Customer Reviews

Van Gogh [VHS]

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

Along with Victor Erice's El Sol de Membrillo one of the few great films about a painter.

This is, without a doubt, the most brilliant film ever made about the tormented painter. Anyone who says otherwise is an imbecile. Jacques Dutronc is absolutely brilliant in the title role. He plays Van Gogh with an understated sense of mood. This is not a portrayal of an insane man. There is no ear-cutting scene or any manic type of behavior whatsoever. That has all been done before and director Pialat does a magnificent job of steering clear of it. Instead, the last 67 days of Van Gogh's life is captured with what might be called a "painting within a painting". Every scene is gorgeous, a true work of beautiful artistry. Though it is true that many of the things that happen may not be entirely accurate from what is historically known about the artist...somehow, I didn't care. This film is one of the greatest ever made, and for those of you who thought it was too long and boring, well, go see the puke that Hollywood churns out...For, in my opinion, this movie could have lasted forever.

This is a competent rendering of the last weeks in the life of the fine arts painter Vincent Van Gogh in the rivertown Auvers-sur-Oise northwest of Paris. It's strength is its locations that are very authentic and the French personalities and settings that Van Gogh experienced and that would be lacking in any film not set in France and likely made by a Frenchman. There are plenty of innocuous conversations, luncheons and garden and nature walks. The most interesting relationship in the film is between Vincent and Dr. Guichet who is physician, arts patron and friend to the artist. They live on opposite ends of town - the doctor and his daughter living in a large house surrounded by greenery and warbling birdsong and the transient artist who sets himself up in a gray garret by the train station with pot-bellied and mustachioed worker types living with their hard and testy wives.

While this production misses the mark in many ways - Dutronc's Van Gogh lacks a certain physical and verbal intensity to be expected in the artist - and there is the ongoing sense that we are on a controlled and clinical 1990s film set instead of in Auvers in 1890- this is probably the closest art aficionados will get to the story unless it is re-told using many of the realistic elements found in this film but with a better narrative and performative versimilitude. Dutronc as Van Gogh, perhaps to his credit, has no sense of celebrity or speciality in the film and the director re-inforces the blandness of events - even Van Gogh's "accident" with a pistol which ends the artist's life at age 37 years. If bland is to be read as "unexpected" or "surprised" by Van Gogh's suicidal tendencies (as with his jump in the river at an outdoor social), it makes little impact.

I generally enjoy French films for their pacing, French language and thematic and visual materials. This is one more French film par excellence (the dance scene at the café-concert is especially inspired and quirky). However, Pialat's Van Gogh is a little slow and not just because of impatient American sensibility. If you enjoy Van Gogh's art, there is very little painting in the movie as if Van Gogh was more occupied with other things such as women. This is aggravating as these last months of his life in Auvers was an especially productive time for his painting. Even if you enjoy French films and bio-pics this version may be better than bearable but is not completely satisfying. Settings are realistic - for example, the artist's garret where he was taken to die is "spot on." But the story is completely imaginative and personal and not wholly successful for that fact since the subject is Vincent Van Gogh and not someone who is either fictional or innocuous. Van Gogh is doing a marketing service for Pialat's filmmaking as much as Pialat is re-presenting the famous post-impressionist artist to audiences.

In this way the film is misleading - it sets out to be realistic in its settings but its story could be on the same level in terms of historical truth as A Sunday in the Country (the old artist in that film is not Renoir but...) In Van Gogh, performances are professional but lack cohesion. The film disappoints on the levels described but it is for now by far the best interpretation we francophiles and art lovers have on the subject of this endlessly fascinating and mysterious artist.

This should not be viewed as a 'biography'. It is a ficticious movie that presents Vincent as a lady's man.

It is made even worse as a 'life of the artist' because all the actors are very convincing and resemble their namesakes. A viewer who does not know more than the usual 'van Gogh was crazy and he cut off his ear' will unfortunately take this account as truth. But even they will be confused, as I was, because at this period in his life, Vincent's ear would have been disfigured.

It would have been a better idea to present this as a French Impressionist who lived at the same time, but with a different name. The period scenes, rooms and railcars are nice.

Nice touches are when Theo's wife is bathing, she resembles a Degas bather.
In the deleted scenes, there's a funny one of Vincent observing a family with a baby taking it's first steps. It's a reference to the Millet painting 'First Steps', that Vincent made his own copy of. He makes a grumbling remark about that 'damn Millet'. This likely isn't the way he would have felt about that artist either, since he greatly admired Millet and made many many copies after Millet's work. But-it's still funny to someone who gets the joke.

Your money would be better spent at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NYC, where you can see van Gogh's 'First Steps-after Millet'.

This film was over-rated and over-hyped.
Jacques Dutronc is the most boring Van Gogh ever.
Never once do you feel he ever painted a thing.
And endless female prattle on top of this. You feel you are trapped on "The View."
The great Robert Altman made the best and THE definitive film on the Van Gogh brothers.
That film is highly worth viewing and purchasing.

It was Mediocre film with some amusing scenes and intersting cinematography of the Dutch landscape and people. The movie is a little slow at certain times so it feels a little bit uneven but Overall the Film is Not the Worst like the other reviewers claim !!! They should watch Enough w/ J-Lo cuz that Stupid film deserves No Stars !!! Ha,ha,ha.... ;)

Jacques Dutronc was great, it was the directing and the portrayal of Van Gogh that I thought was inaccurate. This movie is only based on the last 67 days of Van Gogh's life. Perhaps, I would have enjoyed it more if we could have watched how Van Gogh evolved. What was he like during the ten years before his death? I'd like to see a movie that can depict more of the essence of Van Gogh, and not only focus on "the worst days of his life". There is a huge misconception in the world, of who Van Gogh "is", and this movie only feeds it. Read "Dear Theo": Van Gogh's letters to his brother Theo. The book is far much better than this movie. At least, we can get the truth through Van Gogh's eyes, not Maurice Pialat's.

This film--which could have been quite good because of its narrow focus on the last two months of Van Gogh's life--is, in the end, a disaster. The film is grossly inaccurate in its portrayals of Vincent, his brother Theo, Dr. Paul Gachet and Gachet's daughter, Marguerite. Director Maurice Pialat seems to have thrown virtually every known fact about Van Gogh out the window and has rewritten history according his own distorted (and actually extremely boring) vision.

A far better movie would be Robert Altman's "Vincent and Theo" starring Tim Roth. Pialat's film, unfortunately, is a mess.

Pure trash. Save your time and money. It does not belong in the catagory with "Cezanne in Provence".

I cannot vouch for the accuracy of this film, because it lost my full attention past the opening scene. After five minutes, my significant other was asleep. Always a bad sign, he'll watch anything. The movie is about the last two months of Van Gogh's life, and it feels like the viewer is watching each day pass by; each scene draws out innocuous, tedious details, e.g., a scene Van Gogh examined by his physician sucks up a good ten minutes of the time; physician chats with his cook, his son, yada, yada; Van Gogh undresses; cook snaps green beans; physician walks back into the room; more small talk; silence. There's lots of scenes of people tending to their personal hygiene, eating dinner, and making small talk. In subtitle. This is just an example of the pace of the entire movie, and this sucker is l-o-n-g. It's like watching the last of the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, only infinitely less interesting. If you feel you absolutely must watch this film, plug it in your DVD player, grab a good book, your cell phone, and your laptop so you can net surf. This film just Will. Not. End. Ever.