It's so disappointing to see a film with so little to say about its subject. Vincent Van Gogh has been the subject of the media's eye for some time now (look no further than last year's stunning "Loving Vincent"). Here is what the filmmakers might call a fresh attempt. One would think Julian Schnabel, the director (who made one of the all-time great movies "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly" in 2007) would understand the artistic process, himself being a painter. What we are left with is a movie that mostly runs on colorful fumes alone.
What don't we know about Vincent Van Gogh, that mysterious painter who cut off his ear and then painted with heavy impressionistic brushstrokes? I'm not sure. It seems like our movie doesn't know much, either. The film slowly introduces us to the painter (played by a compelling yet miscast Willem Dafoe) and his friend Gauguin (Oscar Isaac) as they maneuver through the painterly world of 19th Century Europe. At one point Van Gogh removes his ear, another moment he is shot... and, I think that's it. The film has been heralded for its remarkable cinematography, and that's exactly the film we have: a reel for a very accomplished cinematographer (Benoit Delhomme). The 'story' falls to the wayside. I'm not one to complain about a slow-paced film, but for it to remain cinematic an audience still needs something to follow along with, right?
Dafoe, miscast for his age in my view (Van Gogh was a mere 37 when he died... compared to the whethered, 63 year-old face of the actor) still trots through the film with a certain charisma. However, with a gun to my head, I could not tell you a single town he visits, not a single subject of a painting he captured, a line of dialogue, or the beginning or end of the film. In fact during my showing I got up to use the bathroom and returned to essentially the same scene, some long saturated shot of a mountainous infinity. Perhaps this is one of the only movies that functions both a narrative and experimental film. Start the film from any place in its runtime, and essentially to leave with the same impression.
Watch "Loving Vincent" for a greater sense of place and the people in his life. Despite that film being told through flashbacks after the artist's death, we still understand the pathos of such an under appreciated yet influential figure. AT ETERNITY'S GATE is beautiful, sure, but I felt a greater sense of power by watching the film's trailer last month. To stretch it out to nearly 2 hours did nothing but lessen the impact of some already powerful images. I can't think of a film that filled me with more "meh" in recent time.
OUR RATING SYSTEM
(*****) = do NOT miss! This one is as good as they come.
(****) = Fantastic - It's worth the price of the ticket (and then some).
(***) = Average - Nothing really bad, nothing really spectacular...
(**) = Perhaps you should find another movie to see.
(*) = The bottom of the barrel. It would be hard to find something less entertaining or more unworthy of your time.
(*****) = do NOT miss! This one is as good as they come.
(****) = Fantastic - It's worth the price of the ticket (and then some).
(***) = Average - Nothing really bad, nothing really spectacular...
(**) = Perhaps you should find another movie to see.
(*) = The bottom of the barrel. It would be hard to find something less entertaining or more unworthy of your time.
John (Jo) holds a Bachelor's Degree in Nursing, as well as a Bachelor of Arts degree in Film Studies. He currently lives in Chicago, Illinois and works as a nurse. His one true obsession in life is movies... The good, the bad, and everything in between. Other than that, he is busy caring for his cat, painting, writing, exploring Chicago, and debating on whether or not to worship Tilda Swinton as a deity. John is the master and commander and primary author of this blog.
No comments:
Post a Comment