Movie Analysis of Art Disaster

1. Which part of the movie do you find disturbing?

Mr. Bean has always been a one odd type of man. He is weird, immature, clumsy, chaotic,

and of the same connotations. Growing up, I always found myself laughing out loud at one

corner because of him. Before, I would always laugh at how hilarious, clumsy, and chaotic he

was as a person. But now that I have grown up and developed a sense of great appreciation for

art, I find his clumsiness and barbarous acts toward the artwork very disturbing and disrespectful.

I fully understand that the main purpose of the movie was to make people laugh at the situation

and of Mr. Bean’s foolishness. I also knew for a fact that Mr. Bean is just a characterization of

children whose bodies age too fast. However, for some reasons, I was not pleased with his

clumsiness over the painting at all. I should be laughing at how hilarious he was with the

painting, but I was only pissed off by what he did. I am so frustrated with how he ruined the

artwork. He could have distanced himself before he sneezed or, better yet, stood away from the

artwork. To me, I find it disturbing because if it was in real life, I would totally lose my mind.

Not only that it was a beautiful painting, but also because it is the America's most iconic

painting. But even if that was an ordinary painting that has significantly low value, my reaction

would still be the same. Because after all, that is a work of art. It has a great amount of value to

the painter and those who appreciate it. I believe that every artwork, regardless of its aesthetic

value or monetary value, should be taken with great care.

interpretation of Bean be accounted for as a valid/acceptable interpretation for the

painting, "Whistler's Mother"?

Essentially, we all have different ways of defining the quality and the value of artworks.

For most experts—and some of us—they determine them through its aesthetics, skills used,

inherent meanings, uniqueness, and purpose. Normally, Mr. Bean’s interpretation of the

Whistler’s Mother painting would be acceptable. However, perhaps just like the others, I would

like to argue that it is not. What Mr. Bean did to the painting was a total chaos and unforgivable.

The quality was ruined; the aesthetic and monetary value was ruined; everything about it was

ruined. Not only that he drew a childish-looking face to replace the face, but he also wiped off

the original paint from the painting. If it was Mr. Bean’s original artwork, I would understand

what he did and I would really appreciate its value, knowing that he is a special child. But since

it was not his artwork, I only find it as a total disaster and unforgivable.

3. The General, and others are not aware that the original painting was replaced by a

replica, do you consider that the so-called “value” of the said masterpiece (“obra

maestra”) is affected due to ignorance of the real state of the painting?

The value of the masterpiece was already affected the moment that Mr. Bean ruined it.

However, given that the General and the public were not aware about the painting being replaced

by a replica, its value remained the same for them. It was only Mr. Bean and his colleague,

David, who knows about the real state of the painting. Hence, the value of the now ruined

original painting of Whistler’s Mother decreased only to the eyes of Mr. Bean and David. No one
knows, aside from them, that the painting was ruined and replaced by a replica. If people were to

know about it, the way they view the painting will be different as well. This situation can

actually be seen in our real lifetime. We do not know if the paintings or the artifacts that we see

inside the museums are the actual pieces they have recovered. We do not know which of them

are real and replicas. We only believe that those are the actual pieces they are exhibiting because

that is what they said and most of us do not really know what and how the original pieces look

like. And because of that, the value does not change for us even if we are being fooled into

believing that the one we are seeing is the original and not a replica.

4. From the perspective of the altered or destroyed original painting, did its value

diminished or gone?

Definitely, the value of the original painting of the Whistler’s Mother in the eyes of Mr.

Bean and David decreased. Not only that its monetary value was ruined, but as well as its

aesthetic value. This was the reason why Mr. Bean panicked when he ruined the painting with his

handkerchief covered by blue ink. He knows that he is screwed if other people discover what he

had done with the painting. Hence, he was so desperate to restore the painting. Notice how his

colleague, David, on the other hand, initially reacted when he also saw the state of the Whistler’s

Mother painting. He was horrified the moment he saw what Mr. Bean had done with the

painting. He started to think and be afraid of his job and his life; being fired, being sued, and

being ruined forever because of what Mr. Bean did. That only implies how valuable the painting

was. It has so much aesthetic and monetary value to the point that once people find out that the

masterpiece was ruined, both David’s and Mr. Bean’s lives will be ruined as well.
 5. What message did you get from the movie as an art critique?

As an art critique, there are two primary messages I can surmise from this movie: One,

always be weary about ourselves when visiting art galleries or museums; Two, always take every

art piece, especially the famous ones, with a grain of salt and give them the benefit of the doubt.

When we visit different art galleries and museums, we cannot really stop ourselves from getting

all excited about the artworks that we interact with. However, as a visitor and an audience of the

artworks, it is our primary duty to be careful of our actions, especially if we are very near to the

art piece. It is important that we do not end up being in the same situation as Mr. Bean. Because

realistically speaking, we cannot afford to restore an artwork within the museum if we happen to

ruin it. Officers will keep you right away and will have you face the consequences for it. That is

why we should always remember that when we visit art galleries and museums, we are there to

appreciate the artworks—not to ruin them.

Secondly, when we visit art galleries and museums, we cannot really stop ourselves from

getting amused by the artworks that we see, especially if they have a great historical and

aesthetic value. However, as what the movie of Mr. Bean implies, we should be critical of what

and how we see artworks, especially if we are interested in purchasing it. In some instances,

museums do not exhibit the authentic piece of an art for some reasons. Sometimes, they do that

because the art is disintegrating or at great risk. Hence, they exhibit the replica version. Although

it is not much of a big deal for us visitors when museums do that since it is for the sake of the art

piece. It only comes vital if somebody offers us to purchase an artwork, especially if it is a

famous one. It is important that we are critical enough to determine the authenticity of the

artwork before purchasing it. I understand that the way we value artworks varies, but imagine
being fooled into believing that what you are seeing or what you have acquired is the original

ones, when it is actually a replica.