-Warning: Contains Spoilers!-
So, I watched 'Pickman's Model' last night.
Suffice it to say... I was bitterly disappointed.
Now, before I go crapping all over it, I firmly believe that if this short film had been a horror project and not an adaptation, then it would have been really good. It had all the elements: a mysterious outsider who sees things differently from the "normal" characters, graveyards, shadows, madness, the horror of trying (and failing) to protect all that is nearest and dearest to you...
Fine.
Perfect.
I would have rated it a solid 8/10.
HOWEVER.
They chose to adapt Pickman's Model. And, whilst they did incorporate a lot of the original tale in the first 20 to 30 minutes, they deviated pretty far from the original story, meaning the film's climax was different from the story's. This, for me, ruined the whole point of adapting the story into film in the first place, rendering the climax boring and almost inconsequential.
Lemme explain.
The entire wonder and horror and spirit of Pickman's Model lies not only in the build-up but also in the profound conclusion of the story.
A brief synopsis for those who haven't read it: The short story—which is about 10 pages long—is told from the perspective of the main character, "Thurber", who has met the dark and eccentric painter, "Pickman". The story is presented in the form of a dialogue: Thurber is talking to a friend named "Eliot" who is silent but essentially acts as the eyes and ears of the reader.
Fascinated by the subjects of Pickman's art, which range from witches and sleep paralysis demons to strange wizards, indescribable locations and "abominable", "blasphemous" monstrosities, Thurber is both disturbed and enthralled by Pickman's paintings. And, the more Thurber describes (or attempts to describe) Pickman's work to Eliot, the more Thurber's energy transforms from disbelief and enthusiasm to a frantic, almost frenzied excitement. The story then moves on to address exactly *where* Pickman's inspiration comes from. Pickman's family history is full of tales of witches, death and persecution, so Thurber is left keener than ever to delve further into his friend's psyche and creativity process.
Bear with me, because this is at the centre of why the adaptation completely missed the mark!
Pickman's Model then concludes with one of the most profound sentences I've ever read.
After pages of descriptions of Pickman's art and talent, and how it affected Thurber in every which way imaginable, it's revealed precisely where Pickman gets his inspiration from.
And it goes something like this...
"Well - that paper wasn't a photograph of any background, after all... It [the photograph] showed the monstrous being he was painting on the canvas. . . It was the model he was using. . . But by God, Eliot, it was a photograph from life!"
(H. P. Lovecraft, The Complete Fiction, pp390.)
It's said you should always finish your stories 'on a strong note' and holy shit does Pickman's Model deliver.
Let's unpack this further.
Photography was believed to have begun in France in the 1820s. In order to get a photograph back then, though, you needed light and a HELL of a lot of time to capture the image. We're talking seven to eight hours of sunlight! What's more, cameras were originally extremely expensive, making them only available to rich folks back then (what's new). This did change around the 1920s, as the camera then started to become more affordable and therefore widely used by middle-class people.
It wasn't until the late 1800s/very early 1900s that people could purchase cameras and practice photography as a hobby. This change came about due to the continuous improvement of the photograph development process. We can see this best by looking at Kodak's marketing slogan from 1888: “You press the button, we do the rest.”.
Taking a photo wasn't easy, however, and certainly, nothing like it is today.
To capture an image in the early 1900s, the photographer had to be aware that it could take anywhere from three to five minutes to capture his image, depending of course on what kind of camera he was using.
Photography continued to become much more affordable, and therefore accessible, throughout the 1900s. For the most part, though, it was a slow journey. Cameras gradually shrank in size, Kodak gradually improved their photograph development technology and the materials used inside the cameras changed to more efficient substances... You get the idea. It wasn't until the 1990s that photography took a massive f**k-off leap into the realm of the digital and became what it is today.
Nowadays, everyone has a decent camera in their pockets by way of their cell phones. It's quick, easy and free. . .
Anyways, now that I've bored the pants off you about photography, I'll back to my original point, which was why the whole Pickman-painting-from-a-photograph reveal was so profound.
In the 1920s, photography was becoming more and more popular in artistic circles, despite pushback from the 'old crowd' about photography being a 'lazy' way to create art. Sort of like the people nowadays who talk sh*t about digital art. The more things change, the more they stay the same and all that.
Now, back to the story -
Pickman's Model was written in the year 1926. Despite being about 100 years after the invention of photography, the process of taking a photograph was still in its early days of development.
So, not only was Pickman producing extraordinarily weird art but he was using this relatively new technology to do it.
Capturing ghosts, ghouls and monsters IN MOTION (evidenced by one painting depicting a monster eating a child) must have been an extraordinary feat in 1926. Pickman needed 5 minutes, maybe more, which meant this dude stood and watched a creature eat a kid as he snapped his shot.
What does this suggest?
Everyone will have a different answer to this, which is in part why I adore Lovecraft's work so much. His strength as an author lies in the non-details. The parts he does not present to us that allow our minds to conjure up whatever terror that fits the vague descriptions given. That is a form of magic, you have to admit!
To me, this would indicate that either the monstrosities were either familiar with Pickman OR that Pickman was using technology that could capture such scenes quickly and sharply so he could quickly get the f— out of there, much like the technology we have today. I've always gone with the latter interpretation, mainly because it's Lovecraft and if there's one thing he knows it's how to bring the Impossible to life. Plus, I also didn't know much about photography and its history until recently. I always thought up until the 1940s, you had to sit still for a photo for ages and ages and ages to get your picture taken, mainly because the 'instant polaroid camera' wasn't introduced until 1948 (ACS, 2015). I realise now that that's a little far from the truth but not exactly wrong, either.
Regardless of how you look at it - the horror, the awe, the profound disbelief, all stem from the fact Pickman's paintings were all based on photographs of REAL LIFE things and happenings.
Sadly, this is where the adaptation suffered.
Instead of Thurber screaming and shaking and being left traumatised by finding Pickman's photos as he does in the book, he blandly picks up some pieces of paper, casually looks at them before looking back at Pickman (who has been shot by Thurber and is lying on the ground, bleeding out).
Firstly, it's not immediately obvious that what we/Thurber are looking at is a photograph.
It was a large and mostly dark piece. It was a detailed piece, however, we weren't able to look at it long enough to make anything out. Sure, that could be down to the fact that Pickman took the photos in a realm full of darkness and monsters, but it didn't help us, the viewers, determine what Thurber was looking at.
Then came "the speech" delivered by Pickman as he lay there, dying.
"Paint what you see", he whispers as he bleeds out. "What is familiar to you. These entities... Are real."
Like...ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME?!
10/10 you have just instantly destroyed ALL the tension of this story!
This scene was supposed to be filled with the screams of Thurber as he finds the photographs and the terrifying realisation sets in. Instead, we're relying on a calm Pickman to tell us "Oh, yeah, the things are real and btw, you're all f**ked."
Exposition.
Not pretty or interesting.
It's also not clarified that what Thurber is holding in the film is even a photo. If you take a look, it's an incredibly dark picture, one that could very easily be construed as yet another one of Pickman's drawings.
It would have been helpful as a viewer to know that that is what photo's looked like back then (if that's even the case - real photos from 1920s are crisp and clear and have that grey/sepia colouration to them).
This ties into the second reason why this climactic scene facepalmed so hard it would have made the comet that ended the dinosaurs blush: There were absolutely no hints as to what "The Big Reveal" was going to be.
In the film, Pickman whispers "Paint what you see" which is all very well and good, but it was the first time he'd said it throughout the production. Only two people say something similar and that's the art tutor and a fellow art student ("Draw what you see"). Both within the first ten minutes of the film and characters we don't really see again, nor care much about.
Why hadn't anyone taken the chance to have Pickman say it when he joined the art class? That would be have been a good opportunity, considering this is when we got our first glimpse at his weird and freaky art style?
Why didn't he say it when Thurber watched him sketch the graves and dead cat in the middle of the night?
It could have been his cryptic "I'm a mysterious weirdo" catchphrase!
We could have had this whole "Aha! That's what he meant" moment but we didn't.
Ehhhhh.
On that note, what about the cameras?
Not once were cameras mentioned in the film. No discussion about them, no frowning old professors decrying their increasing use in the "Art World" (which would have been historically accurate and relevant). No dialogue between Pickman's (younger) classmates about photography. No random extra in the background carrying a camera or taking photos. . . We didn't even see a camera in Pickman's student room when Thurber visited it. You might be thinking "Well DUH because that would give away the 'Big Reveal'" - but I'd counter that with not at all because Pickman himself in the story says he used the camera to capture photos of scenery which he then used as references for the backgrounds of his paintings (a lie, of course, but a necessary one).
Instead of focusing on this incredible moment, a moment which Lovecraft expertly crafted using technology, curiosity and the supernatural, the film-makers glossed over it, gave us a watered-down version of the "Big Reveal" and instead, turned the story into a generic re-telling of The-End-Of-The-World-Is-Nigh trope.
Double Ehhhhh.
Don't get me wrong, they could have kept all of that, stayed more true to the photographs, and the project would have still worked.
For the first half-hour or so, I was seriously enjoying the production! They had everything; Pickman being weird and unusual, Thurber's increasing fascination with him, his revulsion and repugnance of Pickman's work, his overpowering and maddening desire to keep looking at it... They could have done The Big Reveal with the subtle build-up and still kept their ending.
They simply... didn't.
Again, as an independent horror piece, it was decent! The acting was believable, the paintings were grotesque, Thurber's madness was well-captured and everyone's motivations were clearly established, leaving us with believable character arcs and a sense of horror at the end. From me, a solid 8/10.
As an adaption of a Lovecraftian story... 4 or 5/10.
Thanks for reading, guys, I appreciate it! If you enjoyed my content, consider subscribing to my newsletter by clicking HERE.
Have a question, concern or complaint? Feel free to comment below or email me at magibbsauthor@gmail.com
Peace
-M x
References
History of photography (Wikipedia)
Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_photography
Kreinik, J. Dr (2014)- An Introduction to Photography in the Early 20th Century. Khan Academy.
Link: https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/art-1010/beginners-guide-20th-c-art/introduction-20c-art/a/an-introduction-to-photography-in-the-early-20th-century
American Chemical Society National Historic Chemical Landmarks (2015). Edwin Land and Polaroid Photography.
Link: https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/education/whatischemistry/landmarks/land-instant-photography.html#:~:text=The%20first%20Polaroid%20camera%2C%20called,a%20department%20store%20in%20Boston.