Copyright by Laura Mareike Sager 2006 - The University of Texas at ...

In presenting Goya as ignorant of and indifferent to his aesthetic
achievement, the film implicitly contrasts artistic intention and public reception,
foregoing Goya’s search for artistic truth and expression. In the novel, by
contrast, Goya verbalizes here for the first time the scope and significance of his
formal discovery which implies not only a new expression for portraiture, but a
whole new world view; one that acknowledges the presence of the demonic in
every day life. Moreover, in the novel this portrait continues to haunt the art
connoisseur Don Miguel Bermúdez, an adamant advocate of the neo-classical
style of French painters such as Jacques Louis David, until he has to admit Goya’s
truth in spite of himself (Goya 204-5). In the film this portrait has no such impact
on anyone but Agustin Esteve, whose ekphrasis is thus almost discredited by the
lack of further support. The reduced frequency of ekphrases in the film, then, also
affects them qualitatively.
However, various paintings are represented in tableaux vivants or longer
dramatizations in the film, thereby showing visually what the novel tells verbally.
Often, these dramatic ekphrases partly portray Goya’s point of view, however,
they are generally coupled with interpretive ekphrases that stress the works’
public reception and socio-political significance. For example, when Goya paints
the royal family in his Familia de Carlos IV, the viewer sees the painting as a
tableaux vivant as they are posing. After Goya has stared at his sitters for a long
time (during which we see partly what he sees, but mostly him looking), the scene
jump cuts to Goya’s studio, showing in close-up a sketch of Maria Luisa’s head,
while Goya’s literary friend Jovellanos criticizes the majesties for their misuse of
134