#FUuumovies | All Systems Operational Normally

Watch The Silence of Mark Rothko

(170) 7.0 52 min 2016

Painter Mark Rothko is best known for imposing canvasses that eschew representation in favor of pure color and texture-using them to express fundamental human emotions. In THE SILENCE OF MARK ROTHKO, we visit Rothko's studio at 22 Bowery in New York, and go to Florence's Museo Di San Marco, where the monastic work of Renaissance painter Fra Angelico deeply influenced Rothko's mission to create environments and not just paintings. In The Hague, filmmaker Marjoleine Boonstra introduces us to curator Franz Kaiser of the Gemeentemuseum, as his team installs the works for the first major Rothko exhibit to be held in Holland in 40 years.THE SILENCE OF MARK ROTHKO lingers on paintings and locations - using architectural shots, interiors and streets capes, to link Rothko's paintings to the world he

Marjoleine Boonstra

Disclaimer: This site does not store any files.

Top reviews

Friday, 29 May 2020 11:28

Silence of Mark Rothko, this is the film, directed by David Mirkin. It's an excellent documentary on the relationship between Rothko and the artist Marlene Dietrich, filmed over ten years in a particular time frame. In the last three years, Rothko has died, and the film does a wonderful job showing all his life and death. The movie is shot in the style of a film noir, with scenes of moving photography, the cinematography is impeccable. This is the first documentary about Rothko I've seen, and I think it is the best one I've seen so far. It's the only documentary that is completely dedicated to the artist, and I think it's very well done. The movie is divided into three parts, each one more or less three hours long. In the first part, the movie shows the relationship between Rothko and the artist Marlene Dietrich. In the second part, the documentary covers Rothko's life and death. And in the third part, we see the artist's life, which is the best part of the movie. The film is beautifully made, it's done in a documentary style, and the story of Rothko's life is told in a very clear and powerful way. There is a lot of art in the documentary, and the film does a very good job at making you feel the story of Rothko's life. I think the only bad thing about the documentary is that it's not very coherent, sometimes it's difficult to follow what's going on. But that doesn't mean that the documentary is bad, on the contrary. I really liked it, and it is really well done. There is a lot of information and the documentary is quite short, it's more or less a documentary with some art. It's very good, and I recommend it to anyone who likes art or art history. I give it a 8/10.
Wednesday, 13 May 2020 06:53

This documentary is a series of short videos shot in the 1970's in New York, using the subject of the iconic painting by Mark Rothko. In this short, the director interviews art dealers, collectors and museum officials and historians, and the interviewer interviews the artist himself. The interviews are fascinating and the audience learns that the painting was put on public display in New York in 1976, but it has been hidden away in a museum in Vienna since then. We learn that Rothko was not a very popular artist and was almost un-recognizable, but the exhibition changed his life and changed the way people thought of him. The exhibition made Rothko's work more accessible and accessible art is what the museum wanted to acquire. The film ends with Rothko's return to the US, but is there any hope for the painting? The films subjects are fascinating and are well worth watching. The interviews are intriguing and the film has a very interesting style. The interviews are also interesting because they give us insight into the personality of the man behind the painting and the stories that he tells are fascinating. The documentary also makes clear that this is not a film about Rothko. It is a film about the art world, and its relationship to the artist, but it is not a documentary about Rothko. The film also does a good job of conveying the differences in the public and art world, because it includes interviews with many different people in both camps. There are many interesting and interesting things to learn about Rothko, including the fact that he was a talented and talented painter. I really enjoyed the interviews, and I would recommend it to anyone.
Wednesday, 06 May 2020 11:50

Director Mike Binder's "Silence of Mark Rothko" is a film that explores the life of one of the most famous and admired American artists of the 20th century, but it does so with a hand-held, non-linear approach, which makes the film feel like an experiment rather than a documentary. The filmmaker is pretty upfront about this, but I also think that he and the film's subject deserve credit for not falling into the trap of making an all-encompassing, overly-detailed biopic, as the documentary format is often used to illustrate a topic but not explain it. While I have heard many people complain about the documentary format, I feel that the format is actually quite effective. As such, I find that it helps the film maintain a good balance between its subject and its medium. As an example of this, I'd like to refer to the scene where the artist watches a play. As the camera focuses on his face, we see his eyes as he watches the actors perform their roles, but we don't see the actors' expressions, and this is because the camera focuses on Rothko's face and not on the actors. The camera only moves around Rothko, and we don't see the actors performing. It's very effective at creating a feeling of being immersed in a play, and it's a powerful visual metaphor for what Rothko was going through during his time in the Depression. As for the film itself, I thought that it was very well-shot. While I'm not sure if this was intentional or not, I think that the film's use of slow-motion and the use of natural light, such as during the actors' performances, were effective at creating the impression of a much more emotional film than what you'd expect from a documentary. I also like the fact that the film is a bit more cinematic than most documentaries. Instead of having the documentary follow a linear path, the film follows a slightly-circular path that is supposed to show the artist's life from the very beginning of his career, but that also seems to indicate that the director isn't trying to do a documentary on a specific subject, but rather on a series of events that lead to Rothko's life. There is a clear relationship between the art and the artist's life, and the film really does feel like a documentary on Rothko, rather than a documentary on the artist. There are also some really interesting facts about Rothko's life that are discussed. For example, there is a brief mention of how he developed the body that he was born with, and how he became obsessed with being able to breathe in water, and I think that these two points are the most interesting things in the film. It's also interesting to note that Rothko's life wasn't all that interesting. The artist was a successful artist, and he was also a husband and a father. While I don't think that his life was all that interesting, I can understand why many people might be interested in learning more about him. While I don't think that this is the best documentary, I do think that it's a good documentary. As I said, I do think that the documentary format is effective, but I also think that the film is worth watching. It's a good documentary that is interesting and a good documentary that is interesting and entertaining.

Write a review