zsur-84837 If you didn't enjoy this movie you are probably neither artist nor author. That said the audience who is will love this film. The dialogue is witty, the acting superb, the dynamics between Zola and Cezanne fascinating.The time frame is interesting. Outdoor (plein air) painting was made possible with the invention of oil colors in tubes, to vie with photography, and cheap books.Only one mild disappointment. The film credits Cezanne's artistic genius yet does not discuss his clumsy draftsmanship of the human form. Perhaps in another film.

writers_reign This is Danielle Thompson's sixth time behind the camera in seventeen years and, as a great admirer, I have watched them all. Though a more than accomplished screenwriter with umpteen credits to her name she has, until now, always collaborated with her son Christopher when also directing but here she goes it alone. Cezanne And I is, far and away, the most sumptuous movie she has ever shot with scene after scene drenched in impressionistic imagery and in addition she has peppered the support with the finest actors such as Sabine Azema (with whom she worked on her debut directing effort La Buche). As is to be expected the philistine at filmsdefrance has savaged it which is, of course, all the more reason to welcome it.

sergebracker-91603 My time with Cezanne Usually it is sufficient to read the first page of a book, and you know whether you are eligible as his readers. Usually it is enough to see the first half hour of a movie... I was pleased to "My time with Cézanne": the painter and his friend, the writer, Cézanne and Zola. Two artists, who look out of her century far over to us. The one invented in addition with his "J' j'accuse ' the type of the modern intellectual as conscience, the other invented not least Picasso and modern painting, in whose words about so: he was the master who made us all! And the improbable it is, the same little secluded spot of Earth brought them both out, and while at the same time, as friends since childhood. Should such a dexterity of nature be worth not a movie? Their horizon, their departure would be a joint. The revolution of art would listen to their names. But if we are to realize a bliss of common, Grundierende all children, one upset us guarantees: a children salvation soundtrack on the Beatitudes of the children. And before we looked at sullen all the still Leben of pallets, expressed tubes and Salamis bitten at. Ambiance! A Zola Cézanne film, adapted to the basic tone of sentimentality, with much ambiance and countless women's umbrellas. First you have to take away his umbrella the 19th century at the cinema! And the music? It is tempting to see "My time with Cézanne" without sound. But that is difficult, because there is much talk in this movie. Zola spoke much only in his books, Cézanne was a great Schweiger. Has a movie not the obligation, to remain faithful to the temperament of its heroes? The true artist is silent. And now? We have teased us enough and see "My time with Cézanne" all over again from scratch. Maybe the real sovereignty of the critic is to admit that a film he finds rather not well, can be pretty good. Much too full, too colorful surfaces tend sometimes to the depth. As "My time with Cézanne". And somehow both, Guillaume Gallienne as Cézanne and Guilllaume Canet as Zola pretty well in their roles. The restrained Zola, who can directly approach any woman, and desperately waiting for Paul in Paris on the friend. When the province of swashbuckling Cézanne, Zola is introduced by him into the circle of the painter Manet, Degas, Renoir, rejected by the "Salon". And Zola is the Attorney of the rejected, writes a "Salon" report in sequels, must eventually be canceled due to indignation of readers in 1866 in the 'Evénement'. Zola, the author of success from the spirit of art criticism is born.   A friendship that survives the selfishness Cézanne, the successful painter, but is a mirage, that he would have to laugh at himself. Finally, Zola his writing about the modern dedicated to his friend, but he is not, that Manet, Manet again. Cézanne no longer bear this name. Bad behavior and Flegelei, shows Guillaume Gallienne, include the self-protection of the artist, and Cézanne leads a Kingdom. For the industrialist father, he is also a loser for the friend. The double conquest of the world has become a departure of a man. And yet, this friendship is strong enough to get through this, there is a generosity from the outset - what is friendship? - and this voltage is also Danièle of Thompson's film. "You're my youth, Paul. I meet in any of my joys, in each of my suffering"friends, the introverted Zola says. Cézanne is no different.   It is unpleasant when authors or directors take an artist's life as a mere template for your own inspiration. Thompson accusation could be made. From the outset, an encounter stretches in 1888 by the film Zola and Cézanne. This meeting is his escape as a design point, but it has never taken place. But to know that it is fictional, is called at some point nevertheless admit that it elevates this portrait of a great friendship in the valid - consciously as a contrast to the reality: in 1886, Emile Zola has within its compiling century portraits "the Rougon- Macquart. Natural and social history of a family under the second empire"completes the book of"The work". It is the portrait of a failed artist who takes life, it is a portrait of your friend. Cézanne cool thanks for the fatal post. The rest is silence, for the rest of life. The first idea of success is there in front of him, as well as the ' J'accuse ' before Zola.

richard-1787 You wouldn't miss much if you watched this movie with the sound off. Some of the cinematography, especially of outdoor scenes in Provence, is just astoundingly beautiful. Some is very reminiscent of Le Château de ma mère and the scenes in la garrigue.The acting is all fine. Guillaume Canet is a fine performer and does a good job, but he is not the seriously obese and not handsome man that the real Zola was.The big problem here is the script. It starts with an imaginary meeting between Zola and Cézanne in 1888, two years after Zola permanently alienated the painter with his novel L'Oeuvre (The Great Work of Art). It then moves back and forth between the present and various scenes in the two men's past friendship. There is nothing wrong with that as a format, but the dialogue is way too stereotypical. If these men had been so pleasant, their friendship would not have come to an end. There is no real attempt to explore why Zola turned on the Impressionists, yet that is really the center of the story.So, my recommendation would be to watch this with the sound off.