Steam The Silence of Mark Rothko

This is a wonderful film. The argument in the end is disappointing. It seems to me that they should have taken the argument to the streets. They should have walked around Philadelphia in the time it took for Mark's work to be finished. The reactions of people around the city when they saw the work they were seeing is an important part of this debate. If we had looked more closely at Mark's life, I'm sure we would have seen that his work in the 60's was not what we see today. And perhaps it would have led to a more sympathetic depiction of his work. A movie like this could have been done without money from the museums or the galleries, and the lives of the people who work in them. It could have been done without bringing in so many talented people. I think that they should have called it "The Artist and the Citizen." That's what it should have been.

What an experience! This is an essential, if lengthy, viewing for anyone who has any interest in art. And for those who have never seen it, it is a fantastic opportunity to understand the work of Mark Rothko and his influence on the world of art.

This is a wonderful documentary about the life of renowned art collector Mark Rothko and the beauty of his work and it's influence on contemporary art. Like the film Mona Lisa, it is more a story of his life, his marriage, his work, and his relationship with his wife, Sally. The film runs for about two hours and it is more of a documentary than a feature film, but it works quite well. It has a very long story, there is much information to absorb, but there are many important events and characters in the film that are very important to Mark. For instance, Mark's own father, the same man who helped to lead him into the art world, is an important character to Mark, he discusses with Mark the history of the art world, the art world, the rise of the new art movement, and much more. He has an intimate relationship with his wife and his children, but he is not afraid to show them the work he has created and say how much he appreciates it. There are many interviews with people who knew Mark or were friends of Mark, but it's still his life story and it is amazing to hear Mark talk about it. In the end, we learn about Mark's life, his relationships, and his love for his wife and his children. I believe that most people will enjoy the film and it has been long enough and I think we'll have to go back to see more of Mark Rothko.

Forget the classics of the avant-garde and forget all the fuss. This is one film you should have on your shelf. After viewing this documentary, it is obvious that David Lynch's Twin Peaks has been stolen from him and that Lynch is a greater director than Rothko. If you haven't seen this film yet, please go see it. You will be amazed. This is truly a beautiful film.

It's amazing that more people are exposed to Rothko paintings than if they had to walk down a dimly lit hallway for hours in a dark theater, each half a world away. The paintings are, in fact, a dialogue. They are works of art, sculptural artifacts that serve as a conduit for their feelings, and they serve as a marker of identity, identity itself. Rothko is masterful, and it's not just that the photographs are so beautiful, but that the people who have seen them, and then have had the experience of looking at them, are able to understand the emotions of the work in a way that no one else has. This is a good documentary, and it deserves to be watched. But, beware: it's only a five-minute film.

I love this documentary, and I agree with a few of the critics. I'm a fan of Mark Rothko, and I think this film is excellent. I love the way it begins, with a few hand-held camera shots, and we hear a very familiar, very haunting voice that is in almost every frame. It's beautiful. And then we see how Rothko painted a very special "Japanese" style, with watercolors. This is fascinating. The film cuts back and forth in time, which is a nice technique, but I found it a little confusing. At first, I thought I was watching a different film, but then I thought I was watching a different part of the same film. It's a little confusing. But, it's not a major flaw. The film is fantastic, and I think it should be a standard for all filmmakers to follow. It's a great film. There are some things that I really don't like about it, but it's a great film.

Not a biography, nor a documentary, nor a book. A collection of stories and thoughts from a man who was born into a family of art and became obsessed with his work. It's a beautiful film, but in the end, the main point is not the documentary's point, it's the film's point, which is the making of a masterpiece. I think that it is important for people to be aware of the work and the work's history and not to forget that this is a work of genius. If this is not a work of genius, if this is not a masterpiece, then what is? That is a question that we all have to ask ourselves. This is a film that should be seen by everyone and should not be missed.

I recently saw this documentary at the New York Film Festival. The film is extremely well made, and the tone of the film is one that one would expect from a documentary about Mark Rothko. It has a great flow to the documentary and there are no hard cuts, no scenes that seem to be cutting away to another part of the film. The documentary is very informative and very well done, especially the interviews with the curator of the Rothko Museum. The curator gives a very informative, interesting, and engaging interview. One cannot help but be amazed at the energy and passion that he has for the art that he has. While the documentary is very well made, it is very well done. It is the kind of documentary that you would want to watch again. I recommend that you see this documentary at the New York Film Festival.

A wonderful documentary. It is a much more "compassionate" view of the Mark Rothko's life. Instead of him being 'abandoned', it shows the artist as a "vulgar and boorish man", and more frequently, the artist as a religious man. The other narration-wise, it is the normality of his life as a mediocre and unproductive man. This is the most common way of portraying the artist as a self-centered artist. The narrator is much more intellectual and has a lot more insight into Rothko than the other characters do. The documentary is filmed very simply and the narration is very short and straightforward. I do not think this is a bad thing, but it does make it more convenient and less formal. Still, this documentary is a lot more balanced, and is an example of how to present a very complicated man. The documentary has a lot of quotes and wonderful images from Rothko, and many of them are from private ones. It is also narrated by a great, almost legendary, painter. This made me appreciate the documentary much more, and I was very surprised how well it was presented. My only small complaint is that I have a weak memory of Rothko, and it would have been good to hear his voice narrating more. At the end, this documentary is great. It is good, and shows the life of a famous and great artist in an elegant way, but it is also more honest and humane than the "traditional" documentaries of this kind.

This is a film about one of the greatest masters of painting, who did not survive the Great Depression, as he was suffering from depression, which has left him mentally and physically handicapped. In order to overcome his depression, the artist paints images from his paintings to communicate to people who are having problems. In his last painting, he decides to paint a human skull. In this case, he paints a human skull in the same way as the paintings of his great master, since Mark Rothko was mentally and physically handicapped. This film really has something for everyone. It's about the artist, his pain and suffering, and his paintings. It's a very well done documentary film. The interviews are very interesting. The cinematography is really impressive, and the photography is breathtaking. The film is really interesting. It's definitely worth watching.

I would have given this film a higher rating but for the DVD which has the soundtrack of this film recorded on it. The film is incredibly moving. There is a lot of stuff that happens to the main characters that we as viewers can't fathom and the film does a good job of showing you the background. The only thing I would have changed is that in the first 15 minutes or so you see the painting but the painting never appears again. I wish there was a little more of that background story that we just don't know what the painting represents.

This is a documentary about art and a remarkable master's work. I saw it at the 2002 Miami International Film Festival and it is still my favorite film of all time. It is about the love between the artist and the woman who helped with the paintings. It's about the artistic process and the work itself. Mark Rothko's paintings are not flashy and they are not flashy people. The artist is something different, but as in all art the public does not see him for what he is. The man has an incredible sense of what art should look like and the viewer should be drawn in and not just able to see the art but see the process behind it as well. This is a film about a master and a woman who is his partner. She is not just an artist. She is a perfectionist and a painter as well. The story is told in such a calm and serious way that I found myself nodding and smiling many times. The relationship between the two of them is really wonderful and we are able to see how they are able to work with each other and take in the beauty of the canvas. There are many times where I felt like I was in the paintings and I really wanted to see it in person. I am a big fan of Peter Jackson and I feel that he did a great job in bringing this great story to the big screen. I give this movie an 8/10.

I've seen the documentary and it is really excellent. The visual aspect of the images is awesome. I don't know how to explain it, it is just really good. The camera is very good, but it's like the image is real, not computer generated. The narration is also really good, and helps you understand the significance of the images. The last part of the film is about the past and the life of Mark Rothko, and how he met his wife. It is very interesting. I would definitely recommend this documentary to anyone who wants to know more about Mark Rothko, because I believe this is a must see. And it is even better if you have a friend or someone to talk about this topic with. And if you don't have anyone to talk to, just watch this documentary. The best part of this documentary is the conclusion, but it is also a good thing. It shows how much Mark Rothko affected people.

The truth of the matter is, when you watch a movie, you have to suspend your disbelief. You can't assume everything. I don't know how to do this with a documentary. It was a little confusing at first, but it got easier with time. As you watch a movie, you want to feel for the people involved, but you don't want to judge them. You don't want to be involved. I did not like the conclusion, but it was just my opinion. The other viewer disagreed with my opinion and was right on the mark. The truth is, it is not perfect. The ending was a little too sad. However, the film is wonderful and informative.

While the title and summary for this film are misleading, this is a real movie, not a lecture on Mark Rothko. This is a film about the work of one of the most talented and most respected painters of the twentieth century. It is also about the art that Mark Rothko created. It is about the art that he used and the work that he created. It is about the man, the ideas, the work, the process, the money, the fame, the life. It is a film that is made not to explain why and how one of the greatest painters of the twentieth century, Mark Rothko, was born, but to make us understand why and how he was born and why the work he created, the art that he created, was important and important to the world. It is not a documentary, but a film about the art, about the work, about the man, about the philosophy, about the experience, about the art that he created, about the art that the world saw, about the art that the world never saw, about the idea that came from one man that changed the world.

I was never a big Mark Rothko fan but, like many other artists, I was intrigued by his work. This is my favorite Rothko film. The subject matter is very personal to him, as it was to me. I'm not sure what the filmmakers intended but I think it was a good way to tell his story. The people in the film were real, and he gave the viewer a glimpse into his life and work. He was not a success. I was reminded of his efforts in the 1930s when he was creating the Impressionist art in Paris, and of his eventual disillusionment with it. He also expressed his frustrations with the changing of styles and in some ways his frustration with the new paintings he was creating. I didn't really get the sense of his despair but rather a sense of his frustration with the world. This was a fascinating story about the influence of painting over a century ago and how one artist is still searching for his work. Rothko's work is quite significant and his career was a very successful one. He was a major artist, he created an art that is very much in the public eye and that his contemporaries could follow and appreciate. The real Mark Rothko would be a very proud man to see this film on the big screen.

I believe this to be the best presentation of Mark Rothko's work since his death. Not only does it focus on Rothko's paintings, but also on his relationship with the woman who painted his famous paintings. The film contains many excellent interviews with Rothko's friends and colleagues, as well as many fascinating archival footage. I'm not sure I'd even call this a documentary. The visuals are interesting, but it's all speculation, with no concrete evidence that Rothko ever claimed to have created the paintings. For me, this is still the best documentary about Rothko's paintings I've seen. The title is misleading, though, as the focus is more on the painting rather than Rothko's relationship with the woman who painted the paintings. It would be more appropriate to call this a study in the artist's work, rather than his relationship with the woman.

One of the best films I have ever seen about the exhibition of the enigmatic and masterful artist Mark Rothko. While I don't believe Rothko was the first person to show what he saw, I do believe that he was the one who gave the world the most beautiful of art. The film shows the history of the show, showing the idea and process that went into the creation of the work. The discussion of Rothko's own opinions about the show, and the particular way he wanted to view the work is fascinating. In addition to that, we learn about the people who saw the show, as well as the history of Rothko himself. The interviewees are uniformly fascinating and each with their own story, or interpretations of the work. We learn a great deal about Rothko himself, but also about the individuals who were there who created the masterpiece. I think this film is a great overview of Rothko's exhibition.

The paintings on the wall of the art gallery in Eisenstadt, Berlin (currently, we see, just now, what the painting might have been like at a later time), and the pictures on the wall in my own house in Providence, Rhode Island, are also a representation of what might have been. At first I was really interested in this movie, as I had just seen the stunning documentary on the painting and the hotel. The fascinating thing about this movie is that it was shot on location in the art gallery in Eisenstadt. The film is almost entirely shot in the art gallery. Each room has a different photograph on the wall. It was fascinating to see the paintings, but also interesting to see what the place would have looked like, if it were still the same, what sort of art might be shown, what sort of art would be available. And the photography was of the art that was on display, which is beautiful. But the interesting thing was that when they were shown on the wall, they were still good quality photos, but they had been taken by hand, at the time, not by digital technology. So we see what would have been on display, but also what was on display was still in a bad state, just as it was before. This was an important feature of the film. As a result, there are several pictures that are still wonderful. But they are in a bad state. But these pictures are interesting. We learn about the paintings on the wall in Eisenstadt, which is now a museum, that was the work of Rothko. We also learn what he did in the studio. We learn that Rothko had a certain way of working, like he was not very experienced, and he often did sketches before he would do paintings. But then, when he did paint, he did it with a very precise technique. He would actually "transfer" the paint from his studio into his canvases. He was very adept at doing this. I would like to have seen a more of Rothko's paintings in a museum. But if he is not very well-known, it's hard to know where to start. In addition to this, we learn that the hotel in Eisenstadt had an annex, which was also a hotel, and that the annex had the same design of the hotel, but the hotel annex was more of a house, and more than a hotel. In addition to all this, we learn that there was a house, and that the hotel annex had more than a hotel. In fact, we learn that the annex house was also a hotel, which was actually a hotel. I guess you could say that the studio was also a hotel annex, but more than that. But at the end, there is a very funny bit where the film makers try to get Rothko to give a tour of the house, but he said he didn't want to do that. He said he didn't want to go to Eisenstadt. And they had to show him a painting of the hotel, and he said, "Well, I can't go to Eisenstadt." And it turns out that Eisenstadt was a small town in the northern part of the state of Rhode Island. That is a very nice place. The movie is very interesting. It is nice to see the pictures that Rothko painted, and the studio that he worked in, as well as the art in the hotel annex, and the house in Eisenstadt,

I was familiar with Rothko's work, but it has been a long time since I've had a chance to see his work in such depth and complete. I'm glad to have seen it, but it still took me quite some time to actually sit down and watch it. This film contains three stories which I thought were of great quality. The first was a somewhat like the one of "Heroes" but with a little more of a scientific flavour. The second story was a far more symbolic piece, although not as disturbing as the first. The last story was probably my favourite and the one which I thought was the best. The character who was the focus in the first story, Mark Rothko, was rather a complicated person to get a handle on, especially when we find out about his background and how he came to be in this role. I must admit that I was surprised at some of the things I was shown and the way they were presented, but I think it was a very good way of portraying the way Mark Rothko's work was generally dealt with. This film was far more visual than the first, and the way the images were used were as good as they were. It is worth noting that this film contained some very good cinematography, and it was great to see the kind of filming the camera crew did. The city looked very impressive, but what really caught my eye was the kind of techniques the camera used. I particularly liked the way the camera would follow Mark Rothko's body movements as he was moved around the room, as well as the technique in which the camera was used to give the viewer a sense of how it was shot. The one thing I didn't like was that it didn't really focus on the subject that the story was about, rather it was more about a larger number of people in a small room. This is probably a more appropriate film to have been done, and maybe that's why it was such a success. This film contained very good photography and I think it was more to do with the fact that the camera crew had good relationships with the people they were filming, rather than it being a purely 'artsy' story. The photography was very good and I would definitely recommend it to someone who is not familiar with Rothko's work. 8/10

One of the most anticipated art exhibitions of the year, and it is because of the work of Rothko himself. His passion for the painting allows the audience to question their own perceptions of the medium. The exhibition is basically a deconstruction of both Rothko's and his peers and how they have influenced his work and life. The best part is that the exhibition is staged in a pure secluded location. There are no visitors, no broadcast media, no interviews, no commentary, no added material to go along with the exhibition. Each piece is showcased in its original setting. The only visible presence of the viewer is the speaker system - the figure-heads and the portraits of Rothko. The quality of the work is described by the audience as minimalistic, unpretentious and raw. It is difficult to tell whether or not Rothko was the chosen artist, but by the way the exhibition is presented, it is clear that it was not. The gallery also goes into the anatomy of the original paintings and the process of creation. It is amazing to see a piece from a master-painter like Rothko but the scene can be somewhat fragmented as one of the exhibits is very small. The viewer is able to gain insight into Rothko's mind and how he worked in order to create the paintings that he ultimately created. The questions we are asked about Rothko are too numerous and detailed to be covered in one showing. The length of the exhibition is the great limitation in this presentation of an iconic artist of our time. The number of questions we are asked is constantly growing and questions are constantly becoming more personal as one of the exhibits becomes smaller. The answer to every question is the same - no-one has a clue. The art gallery is set in a secluded part of the United States, a very rural part of the United States. The exhibition is well organized and created an atmosphere that is extremely comfortable and relaxing. The photography in the show is extremely strong. The photographs that are in the show do not have any direct relationship to the paintings that they are taken from. We are not presented with an image of the painting in the picture itself, but instead we are presented with the visual representation of the paintings themselves. This concept allows the viewer to feel as if they are immersed in the artist's work. It allows the viewer to become part of the painting. The photography and the presentation are perfect. The exposition of the paintings are the most impressive parts of the show. The paintings are presented in very striking and delicate detail. The paintings themselves are in an extremely beautiful setting and it is amazing to see Rothko's work in the hands of a modern painter. The painting techniques are also very nice and I really enjoyed the exhibition. The collection of Rothko is not very impressive, but it is not that bad. It is impressive in terms of the fact that Rothko is exhibited. The first hour or so is pretty slow. The photography is wonderful, but the pace is slow. There are three main exhibitions in the show and two of the exhibitions are very similar. I was really expecting a lot of information and a lot of questions were never answered. However, as I say, I was not expecting much and I was very surprised at how much more there is to learn from Rothko's work. It is extremely difficult to convey everything that the artist wanted the viewer to learn. Rothko was a genius and he deserved an exhibition that is well organized and well presented. However, he has been ignored by many artists and museums and this is a real shame.

I was surprised that I didn't get much out of this documentary. It is certainly a very interesting and informative look at Mark Rothko's work. It really does go in depth into the details of his work and is very interesting to learn more about his work and what it was like to work with him. The story of how he met and befriended Rothko, the introduction of his work, the difficulties he faced working with Rothko, his background and family. All of this is very interesting. There is a lot of interesting information in this documentary. It is definitely worth watching. 8/10

This is a great film to watch on a Saturday night. The film is about the life and work of Mark Rothko and it is both beautiful and sad. The film is just a short overview of Rothko's life. This film is also a must see for anyone who loves art and art history. If you love art history, you will love this film.

The critics who have expressed the least interest in this documentary are clearly not bothered by the subject matter. I think the reasons are clear: they don't have to deal with art. It is art, after all, that makes their job a bit more difficult, or, as an example, they get tired of the petty grip that the mainstream media exerts over their industry. So the camera is set in a prime location, and the subjects are placed in front of it, or in the background. They seem to be aware of the camera, which is a must, because it is not a very well-made one. But they don't mind this, because it is art, not business. I am not a critic of art, but I consider myself very strongly in favor of it. In any case, art is a good thing. In my opinion, this documentary is excellent and I suggest everyone to see it. It is a story about art. I have a feeling that it will become a story that everyone who is interested in art will be able to follow.

I thought this documentary was interesting and really brought to light some of the frustrations and limitations of the Art Gallery of Victoria's collections. It is not the case that all the artworks are well represented. In fact, I found that about half of the paintings were in the collection that were not included in the film. Also, some of the artworks were so obscure and rarely available that I found it hard to understand them. The film covers the history of the collection, and how it was acquired, including how it was done, how it was used and how it was shown. I found the film to be very informative and useful. I would recommend this film to any museum or art gallery.

A fascinating documentary about the making of Mark Rothko's masterpiece. It tells the story of how he went from a fledgling artist to one of the world's greatest artists. It includes many of his important sketches, paintings, drawings and prints, as well as some of the stories and conversations about the paintings. There is also interviews with several artists, including the artist who painted the one of the final paintings, a young artist from the Netherlands who died shortly after the painting, and a man who worked with the artist on the painting. This is a very interesting documentary, and is definitely a must-see.

I love the paintings, I've been a fan of Rothko since I was a child, and it is a shame that this documentary didn't come out in the mid-1980s, because this is a wonderful documentary. I was a little disappointed that the documentary didn't focus on his paintings, but then I realized that it was not made to be about the paintings. This is a biography of his life and his work, and the film itself is fascinating. This is an excellent film, and it is a great deal of art, so if you want to see a good documentary about Mark Rothko, I would definitely recommend it. It's a wonderful thing to see a person who has been such an important figure in history so much a part of this world. You could have missed something by not having this film, but it is still a great documentary.

Greetings again from the darkness. This documentary is interesting, insightful, and powerful. It also teaches us that there are two distinct ways of looking at art: a subjective one and a subjective one with the objective eye. It teaches us to think objectively, to be objective about art and art history. But I would say that the subjects in this documentary are rather skewed. We get a very limited and biased view of some very powerful and iconic artists. It is only a tiny minority of the very powerful art. To me, this documentary is an outstanding attempt to keep the art world from getting distorted and simplifying art history and the history of art.

When I first heard that Mark Rothko was going to be in an interview on a BBC radio show I knew I had to be there. I have been following the story of Rothko's life for some time now and I wanted to be there to witness how this great artist would talk about his life. The thing that kept me going was that Mark was very personal. He talked about how he lived his life, his art, his problems, his faith, his love, his relationships and most importantly he talked about his pain. I am so glad that this documentary was made and I will definitely buy it when it comes out on DVD. It is so nice to see that the art world can bring out the best in one of their greatest artists.

First of all, I was hesitant to watch this because I did not understand the title, but I had to watch it anyways because I was informed that it was not a documentary but a book. I am glad that I did because this movie was fascinating. The book "Silence of Mark Rothko" is about the photographer who made an "art film" with a fake photograph of the artist in which the artist died. The book is about how the artist's paintings were stolen and put up for sale and how it was discovered that the painting was the real deal. This film also delves into the theft of the paintings from the artist and the theft of his real body. I did not understand the title, but the movie title explains it quite well. This is a very interesting film, if you can put aside your confusion and interest in the subject. It was interesting to learn more about the artist and the art that he made. I found it to be very enlightening and I would recommend it to anyone who is interested in art or photography.

Robert Wilson (Ivan Orkin) is a German film maker. I must say that the documentary is extremely well-made. The story is of interest mainly for the film-maker and the other guests and especially for the camera-wielders. The interview with Professor Ernst de St. Aubyn, Werner von Hippel, Adolf Rudolf and Heinrich Ziereis (who worked with Werner and is a very important architect of the Nazis) are excellent. The background of the "Rothschild Family" is very interesting. I'm always curious to see the fates of such "rags to riches" movies as "Das weiße Band" (1939) and "Le passe d'ailleurs".

I really enjoyed this film. It has an interesting story and a very real documentary style. I think there are some points that need to be brought out more, such as the use of the phrase "blood on their hands", but overall it was a great documentary.

I have recently come across this documentary by the director of the current edition of "The Face of a Nation", Joe Klein, on a few of the works by Mark Rothko. I had not heard of him before this documentary and had heard that he was one of the most sought-after artists of our time. However, I had never heard of him before, and I was intrigued by this documentary. He provides an overview of his early life, and of the influence he had on the art world. He also provides some insights into the power of art, especially the influence of the art world in influencing politics. He also provides a history of the Rothko family, and how their relationship with their father is described in this film. I also found this documentary very informative. It is full of facts about Rothko, and it tells the story of his life and work. If you are a fan of Mark Rothko, you should definitely see this film.

I was fortunate enough to be a part of the screening of this documentary. The presentation of the exhibition is just one of the things I found most interesting. It also captures the experience of the viewer. The film itself is a gem, and was very well done. I am not sure what the point of it is exactly, but I find it fascinating. As someone who has never heard of Mark Rothko, this documentary was very enlightening and it definitely will be one of those films that I look at again and again.

Mark Rothko has a lot of interesting things to say about his work, and that's why it's important to talk about his work in an accessible way. I'm sure that many of the people who've seen this film will have heard about the subject of his work, but this is an excellent introduction to the man, and I think that this is one of the most important documentaries about the artist that I've seen in a long time. It's informative, fascinating, and is very well produced and edited. The film is a "making of" documentary that follows Mark and his wife up until their death, and it shows a lot of footage from his museum. The film is very well edited, and it is quite well done. It's about an hour and a half long, and it doesn't feel that long. I don't think that this film is going to be too controversial, but it's very interesting, and it's worth seeing.

The Sondra Locke show is an excellent documentary that gives an insight into the life and work of Sondra Locke, the painter who, as the title suggests, is a silent painter. Locke was born in London and lived there until she married the father of her children, who died when she was five. In addition, she was also part of the sexual revolution in Britain and so, as she did in painting, remained a woman. She did not talk much about her art until her death, and to this day she is so important that she is often compared to the great painters of the past. As a woman, she was not as famous as her male contemporaries, and even to this day her work is almost unknown outside of Europe. Her artworks are rarely exhibited in museums and she has never received any recognition for them. It is also interesting to see her work being painted in the past two decades. They are some of the most beautiful paintings in the world, but they are not especially popular. This documentary does a good job of showing her paintings in a manner that is interesting and informative. It is well worth seeing.

I am a very big fan of Richard Serra's work. I remember watching his work in my early teens, and having no idea who he was, let alone what his work looked like. His work has always been my favorite. After seeing this film, I have now become a fan of his work. And I feel like I have a better understanding of his work. All of the features in this film are fantastic, and I feel as though this film will be my favorite Serra feature, after watching it. It really is a great film, in all aspects. I'm not a fan of the subject matter, and I wasn't too fond of the color of the film, but all in all, I recommend this film to anyone interested in Serra. It is not the most interesting of subjects, but I felt that it was done really well. I love this film, and I would definitely recommend watching this film. This is one of the better films I have seen recently.

I agree that this documentary is very insightful about the "artistic" aspect of the Rothko's and its significance in art and art history. However, the documentary makes a very important point about the work itself. "Mark Rothko: A Portrait" points out that Rothko's work is "naturally" done on paper, not digital or by computer. When a work is done on paper, it is an incredible task to create something in that medium. I think this is one of the most important points of the documentary. When a work is done digitally, it is an incredible task to create something in that medium. This film is very much geared towards people who have never seen a Rothko, and just don't have the interest in it. I think it is a must-see for Rothko fans.

As an admirer of Mark Rothko's work I have been curious to see the video archive footage of his exhibition at the Miami Art Museum. I am also a film student. The film does a superb job at following the story of Mark's career as an artist and the changes in his artistic and personal life. The film's emphasis on retrospective images of the artist's work helps the viewer understand the artist's artistic work. The documentary is centered on Mark's childhood, where he was unable to write or paint and his interaction with his mother. As he grew older he and his mother became less of an organic entity and his feelings of isolation increased. The film focuses on the artist's earliest paintings and sculptures. Mark was at a critical moment in his life when he realized his ability to create was not adequate to satisfy the needs of his mother and the outside world. The film demonstrates the artist's transformation and personal growth as his artistic work and public persona evolved. The film also illustrates the dedication of the artist to the perfection of his art. The film does a fantastic job in capturing the artist's distinct style. The film also captures Mark's obsession with color and the use of shadows and light. The use of music to create a mood in the film also helps to portray the artist's moods. The documentary also explores the artist's relationship with his wife, which was filled with sadness and bitterness. The film also explores the relationship between the artist and his mother. In the end the film is a testament to the artist's work and the nature of art.

I liked this movie, especially the surreal scenes. The way the scene transitions and the music added a nice element. The music is an important element for this movie. I really love the songs they chose. They helped to make the movie quite unique. I think the movie should have been longer. In my opinion it should have been at least two hours long. I was still a bit disappointed at the end. I think it should have ended with Mark Rothko coming back to the Mona Lisa and the people surrounding him talking about the artist. This way it would have been more memorable. Still, it was a very good movie, and I hope I get the chance to see it again. It was very interesting to see how his paintings were developed.

I really enjoyed this documentary, I've seen it 3 times now, I feel I know a little bit more about the artist, the creation process, and about the fact that Rothko's work was never really appreciated. I like how the documentary looks, I'm not a big fan of documentaries about art, but this one was so interesting, it made me think a little bit about my life, about art, and about my relationship with art. I think I need to get more into the subject matter, I'm not quite sure I'm ready for that yet, but the way it was filmed made it very interesting, I liked the way they talked about the process of creating the painting, it was really fascinating. I also liked how they went into the history of the painting, it was interesting, I'm not sure I understand the whole thing about the painter, but I think the film makes it very clear. It made me really like the art world, I like the fact that this is one of those documentaries that are very well made, it really shows the art world, and how amazing it is. I would recommend this to anyone, I would recommend it to anyone who is interested in art, and is interested in the history of the artist, I'm not sure what else to say about it, but I really enjoyed it.

I had some information about Mark Rothko but, not knowing anything about the man, how can I describe him to the people who need to know this? This documentary is really fascinating and very informative. In addition to the information given about the man and his artworks, it tells us about his life and some interesting facts about the men who worked with him. I think the best part of this documentary is the interviews with people who were his friends and other artists and people involved in the things that he created. It seems that the documentary does not have any bad guys and there are no major attacks. He simply had to deal with what he had to do, but the truth is that he did that and he was not in charge. I thought that it was a very interesting documentary. I would recommend it to anyone who is interested in Mark Rothko.

I went into this film expecting it to be a stereotypical, dull documentary about an artist who did an insane, voracious, seemingly-uncontrollable behavior that he would supposedly never have done. The premise was pretty dull, the narration pretty dull, the film was a long time ago, and the conclusion was so lame. But the reality of the situation is that he is suffering a mental breakdown, and his treatment is successful in the long run. But I liked the film a lot more than the usual documentary about an artist who is a total genius and the story behind his madness. I recommend this film for its realness and accuracy to the situation.

Graphic masterpieces by Jan-Willem Dafoe are a dime a dozen, and all the more striking when you realize that he has to work with an over-used cast and script. Dafoe manages to give the viewer a glimpse of how he went about creating these works, with a lot of footage of the production process, as well as interviews with those involved in the film. However, the footage isn't very interesting, and the interviewers seem to be more interested in the style of the work than the content. They have some great stories to tell about the process, but the tone and flow of the film feels more like a documentary than a documentary.

A documentary about the Mark Rothko work "Autumn." The viewer is taken through the museum and shows the work, in a rather nostalgic fashion. I liked the way the museum and the process of the work were shown. You feel that it's not a documentary. It's an art piece that has been done, which makes it seem like a true reflection of Mark Rothko's life and works. The documentary did a good job of explaining the historical background of the piece, but didn't really go into the technical aspects of the piece. The documentary does a good job of explaining the use of color, and how the colors of the painting have been used in the film. It was a good documentary that is worth watching, if you like the work of Mark Rothko.

Mortician/artist Mark Rothko is perhaps one of the most loved artists of all time, and is now also one of the most controversial artists. He was a great artist whose work is still inspiring people all over the world. This documentary tells his life story and the controversies that surrounded his life. It's a very important documentary and very important to have for any art fan. I personally thought it was very impressive and very informative. The documentary was quite heavy on details, but there are also a lot of shorter sections and a lot of closeups that give you more time to see the work of Rothko in his life. The documentary does get a little confusing, so I recommend getting an extra set of books. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but there are a few chapters that are in black and white that I think would be good to see and read. The documentary really helps to tell his life story, but the interview with the children of his wife were really quite interesting. It's not really my favorite Rothko documentary, but it's good enough. It's a good documentary, but I wouldn't say it's great.

In the old days the news of Mark Rothko's death was met with a sense of dread. The art that his inks and gouache make is so beautiful and unique that it cannot be reproduced, and that his death should be mourned. But I am happy to say that there is a new documentary on this subject, "Silence of Mark Rothko", and it is wonderful. What is it about Mark Rothko and his work? It's obvious that the subject is important to him, but his life was also full of great achievements. He was also an extraordinary artist and painter, and the film shows his self-portrait in a way that is mesmerizing. In a way it also reminds me of the work of J. M.W. Turner. They were both artists of small stature, but they made an extraordinary work that was received with great respect. The documentary also reveals the brilliant German director Vittorio Storaro, who made a documentary about Rothko's "The death of Christ" and it was an extraordinary experience. It is true that Rothko's "The death of Christ" was a masterpiece and was a masterpiece at the time of its release, but it was not only a masterpiece but was an inspiring work of art in its own right. The documentary shows him, and a group of famous friends, discussing the film, talking about it, and giving it its final and thought provoking moments. But it's also clear that Rothko loved his work. He loved the work, and he loved the people who worked with him. There is an amazing film on his life. It is a very good documentary. It makes you think about the importance of the work that he did, and it makes you wonder about the importance of a life of a man who had such a unique life. The film is made with great skill, and it makes you want to know more about Mark Rothko's life and art. "Silence of Mark Rothko" is a wonderful documentary, and I highly recommend it to anyone.

I was expecting a really great documentary about Mark Rothko and his work and the people who loved him. What I got was a really nice, heartfelt, and very informative documentary about the man and the work that he did. The subject matter was quite different from what I expected, and the results were quite good. While the documentary did make me feel for the subject, it also made me feel very good about Mark's work and the people who loved him. The best part of the documentary was when the director, Mike and Joan, were talking about the paintings they had, and how much they loved them. It was so inspiring to hear that they had a personal connection with the paintings and it was the reason they loved them. The documentary also made me feel for Mark's family and friends, especially his sister, who lived to see Mark's death. There were so many things that I really appreciated about the documentary. It was nice to see his sister and brother-in-law talk about the paintings, his mother talk about the paintings, and his father talk about the paintings. I also appreciated the fact that they didn't just focus on the paintings, but they also talked about Mark's other works, such as his drawings, and the way he worked with his hands. The documentary really helped me appreciate Mark Rothko and his work. I'm really looking forward to more documentaries about the painter.

This is a fascinating film. It looks at the relationship between the painter and his wife, as well as the relationship between the painter and his father. It is very well shot and for the most part, well put together. This film is in many ways the same as the documentary "Journey Into the Heart of Abstract Painting", but in this case it is more like the documentary. It shows how the painter makes his life into a canvas of canvas. It explores the painter's philosophy about art and life. It focuses on what the artist wants and how he wants it to be done. The documentary is very well done. It is thought provoking and sometimes disturbing. The film does not ignore the artist's personal life. It is just that it does not focus on it. This is just a different look at art. It is interesting to see how much the artist has influenced the world. He has created over a hundred paintings, which have been copied in some other countries and in some other museums and even in his own home. It is interesting to see how much of the paintings he has made influenced others. This is an interesting film. It is very well done, but a little bit less drama than the documentary.

The recent interest in the artworks of Mark Rothko, while understandable, is a bit excessive. For the most part, there is a good amount of information, interviews and discussion about the work. The work is presented in a very warm, compassionate and artistic way. For those who are interested in Rothko, this film is a must see.

What I enjoyed about this movie is the stories that were featured. The portrayal of Rothko's life was quite gripping and actually inspired me to go to Rothko's website. As always, all the stories were told very well and are worth seeing. However, the two that really struck me was the actual paintings of Rothko that were presented and the ones on his shelves. I got to see the actual paintings for the first time, and was totally stunned! Each painting, which I am told is as close to the actual paintings as possible, was a truly remarkable piece. From a technical perspective, there was no noticeable alteration in the painting itself that would take away from the essence of what the artist was trying to accomplish. The pictures looked fresh and stunning. The scenes of the apartments, streets, streets, shopping areas, and restaurants were absolutely spectacular. The movies presentation was also fantastic and the movie was beautifully made. At the end of the movie I did feel sad, but I could not tell what the reason was. It was not a sense of anger or sadness that I felt but more of a sense of serenity and light. I do not wish to give too much away because it is really a very good movie and I highly recommend it. I also would like to suggest to the viewer to not be put off by the fact that the movie does not explain everything that he or she wanted to know.

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.

This is a wonderful movie. I'm not sure if the title was intentionally chosen or not. It's just that I didn't see a film named The Silence of Mark Rothko. My question is, why the title? It doesn't tell you anything about the film. But it's a very nice movie to watch. It's pretty well done. But, there's a lot of personal details in the movie that don't make any sense at all. First, if you know the story of Mark Rothko, you'll know that he was very interested in getting his paintings to the public. But, I'm not sure if the name of the museum where he lived and worked in New York, and the date on the photo that he had, are correct. As far as I know, Mark Rothko was living in the East Village in the late 1930's or early 1940's. If you're going to show a film about his life, make sure to show the real stories of his life. The film is very informative and it's a great film. If you're interested in his life, go to the library or look it up on Wikipedia.

I like the documentary about the Mark Rothko painting. I like the interviews with the artists and with the curator of the museum. I like the strong narrative. I like the way that the director captured the way that the art works in the museum. The way that the documentary is shot, the way that the director filmed the museum is brilliant. The director also really captured the way that the museum works. I think that the director made a great job, a documentary that I really liked. The director also made a great documentary about the way the museum works. I recommend this documentary to all of you.

This is a fascinating and well made documentary, with some fascinating interviews, about the life and work of painter Mark Rothko. But there are some problems with it, as you might expect. Firstly, there is a strong emphasis on Rothko's early life in France, and in particular on his love affair with Georges Braque. That is a bit of a stretch, as he was already a talented painter when he met Braque. It would have been interesting to see the relationship between Rothko and Braque develop, before Braque left him, and how the painting of the house in which they stayed developed. Also, Braque's influence is too much overrated. It would have been interesting to hear more about his work and his personal life. We hear a lot about the conflict between his "philosophy" and his painting, but we don't see much about the conflicts between him and his wife, and his close friends. As the film is a bit of a curio, I think it is fair to have a bit of historical bias, but it is not a film that really needs it. The interviews are also quite good, as they discuss a lot of important issues in Rothko's life, such as his philosophy of life, the lack of art in the west, the realisation of his talent, and the effect of his work on his wife and his friends. There is a good, well-executed soundtrack, and a good amount of photographs of the artists in the studio. And of course, the film is a good idea, if you don't mind the flaws.

I think the title is perfect for this documentary, and you get to see the two artists at work, with some shots of Rothko's most famous work. Although I don't think Rothko's work is in the same category as what we see in the documentary, there is still a great deal of respect between the two men, and as a result I found this a very entertaining and informative piece of work.

The documentary starts with the return of Mark Rothko to New York in 1983 to see the amazing and priceless work that he did on the unfinished paintings that have been his signature. The film follows him as he relates his story to the rest of the world. The documentary is very interesting and entertaining. It is a very different approach to telling the story of a painter, but it is still an interesting one. I think the filmmakers did a good job with the documentary. Overall, the documentary is an interesting one, and I recommend it.

This was a wonderful documentary about the life and work of David Turek. David had a tremendous influence on the film industry in the 1970's and is recognized as one of the most prolific and accomplished photographers of the 20th century. He's had a large impact on art photography and is considered to be one of the greatest modern artists. His images, of the simple, natural, intimate, and powerful, were often the subject of great speculation. The documentary also touches on David's work for other organizations such as LIFE Magazine. The personal anecdotes from his childhood and the result of his life's work were remarkable. I thoroughly enjoyed the use of the Beatles' music in the film. The documentary itself is a masterpiece of the history of art photography, and I recommend it to anyone interested in art photography. Definitely one of the best documentaries I've seen. 9/10

The John Galt project: The two most famous paintings by an unknown painter, the "Woman in the Car", and the "Sands of Iwo Jima", will be on display at the Smithsonian National Museum of American History in Washington DC from the end of August, 2007 to the end of October, 2007. The paintings will be up for view until April 2008. The paintings are the subject of an exhibition entitled "The Silence of Mark Rothko". Although I have never heard of Rothko before, I decided to watch this film. What struck me is that the interviewees are the two most famous paintings by the painter in his lifetime. I found this interesting because Rothko was a prolific artist and had many works. The interviewees are: Walter Jenkins, Deborah Johnson, James Winbush, and William Cullen Bryant. The film is well-made. It is very informative and interesting. I liked the interviewees and their views of Rothko. They gave us a good understanding of what he was trying to communicate with the painting. I was surprised to find out that this documentary was shot in 4 different countries. I think the shooting was done well. The film will be shown in Washington DC from August 5th to August 8th. The museum will be showing the paintings. They are very well-presented and very interesting. I recommend the film.

I've seen Mark Rothko's Silent as well as his other works. The fact that he has suffered the most torment is because he is not a major painter but a "relatively modest" one, and because of the negativity that the art world is currently facing. This documentary was fascinating, a combination of history, interviews, and stunning photographs. In my opinion, this is the best documentary I have ever seen about a subject that has yet to receive enough attention.

The book and movie are the same. The movie doesn't do it justice. One of the best parts of the book was not mentioned in the movie. It was basically just about the book and some of the things that happened to Mark in the book. I would say the movie was good, but not as good as the book.

Mentioning Meryl Streep's Oscar-winning performance in "Fame", I feel that I have to mention this film because it was made in 1999 and, unlike "Fame", it was actually done by one of the major film studios. The name of the film is "The Silence of Mark Rothko". I would have loved to have seen the film about Mark Rothko's artwork, but, unfortunately, it's not possible to see his artwork, at least not in the movie format, because it would have been a pain to go and see the film and watch the artwork, even if it was in a video format. The movie was filmed at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. I was impressed that it had a documentary style with the interviews and the interviews with the art experts. I thought that the interviewer, Sharon Dano, was great, and, in my opinion, that she made the film interesting because she was interviewing several people who had seen the paintings and that's what she wanted to see. I thought that this documentary style was very good, and, in my opinion, this movie is a good way to see Mark Rothko's paintings. I would recommend this film to anyone who is interested in Mark Rothko's artwork, because it is a good film to see. It's not perfect, but it's a good film. It's definitely worth seeing. I would give it an 8/10.

This film gave me a unique perspective on the visual representation of painting by Rothko. I also got a glimpse of the artist's technique and how he created this art. A truly beautiful film.

Mark Rothko died at the age of 54, many years before the 1991 release of the exhibition, "The Silence of Mark Rothko: Uncovering the Secrets of a Master of Modernism." I was interested to find out what his archive consisted of, and he did an excellent job with that archive. I understand that most of it is in France and Germany. I am also familiar with his (one of his) pieces in paintings that were to be exhibited at the first Guggenheim retrospective of his, but that is too bad, because I would love to see a lot more of them in the show. I am so glad that the museum held this exhibition. I had read about this exhibition and also heard it mentioned on the "Simon & Garfunkel" website, but I was not expecting this show. I hope that more museums start to show it.

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.

I was lucky enough to attend the New York premiere of the new documentary, "The Silence of Mark Rothko". It is a fascinating and well-told story about a brilliant artist who was ignored by the art world and the gallery world, while his art was in high demand. The film is a powerful and profound look into the life of one of the most important artists of the 20th century. It is well-made, and is truly well-made. The visuals are stunning, and the performances are great. This film is absolutely the most powerful film I have ever seen. I recommend this film highly.

My wife and I found the Silent Mark Rothko exhibition at the Museum of Modern Art very interesting. It was very long and had a very large gallery. But it was still interesting. The film has lots of nice photography of Rothko's work and interviews with his family and friends. The film is very entertaining and definitely worth seeing.

I was really impressed by the film and really want to see it again! It has a lot of great information and features several interviews with people who have worked with the master! It's quite informative, and it's quite amusing to see the real Mark Rothko actually talk about the work he's done on the movie and his relationship with it. It's also a little bit sad, and it makes you appreciate the many other great artworks that he was able to help to create. It's a bit like a companion piece to the movie itself, with much of the same information, and a few more interviews. The interviews are mostly from people who have worked on the film, but they are all excellent. The amazing thing is that it shows that even when they don't have much of a formal relationship with Rothko, he has a kind of devotion to the work, and he has a great rapport with the people that helped him create his masterpieces. The comments and interviews are very interesting, and I was very happy to see it, and I can't wait to see it again! I would definitely recommend this movie to anyone, and I believe that it's a must see for anyone who loves art and how it was created. It also talks about a lot of the other important aspects of Rothko's work that are often overlooked, including the artist's various religious beliefs, his long relationship with his mother, and his relationship with his wife, who he divorced when he was much older. It's really a great movie!

With a topic as far-reaching as art, it is a shame that there is not more coverage of Mark Rothko and his life and work. The movie briefly looks at his work on film as well as the interview of his wife and other people who knew him. It is a well-made movie with a few plot holes that does not detract from the overall enjoyment of it.

What an excellent documentary about the famous painting of a woman in a crucifixion scene in the masterpiece The Sorrow of Young Werther. I have never seen a better documentary about the work than this one, and the two leading characters are great! The film really goes deep into the history of the work, and you really learn about the inner emotions of its creator, and you also get to see the whole work of art before it was finished. There are so many great things here, it's almost overwhelming, but it's well worth seeing. The most amazing thing is how much this film reveals about the man who painted the work and what he went through. You see him as a young man, when he was just a child, and you see him as a young man, as an adult, and you see him as an old man, when he died. You see the evolution of his painting as he grew older and as his death grew closer. You see his frustration and anger at the church as he was being forced to renounce the painting, and you see the suffering that the painting has caused him. You see him grow old, and you see him grow up, and you see him regret the painting, and you see him fall in love with a woman. The film is very moving and you can see the pain and frustration and sadness that the artist felt as he was forced to renounce his work, and you can see his frustration and anger at the church when he was being forced to renounce his work. I would highly recommend this film.

The film this review is based on was made by George Abrams of The New Yorker. The film was featured in The New Yorker issue #223 on June 29th, 1988. The first part of the film can be found at the top of this review, and then follow the interviews by George. That said, the film is a good one for a documentary style. The interviews from George are quite interesting as well as they give some history information about the painting itself. While there is not a lot of depth about the painting itself, there is a lot of information and story about the painter. One of the documentaries we have the most to learn about is the Rothko Institute. It seems that a lot of people love the painting, and it is a huge effort to save the painting. The museum doesn't have an eye for the painting, and has to constantly fight for funds, trying to get a new window. It is a really depressing documentary. Also, The director talked about the Museum in a lot of interviews, and when he was asked to comment on the movie, he replied, "I think it was a wonderful film" and this is the first thing I think he should have said.

I am just a fan of Rothko's work and I feel the subject matter is very important to the art world and in particular to the art world of film. The film itself is also very well-made. However, I felt the introduction of the film and its script left me with no doubt that it was a Rothko-centric film and it just did not feel like a documentary. It felt like a short documentary on the subject matter. Also, I feel the film was just too short. I felt the film could have easily been 3 1/2 hours long. I feel the only reason the film was made was because Rothko wanted to be interviewed and he wanted to get his "feel good" movie out. However, I am glad he did not have to be interviewed. I feel the film is a good documentary on a very important topic and I would have liked it to be longer. However, I would recommend the film to anyone who has an interest in the subject matter.

A film that is very rarely done. It is wonderful to see the photographer talk about how he created his images, showing us his process. One can only imagine what the hell Mark Rothko must have been going through in his last years. One has to respect him for what he did and also for his pain and loneliness.

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.

I'm a big fan of Rothko, but I never thought he was the most talented artist. However, in this documentary I learned that he is one of the best. He had a way of writing his paintings that was very unique and different. I was amazed to see how he created his paintings and how he painted the last one, the Woman in the Sculpture. I was amazed to see how he was able to create such emotion in his paintings, especially the paintings of a painting of a woman who is laughing. He was very artistic and was able to capture the mood of a painting. This documentary was very good because it was not just about him, but it was also about his students, who had studied with him. In addition, it was very interesting to hear about the history of his work. It was interesting to see his assistants and his student. It was interesting to hear about his inspiration, because I think his inspiration was always there. I would definitely recommend this documentary to anyone who wants to learn more about his work.

While not a "must see", this is a good documentary about one of the most famous paintings in the world. It is also one of the most talked about. Rothko is on the screen a lot more than we are led to believe. The story of a man who became famous and then died, is fascinating and the visuals of the paintings and the person who created them is very well done. It is also fascinating to learn of how difficult it was to create his paintings, and the fact that he was also very creative and creative when he was dying. I was surprised by the high number of comments and the number of people who liked this documentary. I didn't see many people say that it was a waste of time, but that isn't really a surprise. I would have liked to have seen more commentary from the artist himself, but I guess they just didn't have the time.

This is an excellent documentary about an artist who is having a hard time in the world of the world of art. I like this one because it is a short documentary that is a documentary of the artist. It is really informative, so you don't have to think about how to read it. The film is directed by Jerry Wexler, a documentary producer who also wrote the script for the film. It is a very good documentary about a person and the work of a person and a painting that is very well written and you can really tell that they are having a hard time in the world of art. I also liked it because it is directed by someone who is very artistic and very good at making documentaries, like Howard Cosell, it is also a documentary about Cosell. It is a documentary that a lot of people would like because it is very good. I would like to see it again because it is really good, because of the documentary and because of the writing. If you like documentary, then you would like this one.

Saw "Silence of Mark Rothko" on PBS. I could not believe this wonderful movie was not aired on TV. The man is one of the most important artists in history. It's really hard to watch movies like these. Watching this film in slow motion is a little boring but a movie must be a kind of art form for me to really enjoy it. The movies are showing how he kept himself so well hidden and the complete control that he had over the art of his work. He managed to fit everything into a perfect shape. The film starts with a little bit of the man's life. He was a secret painter who built a space craft to go out and create his work. He was extremely secretive about his work and kept secrets. One day he thought it would be interesting to visit his mother. When he got to her house she had just left for the day. He didn't really know how to get her to open the door. This was all in a day's work. He had no idea how to open the door. He was amazed at what she had been through and how she had just left. He realized his work is not done. He had forgotten to make a stencil and the only thing he had left was a few tiny shapes. He did not know how to use a spray can. He had no idea how to sew. He learned a couple things and kept them secret. The film also tells the story of the man's childhood and how he got started as a child. He grew up in a very poor environment and in his early years had to help with his mother's household. He learned a lot from his father and father in particular. The film is also told by several children who worked with the painter. I think it's an amazing movie. It was very interesting. It was good to see how the great artist from Prague was able to achieve such amazing art. I hope it gets made into a full length movie.

The Silence of Mark Rothko is an excellent documentary that should be viewed by anyone who is interested in Rothko's work. I loved the inclusion of the film clip of Rothko's paintings which show his most popular pieces, from his oil paintings, to his acrylics, to his watercolors, and his prints. The clips of the works in their natural form was very interesting to watch, and I was able to quickly pick up on the differences between the various paintings. While some of the clips had static and unintelligible audio, the rest of the film was very good, and I was able to pick up on the most important aspects of the paintings. I also liked the fact that the film only focused on Rothko's works that were already in the public domain. The film did a good job of getting us into the work of Rothko, but was not too much in-depth about his life. I think the film would have been a better documentary if it focused on Rothko's work that is not in the public domain. Overall, I thought the film was good, but could have been better.

I have to admit I was pleasantly surprised by this documentary. It had some truly amazing footage of Rothko's work. I was not expecting much, but was pleasantly surprised at how much I enjoyed it. It was a little slow at times, but was nevertheless interesting. I would say it was more of a documentary than a documentary, because it was primarily a collection of interviews, but I did like the inclusion of some of Rothko's friends and colleagues, who were also interviewed. Overall, I thought the film was an interesting look at Rothko and the life of his work. The performances were amazing, especially by the two actors who played the Rothko children, and I really enjoyed seeing the interview with Mark Rothko himself. I think this is a must see for anyone who loves Rothko, or Rothko's work. This is a documentary that I would recommend to anyone, but not necessarily for the art community. It's very much in the realm of art criticism, and I think this documentary will make for a great discussion piece. This is definitely worth seeing.

This is a wonderful, fascinating, and entertaining look at one of the most influential artists of the 20th century. It's not a documentary, but a series of interviews with a variety of his contemporaries and friends, and the video footage they've gathered over the years. And it's beautifully shot, with the color of the photography and the sound effects very striking, especially in the scenes in the 1950s. There's an interesting discussion on his painting, and his influence on the modern art world. It's a fascinating look at an artist who was a huge influence on artists and art history, but also a modernist in his own right, and an artist who was able to capture the essence of a painting in every frame. It's a great film, but not a documentary, and it's a shame that it wasn't made a little longer. It would have been interesting to hear from more of the people involved in the project, and to hear what they thought about Mark Rothko's influence on modern art. It would also be interesting to hear the opinions of the people interviewed, since the subject of the film is so controversial.

This documentary was a wonderful surprise for me. I'm not a fan of Mr. Rothko and never have been. However, this documentary made me want to see the paintings more closely and to get to know more about the artist. I saw that the filmmaker was very knowledgeable about the subject and told the story well. I believe that Mr. Rothko is an amazing artist, and I hope that the documentary will help the public understand the complexities of his works and why he is a great artist.

This is a very interesting film about the exhibition of works by American painter Mark Rothko. It tells about the exhibition and some of the reasons why it happened, including the fact that Rothko wanted to honor his late mother. It also tells about some of the reactions to the exhibition and the issues it raises. The film is well made, and the story is pretty well told, although there is not much to it. The narration is also very good, and it helps in giving you the information you need. The film ends with a short commentary from one of the artists and an interview with Rothko's friend. The film has a pretty strong cast, but I think that it is best to see this film for the main cast, because it does not have that much information about them. The documentary is interesting, but does not do a great job at explaining the exhibition and how it was managed. Overall, this is a good documentary, but it does not offer a great deal of information. This is a film that is worth seeing, but it does not offer much information.

A fascinating look at one of the most significant artists in the twentieth century. A look at his life and work, plus the men who painted his works. It's well worth your time, and I've been looking for a nice documentary to watch for awhile. This film is that!

When I first heard that a new documentary was being made on Rothko's early work I was hesitant about the project, as I felt that it would be a very superficial look at his work. However, I had just gotten the opportunity to see the film for the first time and I was very impressed. After viewing it, I can now say that I feel the same way. The film is a wealth of fascinating information about Rothko's work, including many behind-the-scenes clips and interviews. It tells the story of his early career, including his birth, life as a painter, early struggles with epilepsy and his early death. It also covers his friendship with some of the most famous artists of their time, including his friend Vincent Van Gogh, and the artist he admired most, Caravaggio. Along the way, the film also focuses on his personal relationships, including his wife Charlotte Gainsbourg and the artists he befriended. In my opinion, this is one of the best documentaries I have ever seen, and definitely the best documentary I have ever seen about the man who was his hero.

I really liked this documentary, especially for its insights into the work of Rothko. We see how his early painting experiments failed and how his art later became great. We learn how he acquired a reputation as a gifted painter. But it's also fascinating to see how he dealt with being a slave and how he dealt with being the black man in his family. It also shows how his paintings have become larger than life. This is a documentary that will be essential to anyone interested in Rothko's work. I was very impressed by the way Rothko is described and what he has accomplished. I felt a lot of tension as we watched him work. I liked the way the camera showed what he saw, but I think he also had a lot of inner peace. He said that what he saw was so intense, he could hardly breathe. I think he was very aware of the tension between art and life. We also see how he got his money. This was a fascinating documentary.

Eleanor's painted murals are some of the best pieces of art in the world. So it was a bit of a surprise when one of her paintings was stolen. This film tells the story of the theft of the paintings and how it led to a riot that sent some of the world's greatest artists to jail for years. Eleanor explains the backstory of the paintings and how they came to be stolen. This is a must see documentary. Eleanor also has a unique voice that tells the story of her paintings. Her paintings are the most talked about art in the world. I recommend this film to anyone. I am now a fan of Eleanor. I will never forget how she painted my favorite painting.

In this movie, I was very much enjoying the film. I have watched it so many times and I find it amazing that it didn't ruin my day, it made me forget about other things. It has a lot of new images that were hard to comprehend. It is very realistic and that's what I love about this film. It has a very original story, and that's what makes it so incredible.