The documentary “The Painter and the Thief”, by Benjamin Ree (Norway, 2020, double award at Sundance) constitutes a unique reflection about the Erotica of the artistic creation. That is to say, the desire that plays in the relationships between the creator and what is becoming the object of his creation.
The anecdote
On 20th November 2015 two paintings by the Czech artist, resident in Norway, Barbora Kysilkova were stolen from Nobel Gallery, in Oslo. They are two big oil canvases called “The Swan Song” and “Chloe and Emma”. The security cameras allowed to catch the thieves, but not to recover the paintings (only “The Swan Song” was found, out of a personal investigation of the painter, quite afterwards).
Puzzled by the loss Barbora begins to investigate what happened, with the intention of recovering her pieces of work. She attends the court where one of the thieves, Karl Bertil-Nordland, is being judged. She comes close to him in order to talk. She asks him to pose for her. Bertil accepts and then begins a series of work sessions that, extraordinarily, led not only to very interesting pictures but also to a friendship, deep and inspiring for both. The only thing which was not possible for Bertil was to remember where the stolen canvases ended. Being a junkie, what happened in the period of the intoxication was not recorded in his memory.
Benjamin Ree films during three years the relationship between Barbora and Bertil. What is not directly recorded is reconstructed, in a sort of psychodramatic set, which emotional intensity reaches the audience.
The documentary, in its peculiar theatrical style, constitutes an artwork that moves the people who made it as well as the spectators. Furthermore it gets a larger audience for the work of the finest painter Kysilkova.
The friendship between Barbora and Bertil is tested by the important car accident Bertil has, after which he miraculously survives. The long and expensive rehabilitation of Bertil leads Barbora to give him, literally, what she does not have. She pays debts with money that is not hers, but her mate’s, Oystein Stene (the Norwegian author, film and theatre director), in order to get the best treatment for Bertil. This leads them to a crisis that they try to solve through therapy, space in which the camera also enters.
Art is commotion
A crucial scene takes place when Bertil sees for the first time the picture “The Pussy in You”, for which Barbora took him as a model. He is shocked to tears. Despite his first refusal, the scene ends in a long hug with all the body, which will be repeated in the course of the film.
What can the canvas reflect that a simple mirror cannot? Some aspects of Bertil’s soul, represented in the interior of the wine cup. The name of the picture points it, there seems to be a vulva, a vulnerability point, the possibility of an opening, a change.
Bertil writes a letter to Barbora in which he thanks the encouragement and the teaching he gets from her, and also his pride to be recreated in the canvas. With fair words he says: “Art isn’t just a painting, but so much more. All the feelings, tears. Nobody has ever seen me vulnerable like you.” Art operates, constitutes an act full of consequences.
When Bertil is in hospital, facing the possibility of becoming paralytic, Barbora takes one of her pictures, which contains a portrait of him, to make him company. The piece of work has been called, according to Bertil’s suggestion, “Decent Criminal”. In the canvas, out of Bertil’s head, there is smoke, the aura of a saint or of a demon. This time, seeing the pictures does not provoke his tears but his laughter. The image will function as a talking mirror, object of meditation for Bertil on himself; which means, his own desire.
Once Bertil is physically recovered from the accident he goes to prison for a year, as he had committed different infractions (stolen car, heroine consume, etc.). In his prison cell he has some reproductions of Barbora’s pieces of work, with which he develops a true dialogue; they take part in his process of rehabilitation. Among them there is “Chloe and Emma”, the picture that he stole and was never recovered.
Barbora’s sight rescues Bertil from the stigma of being a junkie and a criminal, with which he has identified himself and punished himself up to self-destruction. She believes in him, since the first time they met she perceives a pure person in him; in a way, she fell in love with him. She values his capacities, which –according to her- in diverse circumstances, could make him a cruel terrorist or the Prime Minister of Norway. She bets for him, and Bertil responds to her faith.
Out of the wound
Bertil also studies Barbora, analyses her wounds and interprets them. As well as Bertil she is a survivor. She survived a mate that beat her, humiliated her, curtailed her self-esteem, attacked her desire of becoming an artist, and even wanted to kill her. Facts are not detailed; instead, three pictures made out of that damage are shown: “Silence”, “Pisces” and “L’amour est mort, vive l’amour”.
Talking to Bertil Barbora complains about how bad the couple therapy is making her feel. “I certainly never thought that I was so fucked up.” Bertil replies that she really is. Barbora thanks his honesty, he laughs. For those who take the path of art, it does not matter how fucked up they could have been. The wounds are relevant only if they allow or interfere with the production. Sometimes they precisely are the raw material of art. In that case it is just impossible to avoid them.
Artists could, at a certain degree, get to understand the reasons why they feel attracted by certain topics but not to others. Anyway, they cannot disobey the calling of art. Oystein is scared of Barbora’s tendency to border the precipice, but that is not her matter of concern. Barbora is aware of her need of making art, she fearless follows the paths she finds. As an artist she has no other options. She is an artist, more than a woman or any other social roles. The only thing she cannot betray is art. And she does not betray it.
Bertil understands the artist in Barbora: “She portrayed herself while her former boyfriend was beating her”. “The wounds are deep, but she could take some profit from them in order to recover her self-esteem. She has an inner impulse by which she achieves the goal of getting focused in art.”
Barbora asks Bertil exclusively about his dark sides, in which she finds inspiration. On the other hand, Bertil describes Barbora’s pictures as dark. For this artist, figurative art far from conveying appearances, carries complex questions that are not diaphanous.
Oystein questions Barbora about her picture “Stigma”, inspired by a scar that remained in Bertil’s hand since his accident. He asks her whether she is aware of the risk of getting involved with someone who is not able to take care of himself, and so it is necessary to take care of him. Oystein refers to her sacrifice to help Bertil. Although, we can think that also Oystein takes the risk of taking care of Barbora. In fact, as he has said, the former boyfriend of Barbora wanted to kill him as well. Both ran away from Berlin, where they used to live. Furthermore, the topic of the fresh, suggestive, scar in the back of a hand is not new in the production of Kysilkova; it appears in a very similar way in her Saint Theresa, 2011.
Oystein also questions the fact that Barbora gives more importance to art than to life. According to him, she continued her relationship with his violent boyfriend because he provided her with a place where she could paint. It worries Oystein that she would paint even if the world fell into pieces. He compares her attitude towards risk to a kid who is allowed to play in the middle of the road. Barbora identifies herself with that image. She assumes herself as a girl that wants to paint, anyway.
Barbora tells: “What really occupies my life the most is the painting. When I close the door of the studio I start to paint and that’s my universe. I need to paint every day. I really feel like a painting junkie”. The artist does not need to live, but to create. That need is particularly strong when the world threatens to fall into pieces.
The hug
Barbora began to paint Bertil with his girlfriend laying on him in a sofa. After Bertil broke off, Barbora includes herself instead of his girlfriend. She can be clearly recognized by the tattoo she has in her nape; a drawing of concentric circles like an archery blank, the mouth of an injury or the feminine sex –according to the perspective the picture shows-. She is in fetal position on the body of Bertil; in the most intimate relationship, that of the baby in her mother’s belly. The sofa becomes the same that appears in the picture “Chloe and Emma”; finally recovered in this way.
The robbery that initiates this story and the friendship between the characters acted as a breaking point, the production of a loss, a hole, an injury to heal. The breaking produced an opening, the possibility to reach something different. The collaborative friendship between Barbora and Bertil was not just a simple healing, but a source of life and beauty, that just by itself is worthwhile. Bertil gets surprised: “You connected your masterpiece with me!” At the end of the film both are preparing the installation of Barbora’s next exhibition. The scar in Bertil’s hand has almost disappeared, he is healed.
To take the stigma as a sign allows to re-write it, transforming it into an aesthetic object, not only harmless but miraculous; it allows to go beyond the trauma, to reach a piece of sky. The artistic object is as unpredictable as the friendship between the painter and the thief, as the rebirth of Bertil and the rebirth of Barbora. The alchemy of art consists of transforming the curse into beauty. To make art cannot be reduced to make a profitable piece of work; it implies a way of life, a way of relationship.
The painting with which the film ends represents the meeting between the artist and the object of her desire; the piece of work, their hug. The handwriting, like in a mirror, points in which side of the mirror the sight of the spectator is situated.-
*** *** ***
- Click here to find the conversation between Lissardi and me about this film
