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