To quote Tracy Chevalier, the originator of this pseudo-historical rubbish, "Girl with a Pearl Earring is a story about a painting and how it came into being". However, 'Girl with a Pearl Earring' is not a story about "a painting" as she put it; it is the title of a famous masterpiece that has been admired for over three centuries; the exquisite work of Dutch master Johannes Vermeer. <br /><br />Unfortunately, the title "Girl with a Pearl Earring" was appropriated by Chevalier to serve as the title of what would have been, if not for the co-opted allure of the famed artist and his well known masterpiece, considered a run of the mill, garden variety historical romance; certainly nothing special. As many art historians fear, the transference of Chevalier's fabrication to the silver screen is sure to create misconceptions about the Vermeer legacy in the minds of those who are limited to the confines of contemporary awareness, that is, most of the population. <br /><br />Chevalier apparently gained an edge in the writer's market by exploiting the fame and creative efforts of an artist who has long been dead and is therefore unable to defend himself or the members of his family against the negative characterizations concocted by this mediocre novelist. Director Peter Webber was quoted as saying, "Girl with a Pearl Earring was really inspired by the painting of the same name". Inspired? Doesn't he mean that the "painting of the same name" was practically stolen and painted over for posterity with Chevalier's 21st century glitter glue? The fact that Chevalier and others have made a killing by irresponsibly trashing the memory of Vermeer and the members of his family to create an erotically suggestive tale says a lot about our culture. All marketing and no integrity.<br /><br />What did the Vermeer's family ever do to Chevalier to merit such post-mortem character assassination? They were merely related to the famous artist. One wonders how Chevalier would feel if she were likewise negatively depicted by some stranger after her death. Because the Vermeers were real persons who lived at one time, it is wrong to villify them in fiction three centuries later. The central characters in Chevalier's novel are not,as Chevalier suggests, merely spun from scant memories of persons who were known to have lived at one time. Chevalier contradicts or ignores the known facts of Vermeer's life. By all accounts, his marriage to Catherina who he did in fact paint several times (in contrast to what is suggested in Chevalier's storyline that he never painted her because she did not understand or appreciate his work)was a happy marriage. By the way, the Vermeer's had only the one maid, Tanneke, whom Vermeer also used as a model for some of his work.<br /><br />Chevalier defamed Vermeer's wife and family by crafting very unflattering and rather unimaginative character from their memory: Vermeer is the stereotypical brooding artist,his wife a vicious, ill-tempered,mean spirited, and jealous bitch. Catherina's demonic portrayal was obviously necessary as a literary device to justify and evoke sympathy for the illicit undertones in the relationship between Vermeer and the fictional Griet. Vermeer's daughter Cornelia was depicted as a child whose behavior is so pathologically anti-social, she would probably be judged today as a child at risk for growing up into a serial killer.<br /><br />Come to think of it, while Ms.Chevalier's fictional ingénue surfaces as the only noble character in the entire story, her fictional renditions of the Vermeer family cast them as the horrid folks from which she must attempt to shield herself. So henceforth, as far as popular culture is concerned, Vermeer is trapped in a miserable marriage, his wife and daughter are cold hearted witches, his mother-in- law the head shrew, and his patron the most lecherous man in Delft!<br /><br />The worst thing about the film version of "Girl with a Pearl Earring" however, is that the image that will appear in association with Vermeer's masterwork in the future, will be Scarlett Johansson's Griet. Hers is a performance that could only be described as vapid and which consists mainly of Johannson's perpetual look of dumb surprise, her mouth hanging open continually, which although was probably meant to be seductive, looks more a general lack of intelligence or a contrived expression of feigned innocence. She was supposedly demure but appeared more or less bovine. It was a face that I grew so tired of by the end of the film, that I dearly wished the wicked and capricious (per Chevalier's fictional interpretation)Catherina would have given it a good slap when she went all out in her tirade in the final scenes.