|
Index
|
5 matching reviews (17 reviews in total)
|
*
*
One of the greatest French films ever !
This is Maurice Pialat's masterpiece, one of the best French films ever !Unlike the title may induce, it's not a Van Gogh "classic" biography as Pialat only shows the last three months of the painter's life, from his arrival in Auvers sur Oise until his suicide. The picture is constantly moving, intelligent, funny and masterfully photographed (some sequences along the river look like Renoirs's paintings). It's as much a movie about Pialat himself as about Van Gogh.
The scene between Vincent and his brother Theo , or the ones between the latter and her wife Jo are just extraordinary. And the way Pialat films Van Gogh's agony at the Auberge Ravoux in Auvers sur Oise is the mark of a genius.Jacques Dutronc may not be a Vincent van Gogh lookalike, he's absolutely outstanding. And Bernard Le Coq as Theo makes his best performance so far. Unmissable!!!!!!!!!!
Author: user1684 from United States
28 May 2007
If you haven't seen this movie yet, set aside a few hours and treat yourself to this gem of a film.
Jacques Dutronc is great as the Von Gogh, but Alexandra London is fantastic stealing almost every scene she is in with Dutronc. Bernard Le Coq as big brother, Theo, turns in a good controlled performance as well.The supporting cast is also first rate.
The movie covers the last two months of Van Gogh's life from his arrival in Auvers sur Oise ( then a sleepy suburb 17 miles from Paris) until his death from apparently self-inflicted wounds. He is buried there by the way, next to his brother Theo, and the inn where he stayed is still standing. (Google "Auvers-Sur-Oise") The sad part is that Van Gogh appeared to suffered from a form of depression, if it were today it could have been treated with proper medication. If he had lived 110 years later he might have been fine.
I loved the research they appeared to do on everything from period trains, blacksmiths, inn keepers, farmers, day laborers, other artists and family members. It has an authentic feel to it.Another good part is the lack of a sappy soundtrack to detract from the story at hand. The lack of a soundtrack renders it almost as if you are standing in the same town watching what is going on. "Excuse me, are you Vincent Van Gogh?" The picture is beautifully photographed and as one IMDb'er from France pointed out in his comments "some sequences along the river look like Renoirs's paintings" It's true.
Don't miss this.
"Lust for life" of Minnelli is a great film, but in my opinion doesn't give a faithful portrait of Van Gogh: his nature is too romanticized. On the contrary this film of Pialat gives a real mirror of the inner nature of the great painter. I think Van Gogh was really so misanthrope as the film describes. This puts the film of Pialat above the one of Minnelli. Besides this film seems a moving painting, because if you pause the playing when you see the video you can see an impressionistic picture. this peculiarity is so marked that there are scenes that are in the film only for a visive aim (for example the Vincent's sister-in-law that washes herself in a tub). Even if "Lust for life" is a great film, I think "Van Gogh" is greater.
Beautiful Direction.Beautiful Art Direction.This movie is a painting.
Must see.Thanks and Regards.
The film focuses entirely on the final three months of the artist's life, as he lived in Auvers, near Paris. What we get is a cinematic study, not so much of Vincent himself, but of his relationship with those around him in those final weeks: the doctor and his family, the brother and his wife, the people at the hotel, his various love interests. For a film about a painter, the plot has him painting very little. The film is almost a soap opera of back-and-forth talk, mostly serious but with some lighter moments mixed in. Too much dialogue is my main complaint.
Vincent (Jacques Dutronc) comes across as introverted, shy, temperamental, intellectual, and unpredictable. He gets a lot of criticism of his painting from those around him. It's hardly a supportive environment, especially given how prosaic, trite, and banal these people are. Tensions arise over mundane issues like comparisons with contemporary painters, money, Vincent's recurring mental problems, romance, and so on.
The visuals look really good. Cinematography is competent and unobtrusive. Costumes and prod design seem authentic for the period and suggest strong tendencies toward a Victorian, prim, pretentious culture. Casting is acceptable. Acting is very good because it is so understated. Pace trends slow. There's very little music in this film, and no score; which conveys a sense of realism as people come and go amid the perfunctory activities of everyday life.
It's been said that legends don't look like legends when they are being made. I think that applies to Van Gogh, here. He's just another painter worrying about his art, suffering from mental and/or physical ailments, and surrounded by banal people. That would not be Hollywood's approach to this famous artist. But it's an approach that's far more realistic and believable. The legend stuff would come later.
