen? And why couldn’t the audience have been privy to it, would it have been so difficult to even have a conversation reference to their building romance. Does Griet actually like [love?] him? Is she acquiescing just because he’s there? What are we supposed to think about this? And what about that ending, does everyone know that Griet marries Pieter and becomes the wife of the butcher? They couldn’t afford three minutes to show a scene with Cillian Murphy [the best thing in the film] and Griet before they Tanneke comes and gives her the pearls? And what about the picture Griet’s father gives her, the one that gets broken; it would have been nice to know the significance of the painting. ...The fact that she has a brother and such.


The issues with the screenplay were in not assuaged by the direction either, the direction I believe was my biggest issue with Girl With A Pearl Earring. I said earlier that Cillian was the best actor in the film, and that’s not to say ScarJo was bad. I am a fan [well a moderate one] of Scarlett and I think she has great potential, her performance was hit or miss in the film and it could have been better with stronger direction. In the film, generally most of the actors were good until they opened their mouths – Scarlett was the opposite. She’d give these really laborious looks making some wrong decisions about character decisions that I think the director should have curbed and excised; but instead these are the shots he spends ten seconds focusing on. Scarlett was young during the production of this film, I think some guidance would have been very good.

Another major issue with the film was the casting. I do think [despite some weak moments] that Scarlett was correctly cast and so was Cillian Murphy. Tom Wilkinson... I am on the fence. Sometimes his scenery chewing becomes almost embarrassing to watch. Is he good? Or is he the only that realises the shit he’s playing in? Still he’s not miscast. But Colin Firth? COLIN FIRTH? As Vermeer...? That was wrong on so many levels – it was almost insulting. You may say if not Collin, then who else? and I’m not completely sure. Is Ralph Fiennes too obvious? What about Rupert Everett? If only we could have gotten a younger Willem Defoe... Then there’s Essie Davis who goes through the entire film with a pained look on her face. The treatment of her character was another misstep by the writer. He didn’t show that there were whisperings in the house about Griet and Vermeer of Griet andVan Ruijven. She just trips and we’re left wondering WTF. And then there’s Judy Parfitt who gives a satisfactory performance as Judi Dench. Yes, Judi Dench. Maybe she was channelling her inner Judi, maybe it was the inclusion of Colin Firth and Tom Wilkinson who were both in Shakespeare in Love, but throughout I kept thinking Judi could have done this role in her sleep, and done it way better. So could have a hoard of other actors – Glenn Close, Meryl Streep, Miranda Richardson, Sissy Spaceck, Julie Christie &etc. Judy Parfitt was good, but she was not good enough.


The movie is beautiful to look at – the art direction, cinematography and costumes are lush and the music is actually very good. It was a good year for film scores, but the film is so vacuous – completely hollow.