Van Gogh
(1991)
Picture: C+ Sound: C+ Extras: C- Film: C+
The
attempts to portray, grasp, understand, explain and portray the work of Vincent
Van Gogh have been widespread, but rarely definitive. Robert Altman’s Vincent & Theo (1990) is often sited as the best to date, while
Akira Kurosawa had no less than Martin Scorsese play him in his underrated
anthology film Dreams (reviewed
elsewhere on this site). Maurice Pialat
attempts an elongated mediation on him with his 1991 Van Gogh film, a subtle
epic running 159 minutes showing his last 67 days alive.
Jacques
Dutronc (Merci Pour Le Chocolat,
reviewed elsewhere on this site) is Van Gogh, played not as a nutty or crazy
man like the stereotype would have us believe, but a three-dimensional man who
had a family, life and purpose. Bernard
Le Coq (Joyeux Noel, Flower Of Evil; both also reviewed on
this site) plays his brother Theo and the film takes an approach that is not
unlike Peter Watkins, but without a narrative voice-over.
To its
advantage, it tries to give the viewer a first-person experience as if you were
there in the artists’ final days. The
portrayal of his family is almost in the mode of Italian Neo-Realism, though
part of that just might be this critic not knowing most of the actors. Still, its pace and naturalism is intended to
make us feel almost like we are backing time, but without time travel
sensibilities.
Though
not as vivid as the equivalent from the likes of a Stanley Kubrick or Nicolas
Roeg, the film has its moments, but unless you are captivated early and find
entry into the film and its form within the first half-hour, you are likely to
find it too long and boring. This critic
found it repetitious and so busy trying to be the experience that it did not
try anything else, making it a missed opportunity when all is said and
done. The cast and look is good, but all
it can be is set in its monotone way and that will only appeal to so many
people. If only it told us more about
Van Gogh or tried to say something about his work beyond what becomes the obvious.
The
anamorphically enhanced 1.66 X 1 was shot by two cinematographers: Gilles Henry
and Emmanuel Machuel. Detail is somewhat
limited, as is the color, though the latter may be intended. The film still has a good look that works for
what it intends. The Dolby Digital 2.0
Stereo has no surrounds and was released theatrically in supposed Dolby analog
of some kind, but Dolby’s old release list and the end credits of the film do
not confirm this so we do not know as of this posting. Extras include the teaser trailer and some
deleted scenes that are interesting.
- Nicholas Sheffo
