Review: The Goldfinch (2019)

The Goldfinch (2019)

Directed by: John Crowley | 150 minutes | drama | Actors: Oakes Fegley, Ansel Elgort, Nicole Kidman, Jeffrey Wright, Luke Wilson, Sarah Paulson, Willa Fitzgerald, Aneurin Barnard, Finn Wolfhard, Ashleigh Cummings, Aimee Laurence, Robert Joy, Boyd Gaines, Carly Connors, Luke Kleintank, Hailey Wist, Ryan Foust, Jack DiFalco, Austin Weyant, Collin Shea Schirrmacher, Denis O’Hare, Matteo van der Grijn

As small as writer Donna Tartt herself is, so bulky is her work. Because it takes her an average of ten years to complete her novels, her oeuvre is limited. In 1992 she made her debut with ‘The Secret History’, about a group of elite students who are so absorbed in studying classical civilization that they do not shy away from murder. ‘The Little Friend’ from 2002 is about twelve-year-old Harriet who decides to try to solve the murder of her older brother. Despite critical acclaim, Tartt’s second masterpiece topped the dubious list of least read books. In 2013, ‘The Goldfinch’ was published, the book that won the small American author her first Pulitzer Prize. The novel was given the world first in the Dutch translation, because the story partly takes place in our country and ‘Het puttertje’, a painting by the young Rembrandt pupil Carel Fabritius, has a leading role. Tartt’s work is rich, erudite, layered and full of references. And above all, her books are extensive. All those elements make it almost impossible to film ‘The Secret History’, ‘The Little Friend’ or ‘The Goldfinch’. Despite this, Irish filmmaker John Crowley, the man behind the fine classic romantic drama ‘Brooklyn’ (2015), dares the impossible. As screenwriter Peter Straughan was brought in, who alternates successful adaptations (‘Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy’, 2011) with less successful attempts (‘The Snowman’, 2017).

‘The Goldfinch’ is a book that goes in all directions: romance, mourning, terrorism, addiction, forgery, art theft; it will all pass. Try to cram that into one film, without losing sight of the common thread in the story. Crowley makes a valiant effort, which is somewhere between success and failure. The film revolves around Theo Decker (played as a thirteen-year-old by Oakes Fegley from ‘Wonderstruck’ (2017); played in his twenties by Ansel Elgort from ‘Baby Driver’ (2017)) whose mother is killed in a terrorist attack in a museum, after which his life will never be the same. Because his father has disappeared without a trace, Theo temporarily lives with the aristocratic Barbour family, the parents of a school friend of his. Theo develops a special bond especially with mother Samantha (Nicole Kidman, sober and hypothermic), who, like him, is a great lover of art and antiques. But then his father Larry (Luke Wilson) suddenly shows up at the door. He wants to take him to live with him and his indifferent and vulgar girlfriend Xandra (Sarah Paulson) in the middle of the desert. There Theo languishes, until he meets the curious Russian boy Boris (Finn Wolfhardt from “Stranger Things”) with whom he develops a special friendship. Disadvantage: Boris brings him into contact with drink and drugs. Then there’s the antiques dealer Hobart (Jeffrey Wright), who offers Theo a safe haven, teaches him how to distinguish authentic antiques from reproductions and counterfeits, and offers him a job in his antiques shop.

A book of almost a thousand pages cannot be easily captured in a film, even if the film lasts 150 minutes. We have seen book adaptations that were deemed impossible to film before, but it is to be commended to Crowley and Straughan that they have elegantly tried to knit this story consisting of separate scenes into a whole. One scene comes out stronger than the other. Especially at the beginning, Crowley shows himself to be a convincing storyteller, by not immediately explaining exactly what happened in the museum, but taking us piece by piece back to that ominous day. The young Fegley beautifully portrays the bruised Theo, an old soul in a young body who often does not know what to do with his feelings of mourning. However, as soon as the caricatural figures Larry, Xandra and Boris appear, it becomes more difficult for the viewer to go along with Theo’s emotional world. In the book, Boris is a fascinating figure, energetic and fearless, someone Theo looks up to; in the film, he’s mostly a strange bird who leads his best friend down the wrong path (although young Wolfhardt really tries to make something out of it and his accent is quite effective). Despite the fact that these characters take us out of the story, Crowley and Straughan still manage to give us enough leads to stay curious about how Theo will continue. Even though we never really get to know him. Elgort is less convincing in his role than Oakley, but solid enough to hold our attention.

Where ‘The Goldfinch’ really takes off is in the third act; Theo deliberates about his future in an Amsterdam hotel, but as a viewer you don’t feel that emotional urgency at all. Other plot lines hang in the air or are so far-fetched and over the top that we completely lose interest and involvement. In short, the ending doesn’t give us the satisfaction we were hoping for and expected after two and a half hours of tossing back and forth between locations, characters, and genres. It is mainly thanks to the excellent work of cinematographer Roger Deakins that we give ‘The Goldfinch’ so much credit. The fact that the Netherlands, Amsterdam and our great seventeenth-century artists play such a prominent role in the film (actor Matteo van der Grijn makes his debut in a Hollywood production here, in a small supporting role as a heavy boy) is a nice extra. Although it is certainly not a complete failure, ‘The Goldfinch’ shows once again that some novels cannot be filmed, or not well. Anyone who has read the book and is familiar with Donna Tartt’s rich writing style will miss all those double layers and reflections about grief and comfort and the role that art plays in it. Apparently this cannot be translated into a film, just like you only really experience the persuasiveness of a tiny painting like ‘The Goldfinch’ by Fabritius when you come face to face with it.

Comments are closed.