Let me tell you right away that this movie is not for everyone. This is a painting by Van Gogh, written in cinematic language with a beautiful play by Will Dafoe. For those of you familiar with Van Gogh, I would definitely recommend it!
The film shows us the last years of Vincent Van Gogh’s life. The director (Julian Schnabel, who, among other things, directed The Suit and the Butterfly about a paralyzed person) created the film in such a way that it seems that events develop in a short time period. However, in reality, they took much more time - and this should be understood when watching, otherwise it would seem that nervous upheavals and meetings with people filled Van Gogh absolutely every day.
The viewer is shown more than two years of the life of the great artist (1888 - 1890, the time of his creative heyday): here you and the unfulfilled dreams of Van Gogh to found a brotherhood of artists, and his move to the south of France, and a quarrel with Paul Gauguin, and the story of a severed earlobe, and the artist's stay in a psychiatric hospital. And the last days of his life.
However, I don’t really want to tell you another story – it makes no sense. Everything is in the movie – watch and enjoy it. I'll tell you something else. In my opinion, the movie "Van Gogh." At the threshold of eternity, one must either look closely or not approach it at all. Why is that?
This film is too intimate, atmospheric, and even, I am not afraid of the word, sensual. The unique character of the film is achieved due to several factors: acting (especially beautiful Will Defoe in the image of Van Gogh), touching, beautiful music, conversations of the protagonist with people (who never understand him and consider Van Gogh to be crazy, and his paintings are smear and stupidity) and also a visual series.
Pay special attention to the dialogue. Van Gogh talks to Paul Gauguin at the beginning, and Gauguin drops this phrase: "(they) call themselves artists, but in fact - a bunch of bureaucrats." Paul Gauguin rightly despises almost all the artists gathered in the bar - with the exception of Van Gogh, since the latter, like Gauguin, seeks to express himself in paintings, rather than earn money and become famous.
Or here Van Gogh talks to the hostess of the hotel: the hostess does not know who Shakespeare is, and confesses that it is easier for her to read easy and simple literature when there is time after work. And the woman sincerely does not understand how Van Gogh can read Shakespeare and admire him, if he himself says that some moments from Shakespeare are a mystery to him! Need I explain how accurately this dialogue shows the difference between a simple man and a genius?
There are many such dialogues in the film: with the maid, with the brother Theo, with the doctor, with the priest. In addition to them, pay attention to the visual range. There are several moments in the film where the director escalates depression and anxiety (a staggering camera, disturbing colors), but most of all in the film is still light – the sunlight that Van Gogh loved so much.
There is a moment in this movie that I like the most: from the 22nd minute to the 30th, when Van Gogh gets out into the endless fields of sunshine, and there he draws, draws, draws. At the end of the day he looks at the setting sun and cries. Isn’t this Buddhist satori—a sudden enlightenment, a brief moment when the world suddenly opens up in all its true splendor?
Such satori happens just in nature, when you are very tired of life and would like to die - and here some absolute, seemingly small thing (say, swinging on a sparrow branch) beats you through, and you become an idiot from the book of the same name by Dostoevsky. You weep and stretch your hands into this endless blue, and only one thought torments you: You are a stranger to all this. Do you understand?
There are many artists in the world. But most of them are artisans, that is, skillful and persistent workers of their business. There are charlatans - without them nowhere. However, all of them, artisans and charlatans, are boring. They are boring because they are interchangeable. Like cogs. One person dies and another will always take his place. Vital, isn't it? But there are irreplaceable ones, and these are the geniuses of humanity, after whose death there remains a gaping void. And it is good when fate gives geniuses a chance to give their descendants an inheritance - as Van Gogh did, leaving us his paintings.
The problem, however, is that it is usually impossible to recognize a genius in his lifetime - there are too many fakes, simulacra and copies, and too much of him, a genius, is inconspicuous and quiet among billions of bits of information. The universal and fairest judge here is Time. Only Time puts everything in its place, and it becomes clear who deserves to enter the gates of Eternity, and who will disappear in the thick fog of nothingness. There you go.
Vincent Van Gogh is a person to look for. People like him are units. Ones are those who at random trample their path in the dark forest of human life. In fact, Van Gogh is the Gorky Danko: he also tore his heart out and illuminated our way out of the dark forest. Yes, some of Van Gogh's later paintings (" Harvest, Sunflowers) are really filled with sunlight - although at the same time the artist was thrown into gloomy tones, and he painted dark, depressing works (see "Wheat Field with Crows").
Apparently, Van Gogh in the last years before his death threw from side to side - or maybe this happened to him all his life? He reached for the light, but was surrounded mainly by darkness and sinister crows over the fields. Vincent painted light and dreamed of it and cherished it, but his last words before his death were, according to legend, after all these: “Sadness will last forever.”
But Vincent Van Gogh still found his rut and got out of someone else's - and for this he is honored and praised. However, the burden of a free and unique person proved unbearable for him, if one believes in the artist’s version of suicide. By the way, in the film Julian Schnabel shows another version of death – murder, and it is also quite likely, as Van Gogh irritated and frightened the locals and perhaps they decided to get rid of him one day.
Anyway, Van Gogh did not bear the cruel burden of the sublunar world - and in 1890, in the height of summer, in July, he left us forever in the Land of wheat fields and ripe sunflowers. In a country where everything is permeated with sunlight and where there are no sinister crows at all.
And may Vincent Van Gogh forgive me for not helping him.
An unusual biopic (film biography) from Julian Schnabel is the first film seen by this director. Successful, despite the rare releases of films. It is difficult to talk about specific features.
The plot tells us about the work of Van Gogh, and a certain stage of life when Vincent was formed as an artist. Tragic fate, unrecognized genius contemporaries. Quite an unusual pitch for a biopic: not boring and dry, as it happens, but lively and colorful. The main thing was to show the artistic and philosophical parts of the artist’s life. The artistic part consists in the inspiration of the artist of living colorful nature, more precisely its natural beauty and originality. The game of yellow and orange tones, the rays of the sun, lying on plowed fields, forests and clear blue sky. And the philosophical part is the existential crisis of the protagonist, who sees what others do not see and tries to put on tight with the help of colors. In addition, the main questions of philosophy are touched upon: the relationship between beauty and God, what is man and others. Van Gogh himself led a hermitish lifestyle, he did not communicate with anyone except his brother Theo and Paul Gauguin (a contemporary and another representative of impressionism). The plot revealed not only the main features of the artist’s character, but also his attitude to the work and his creative path as an artist.
It is worth noting quite unusual "chips" of the operator, starting with a swinging picture - a rather bold zoom, changes in the position of the camera. And, the so-called “glasses” effect – “yellow glasses” showing the gaze of the artist himself. All this refreshes the picture and reflects the mental state of the protagonist.
Separately, I want to note the play of Willem Dafoe, who is one of the best tragic actors. Geniuses are difficult to play, but he managed, it was the transition from the usual creative state to a certain psychosis, provoked by triadic twists of fate. Who better than Defoe can show the pain of disappointment and the joy of admiration from writing a picture. Complete transformation from appearance to the character of the artist. Changes in its states and fluctuations.
I remember the scene of the dialogue between Vincent (William Defoe) and the priest (Mads Nikkelsen) – the clash of two positions, two views on life. “For me, beauty is nature and nature is God.” You have to look at it once and understand everything.
The life of outstanding people is sometimes painful and complex, and even more difficult to show it in its natural form.
Willem Dafoe is stunningly convincing in the image of Van Gogh. An episodic appearance closer to Mads Mikkelsen's finale also pleased. Basically, all actors, from small to great, are great. Cinematography is also on top: it's so clever not to show the artist's missing ear :) And, of course, respect for the director, without the organizing beginning of which would not have turned out so beautiful, I will not be afraid of pun, the picture.
Good movie. Rehabilitates a great artist, for whom the reputation of a sick abnormal person was fixed. It took more than a century for justice to prevail for this remarkable and great man in every sense.
Fortunately or unluckily, I only watched this movie after seeing it '. With Love, Vincent & #39, which was released a year earlier than the film in question. So maybe my review of the film is 'Van Gogh. On the threshold of eternity' and it turned out to be so low, although it is not only this.
What did you want to see in the film ' Van Gogh? On the threshold of eternity & #39;? To show the real image of Van Gogh? But far before watching all these films, I very accidentally got acquainted with the biography of this artist through the book Irving Stone & #39; Thirst for Life'. In the film, Van Gogh is shown as a naive child, open to the world, who is betrayed and humiliated by everyone, and he only needs parental caress in the form of hugs & #39 with his brother Theo. This may be partly true, but at the same time it does not fit completely with the image of Van Gogh, who previously lived in a poor Belgian mining village as a preacher, where he tried to fight for workers’ rights. For me, Van Gogh of the known facts in his biography is far from being a stupid & #39; a child & #39; or & #39; a child of nature & #39; but an adult and thinking person who only too acutely and strongly perceives the suffering of even very alien people. Yes, the actor in the film very strongly and seems to have played Van Gogh, but further ' jump out' he is not allowed to frame the whole film, drawing from him a stereotyped image of a naive fool catching butterflies on his finger.
If the film wanted to convey the image of all the paintings of Van Gogh, then for me it is a complete failure compared to '. With love, Vincent & #39; I am a very distant lover of any museum art, I know everything very superficially, but if you want to know why people like Van Gogh’s art, it is better to look at his paintings and famous reproductions, not his biography. If you want to know him as a historical figure, then why watch all these unnecessary long and dull landscapes with Van Gogh’s constant treks in a yellow hat through the fields of France when you can immediately see his paintings? After all, his paintings are known not for photographic accuracy, but specifically for the subjectivity of the image conveyed by the author, who, well, cannot be depicted without the artist’s paintings themselves.
And here just this film on the transfer of the mood of the pictures, of course, loses to the film ' Van Gogh. With love Vincent & #39; who was painted for several years with oil paints on canvas of reproductions and in a similar manner to the artist. For me in the film ' Van Gogh. On the threshold of eternity, 39; everything was finally vulgarized when Van Gogh and Gauguin, while talking about serious artistic things, urinated together from a cliff, as if expressing all their contempt and unseriousness for what was said during their dialogue. The creators of Van Gogh '. On the eve of eternity & #39; showed that refer to such conversations in the film, as to ' dummy & #39; which, most likely, is the case. For me, the scene of wetting two famous artists is not an image of their complete fusion with nature or their rebellion against academic painting.
So what happens in the end? Neither a good conveyance of the mood of Van Gogh’s paintings, nor a complete historical study of his biography, since only the last few years of his life are touched upon. The whole film is filled with the most boring long treks of Van Gogh through the landscapes with pianine music poking over the ears and brief biographical moments, which, I think, will not ' happy' the viewer, demanding more specifics.
Watch other biopics about Van Gogh, watch his paintings, not this film--'dummy'
Perhaps this is due to the specifics of Van Gogh’s life and worldview, but the film, although infinitely soulful and beautiful, is unfortunately quite boring and, frankly, tiresome and uninteresting.
Very ragged, uneven narrative, almost constantly galloping and dangling from left to right camera, cutting eyes very close angles, right close to the characters – in total means that by the end of the film begins to hurt the head and a little nausea. The film is very monotonous and viscous, you literally drown in it, like in a swamp, and you wait to get out of it as soon as possible.
The only thing that pleased and left at least some positive aftertaste is Van Gogh himself performed by the stunning William Defoe. First of all, it's a very accurate hit in terms of choosing an actor, because he's just like Vincent. And, secondly, Defoe is a great actor, and also perfectly acts out all the emotional experiences and psychological wanderings of Van Gogh.
His detachment and abstraction from everyone and everything, his open recluse, the torment of creativity and unrecognized by this generation. The fact that he feels ahead of time and era, but therefore forced to be forever misunderstood outcast. You can see it all just by looking at his facial expressions.
One of the best films about the Artist, his origins of creativity, his existential loneliness; about the non-human (albeit in the Nietzschean, even in the evangelical sense of the word) feat of love for the world, which in every moment of your life denies you reciprocity. However, Julian Schnabel did not expect another. The director avoided the temptation to stylize the video sequence to the artistic techniques of his main character, but nevertheless the work of the operator and the general visualization amazes with its external completeness and consistency with the inner world of the painter. And Willem Dafoe did perhaps his best work since the time of the Last Temptation of Christ 39.
Perfectly conveys the color inherent in the worldview of the artist. Particular attention is paid to scenes that allow you to feel the subtle mental organization of Van Gogh at the moment of his unity with nature and canvas.
The viewer observes the artist’s blurred gaze. Probably, this technique is used to show the complex relationship of the creator with reality and his consciousness. Hot-tempered and passionate, Vincent sometimes forgets about others. He is alone with his inner world. Many consider him mentally ill, and Van Gogh is indeed unwell. He is obsessed with art.
This film offers the opportunity to watch the creative process of the artist. Due to the successful choice of actor Willem Dafoe for the role of the main character, it almost seems that this is a real artist who lived in the 19th century. The viewer is placed next to the painter and observes the manner of writing characteristic of Van Gogh: a new, lively and dynamic touch. The process energizes, and it seems that the canvas is born with the physical presence of the viewer near the artist.
In general, the image of the difficult and tragic fate of the artist, and not recognized during his lifetime, is conveyed quite accurately. Vincent Van Gogh was a poor and simple man who wore leaky socks and lived on the maintenance of his brother Theo. The artist communicated with provincial, partly stupid people who did not understand his creative intentions. He was born a little earlier than was necessary for the world of art. Only after his death did Van Gogh begin to be spoken of as an innovator and serious painter.
His attractive, soulful and mysterious nature leaves a warm mark on the soul of many, even in spite of the drop of madness that hot the blood of the artist. Thanks to the film, the viewer approaches the personality of the creator and reveals the great secret of his paintings. The picture leaves behind a slight taste of sadness, and at the time of the final scene, the hairs on the body rise due to goosebumps.
10 out of 10
Julian Schnabel from the very beginning proved himself as a creative person, who is in constant search of his own realization and evaluation of the public. Before he devoted most of his time to cinema, he was a popular artist, famous for his style of neo-expressionism. He also showed himself as a sculptor, and his offspring were exhibited in many reputable museums and exhibitions. Julian Schnabel came close to cinema in 1996, when, according to his own script, he put a picture 'Basquiat' telling about the American artist Jean-Michel Basquiat and, in fact, a friend of Schnabel himself. The film was well received, especially in a critical environment, for which he was among the nominees for the prize of the Venice Film Festival. In 2000, another independent work by Schnabel was released ' Until Night Falls' starring Javier Bardem. Again, the main character came from a creative environment. And in 2007, Schnabel came the most resounding success (if not to say deafening) - his picture ' Spacesuit and Butterfly' with Mathieu Amalric and Emmanuel Senier in the lead roles was enthusiastically received by both the public and critics. The awards and nominations were well deserved.
Schnabel, in his characteristic manner, took a short break for three years after the successful "Spacesuit and Butterfly" & #39; and then shot a drama with an eye on the socio-political situation in Iraq & #39; Miral'. And suddenly the picture went almost unnoticed. Yes, and meager reviews mainly tilted towards negative assessments of Schnabel’s work. At the same time, the artist and sculptor did not take in ' Miral' as the basis of the plot, the biography of any famous person. Apparently, considering it a mistake, in 2018, that is, eight years after the "Miral" & #39, Schnabel returned to his favorite genre - dramatic biopic. And for the film adaptation, he took a character known to every person on the planet. It was Vincent van Gogh. There are many myths and conjectures about it. Like that he sold only one painting in his lifetime, and became a great artist, whose works are sold to this day for rabid money, after his death; or that van Gogh in a fit of madness, having drunk an abscent, which caused hallucinations. In general, van Gogh is known not only for his work, but for the legendary aura created after the death of the great post-Impressionist.
Julian Schnabel, in collaboration with the famous screenwriter Jean-Claude Carrier, decided not to exalt the audience by half the fictional biography of Vincent van Gogh. Together, he proposed a deep drama framed by the complex psychological state of the great artist, the greatness of which will come after he has tried his deathbed. And he chose the style and atmosphere of the cold, as if on a constant draft, state of the protagonist, who found solace only in communicating with the female sex: he quickly fell in love, but also quickly became disappointed in the chosen ones, while being very modest and awkward in romantic ties, which undoubtedly broke the already tormented psyche of the artist. His love for alcohol also did not pass by the plot action, but this is not a deviation at all, but only a statement of a bitter fact from the biography of a great talent. Part of the picture is devoted to the relationship of Vincent with his younger brother Theo van Gogh. And if you look closely at the structure of the picture, you can see the familiar outlines of the famous trilogy ' Three Colors' created by another genius (not rightly forgotten) Krzysztof Kieslovsky.
But, to confess, all this cold, causing chills and depression atmosphere, I personally did not like. Of course, it is clear that Julian Schnabel wanted to convey the inner state of the protagonist, so that the viewer could literally feel his torment and torment. However, this approach causes more convulsions than the desire to deeply and carefully analyze the picture. In addition, the long scenes involved, devoid of any dialogue, seem to force you to distract yourself and throw away apathetic thoughts inspired by the atmosphere of the film. On the other hand, all the words that are in the tape, on the contrary, arouse interest. In particular, Vincent's dialogue with his brother is remembered. And, of course, creepy takes when Vincent van Gogh is on the verge of insanity (there is such a belief that genius and madness are separated by a very thin line). And here we must pay tribute to the high professionalism of Willem Dafoe, who embodied such a complex character. The actor once again demonstrated his versatility and the gift of a real dramatic actor. No wonder Dafoe was among the nominees for 'Oscar' for his skillful work.
But still, despite the fact that the tape Julian Schnabel has pronounced positive aspects (especially the game of Willem Dafoe), still that dense atmosphere, Nordic stylistics, sometimes too long scenes did not cause positive emotions and there was no particular interest. And the question remained unsolved, what did Schnabel try so hard to convey to us? Creative man's madness? In principle, you could have guessed that. Therefore, this work does not have much depth and expressiveness. And in this 'Van Gogh. On the threshold of eternity' has common features with another biographical drama ' Savage' about the life of another great artist - Paul Gauguin.
5 out of 10
P.S. It is interesting that the full name of Vincent van Gogh is Vincent Willem van Gogh, and his image was embodied by Willem Dafoe. So you can call them a little namesake. Symbolic!
General impression: The first thing that catches the eye is an unusual confused shooting. Very strange views of both nature and close-up faces. Sometimes I felt that I was looking through the eyes of the artist, it is understandable, sometimes the shooting was from the 1st person. And immersion in this atmosphere is enormous. This way all emotions are transmitted better. At the beginning of the picture, I was baffled by this, I confess honestly, I am not always inclined to such views. But I dare say that the shooting is as individual as Van Gogh himself. An extraordinary artist who saw beauty in everyday things, simple things, where a passing person could say “Phi, nothing unusual”, Van Gogh saw the undisguised beauty of nature.
This movie is not quite the whole life of Van Gogh, only part of the affected segment, but the viewer sees how critical people and ordinary women rushing on business, and doctors, and schoolchildren, and even art connoisseurs were of his works. Offensive words thrown at the artist could score talent in him, however, Van Gogh continued to create, because he could not otherwise. It was the endless fields, flowers captured by rapid strokes, a clear day, that attracted the attention of the artist, forming his special style. Obsessed with painting, he spent a lot of time in nature, in solitude, although he drew quickly, but for the most part enjoyed peace.
Perhaps Van Gogh was unhappy, this was manifested in his illness (suffering a mental disorder) and non-recognition. And the behavior of the great artist perfectly showed Willem Defoe. A lot was read on the face of the actor, facial expressions are the main weapon and it was clear without words that the character is currently experiencing.
The musical accompaniment, like the waves of the ocean, in an influx stretched for minutes, then sharply, then you can barely hear the sounds of classical music. But the tense musical moments are perfectly matched to the rhythm of the film.
As a result, the movie is unusual, eccentric in its presentation, but interesting in taste, because the inner world of the artist is so fragile, it is a shame that the genius was recognized only after his death.
8 out of 10
Vincent van Gogh is definitely one of the most famous artists in history, and the fate of the Dutch genius was very, very tragic. It would seem the perfect combination for the production of a standard Hollywood biopic (maybe it was in previous attempts), but not this time.
The director of the film was Julian Schnabel - a neo-expressionist artist, and since 1996 also a director. His debut picture was about Jean-Michel Basquiat, a tragically famous artist who collaborated with Andy Warhol and, together with Julian Schnabel, stood at the origins of neo-expressionism. And if "Basquiat" was a talented debut and grief for each other, then "On the threshold of eternity" is already a strong work of a famous director , dedicated to his idol, but still the same personal and intimate .
The plot tells about the period of Van Gogh’s life from the moment he moves to Arles until his death, that is, about the last years of his life. However, I would like to point out that a third of the film will be watching Willem Dafoe as Vincent walking through the picturesque places, searching for nature and drawing. But it's not boring at all!
Willem Dafoe as Van Gogh is incomparable. There is such a standard on-duty phrase about a very good actor's performance that he did not play it, but lived it. That's where it fits perfectly. And it seems that Dafoe does not look like Van Gogh at all, and there is no makeup hiding this fact, and the difference in years is significant (the 62-year-old Dafoe plays the 37-year-old Van Gogh), but you watch the film, and there is no doubt that this is the real Vincent Van Gogh.
Second, the natural places are incredibly beautiful. How can they not be, because the filming took place in those places where Van Gogh lived and painted his paintings? It is great that they remain the same as they were 130 years ago.
Thirdly, the amazing technical part. Excellent coloring of the picture, especially when a bright day, the frame is filled with air, freshness and life. Interesting camera work (Benoit Delomm), which will need to get used to, as there are many close plans, the camera is always in motion, takes strange angles, emphasizing the emotional instability of the artist. Often there will be episodes shot through the yellow lens - Van Gogh's favorite color, but also symbolizing madness.
Fourth, it is a very talented soundtrack that emphasizes the film, perfectly complements it. The composer was Tatiana Lisovskaya and this is her debut. Above all praise.
The film has excellent dialogues, which reveal questions about art, the evolution of art, the beautiful and ugly, the role of the artist, his purpose. One of the most memorable dialogues will be with Vincent Van Gogh with the clergyman Mads Mikkelsen, in which Van Gogh reflects on the theme that his work is for people who have not yet been born. Very powerful and touching.
Supporting actors are all great. Both Mads Mikkelsen and Oscar Isaac (Paul Gauguin), Rupert Friend (Theo) and Emmanuel Senier (Madame Ginoux). He looked very cute in the episodic role of Mathieu Amalric, who played Dr. Gachet.
Thus, before us the author's canvas Julian Schnabel, who with great love writes a portrait of his idol. Willem Dafoe plays one of his best roles, an amazing artist. The film can be a little meditative, slow, but to watch it is one pleasure, thanks to the acting, music, technical part of the film. I think that the aesthetics and thoughts of the film should sink into the soul and heart of many, just as the work of Vincent Van Gogh himself.
9 out of 10
Sophisticated, sublime, fashionable. Julian Schnabel, Willem Dafow, Mudds. With such names can solve any problems. The name of Vincent van Gogh is known to every inhabitant of our planet. It remained only to remove a visually rich story, interspersing with assumptions about how the great master saw the world around him and fragments from his well-known biography. Actually, that's what happened.
The film sometimes seems like an inspired attempt to dive into the Master’s inner world. Dafow seems perfect for the role of artist. Not a single mistake, like it was his whole life. Mikkelsen makes us think of Pontius Pilate and child molestation. I just didn't recognize Emanuel Senier. Is this not enough for a good assessment? This is the real art.
No way. The goal was too ambitious. Obviously, Schnabel had the highest claims. He aspired to create something great, unconditional and accurate & #39; infected & #39; with his perfectionism all members of the film crew. It is clear that everyone tried, complementing each other. However, because of this perfectionism, excessive refinement, this film should be judged in a very strict way. Well, by the way, is it significantly different from the filmed a few years earlier ' Roden'? Both films are sublime, inspired, biographical and nothing more. Talking about incredibly famous people, the authors do not seek to surprise the viewer, turn stereotypes. Not at all. These tapes only strengthen the established dogmas. Right, I wasn't interested in watching a man go mad and cut off his ear. And should we seriously discuss biographical facts, sources, etc.?
Alas, Schnabel only made a painting on a colorful box, forgetting to open it. This, understandable to America, simplified art history reinforces myths and builds a wall between copies and originals. However, for Willem Dafow, the role was really significant. Regardless of the film’s ratings, its talent and inspiration overshadow many of the creators’ miscalculations.
Van Gogh is nearing the end of his life. His paintings are not for sale, but he still lives only by his own art. The last period of Vincent’s work consists of the most famous works that are visualized in the film, forcing connoisseurs of canvases to exclaim: “This is the Bedroom in Arles!” And this is the self-portrait! Theodorus, Vincent's younger brother and art dealer from a young age, sees incredible artistic value in the works of the unrecognized master. Theo in the film looks much more representative and even more powerful than the real person. It does not occur to me that the hero of the British actor Rupert Friend will end his life in a madhouse a few months after the death of his older brother.
Many of Van Gogh’s later works contain both bright and warm colors and a sense of hopelessness. He strives for sunlight from the dark Parisian cafes where artists gather. However, genius is hampered by a hostile world where his pioneering skill has no place. Van Gogh is as close to God and eternity as he is to the yellow rays of the sun. The title of the film speaks of going beyond the threshold of everyday life into a weightless world, where from the height of eternity you can find meaning in ugly roots of trees, cypresses, old shoes.
The plot is accompanied by meetings of the artist with Paul Gauguin, doctors, “Arlesian”, pastor, soldier. Vincent sincerely shares his experiences with them, which fills the film with numerous arguments and monologues about the artist’s work.
Willem Defoe perfectly conveyed both Van Gogh’s sublime condition in Arles and his fear of visions and delusions of reason. Everyone will appreciate his acting work, which received an award at the Venice Festival.
Operator work can sometimes shock an unprepared viewer. The shaky camera transmits the image in the format of flashes in the consciousness and memory of Van Gogh, we see the world through his eyes. The blurring of the lower bound of the frame in some scenes and the repetition of the words of the characters – these and other artistic decisions look (and are heard) strange. Therefore, the viewer is either completely immersed in the world of genius, or coldly perceives the history of mental illness.
There are many rumors that Vincent saw the world differently, whether because of giftedness, mental disorder, or absinthe. He disappeared into eternity – and now everyone knows at least one of his paintings, which during his lifetime were called ugly. Could a humble and desperate artist think not of Paris, but of world success and the value of an engraving ledger?
There's been a lot about Van Gogh lately. Just recently, a unique film was released ' Van Gogh. With love, Vincent & #39; And here on the screens appeared another amazing picture. It was shot according to his own script by the famous artist Julian Schnabel. For the role of Van Gogh, he invited 62-year-old Willem Dafoe, whose age is a quarter of a century older than the age of the artist at the time of his tragic death.
The film covers approximately the same period as 'Love, Vincent' - sometime between 1888 and 1890, when the artist moved from Paris to Arles. Here he was in extreme need, but he painted a huge number of paintings - about 200. For some time, his close friend Paul Gauguin (Oscar Isaac) lived next to him. It was during this period that Van Gogh’s mind became disturbed and he cut off his ear, after which he was in a mental hospital. In the film, these periods of damage to consciousness are visually emphasized by the fact that the lower part of the frame is blurred, which I did not like, because perception is harmful, and the symbolism of what is happening could be somehow emphasized.
Actually, the film turned out not so much biographical as acutely social. The main confrontation of the picture is not between the artist and his darkened mind, but between the artist and society (and not only the creative bohemian, but also the philistines, who have nothing to do with art), which rejects him in almost everything: his paintings are not only not recognized - they are called disgusting, ugly, Van Gogh is denied even the right to be called an artist, he is beaten, stones are thrown at him, he is plunged into deep poverty, a petition is signed for his expulsion from the city. It is society that drives the artist to fits of madness. Some moments painfully resembled the trial on charges of malicious parasitism over Joseph Brodsky, where the poet was denied the right to be called a poet.
Willem Defoe created a stunning image of the artist. He is not at all like Van Gogh played by Tim Roth (' Vincent and Theo' Robert Altman) - daring, impetuous, self-confident. Van Gogh of Willem Defoe is deeper, he is akin to Dostoevsky - a man highly spiritual, deeply passionate, delicate, with a tender and prone to painful tears soul, sensitive to the beauty of the world around him, which becomes the main conflict between him and Gauguin, who does not accept the artist's assurances that he manifests his vision of harmony and perfection of the universe through himself, but requires arts ' from the head' It is a shame that Van Gogh did not receive recognition during his lifetime, but in the film he is sure that he was born in the wrong time (' God was wrong'); and there will be a time when his paintings will be recognized. Only in the most difficult moments will he be tormented by doubts about his own talent.
For this role, Defoe received the Volpi Cup for best actor in a picture at the Venice Film Festival.
The secondary characters are episodic, but their roles were performed by star actors: Rupert Friend (brother Theo), Mads Mikkelsen (priest) and Mathieu Amalric (Dr. Paul Gachet).
It is interesting how Schnabel tried to reproduce Van Gogh’s creative manner on the screen – clear, fast thin strokes, which Gauguin criticized, calling the artist’s paintings more sculpture than painting. It reminded me of the words of science fiction writer Liu Cixin:
'A particularly profound impression on her was the way Van Gogh reproduced space on the canvas. The artist subconsciously felt that space had structure. At the time, Cheng Xin was not very good at theoretical physics, but she knew that, according to string theory, the cosmos, like all material objects, is made up of many microscopic vibrating strings. This is what Van Gogh painted. In his paintings, the whole space, be it mountains, bread fields, houses and trees, was filled with the smallest vibrations. 'Starry Sky' left an indelible mark on Cheng Xin's soul, and now, after four hundred years, on Pluto, this picture shocked her again'
Van Gogh nowadays is associated with paintings, but what if I say that the biopic of the same name is shot as if it was shot by the artist himself. All these shots of sunsets, sunrises, rains, etc., permeated with rays of light, give visual pleasure, and the music sounding against the background, this is a melodic piano, only double it.
I can’t help but celebrate the excellent performance of the cast. Willem Defoe perfectly conveyed the emotional experiences and state of the hero. The character of Mads Mikkelsen helped Van Gogh to understand himself, although clearly not without difficulties on the part of the priest, and Rupert Friend (Theo Van Gogh) tried to support, not always successfully. These three characters are the ones I remember the most and I consider them the most striking. Also, I just can’t get around the fact that Defoe himself is extremely similar to the artist himself, which of course is a plus.
The film is permeated with the sadness of Vincent "I find pleasure in sorrow." This feeling is much stronger than joy, and indeed, the picture through this feeling shows the rest of the experience. The character's severe mental state works well, adding to the drama. All breakdowns show the instability of the hero, which adds interest.
It’s certainly a very good movie, although not everyone will be able to watch it, but it’s just like Van Gogh. Some of these wandering frames will seem something wrong, and someone genius.
10 out of 10
No, this is not a biography film, but a lively picture. This is not a hall, but a stage.
I never thought that Vincent Van Gogh's soul would be closer to mine. Although I am not a critic of painting, I try to comprehend the works of artists. And sometimes I can exclaim with admiration, looking at the creation of either Paul Gauguin or Manet: “Genius!” That’s how I felt when I watched Van Gogh. On the threshold of eternity.” The director did not just retold the famous facts from the life of the legend: from birth to his death. But he gave us his face, to look at the world through his eyes. Fantastic. The camera is rebellious and static. Through the hands of the operator, it seems to convey the state of mind of the hero, who at the beginning sacrificially seeks himself, his purpose and in the end finds. And in general, in the air hovers this elevation and spirituality ... The kind that only happens to people who are creative and talented. Paints harmoniously intertwine with each other, turning the tape into a real work of art.
I admired every second because I felt this peaceful atmosphere. And then I couldn't get my consciousness back into the real world for a long time, and I wanted to paint. And I began to make small films in the same technique of life as they did in Van Gogh, which, by the way, is very similar to “Love, Vincent.” And you know, the reader, I have long noticed that a good film is like a good perfume: it opens up gradually, showing us more and more facets, which have remained in the shadows until now, and is imprinted in memory for a long time. I suggest no, I even insist you check it out yourself. So that you could transform into Vincent Van Gogh, like the wonderful Willem Defoe did, and make peace with yourself through the cinema.
The film reveals certain aspects of the life of the famous artist Vincent Van Gogh: his love of painting, the motives of his love for painting, worldview, as well as relationships with people around him.
Although the film is full of bright colors characteristic of the artist’s canvases, it is rather pessimistic, as, however, Van Gogh was. The beauty of nature, of people, of the world, was rigidly intertwined with extreme poverty and madness. Just the latter and paid due and the brightest bit of attention, in which Defoe showed himself from the best side as an actor.
Not knowing the individual facts of his biography, but being familiar at cultural studies seminars with his works up to the analysis of the plot of the paintings, I was struck by how unhappy this man was. In the era of the XIX century, mentally ill people were treated in the most barbaric way - pouring ice water on the head under condition of complete immobility, walking to calluses on their feet through the fresh air and other methods not shown in the film. If he were alive now, his suffering would certainly have been relieved, but could we observe these large brushstrokes on canvas over other large brushstrokes, the interweaving of colors, the plot, eventually giving birth to a masterpiece? Hardly.
Van Gogh was doomed to be born a great artist, to become a pioneer of a new direction in painting and to paint all his life, and not becoming sufficiently popular.
His conversation with the priest in the finale is the results that he sums up under his works, citing as an example quotes from the Gospel and little-known facts, now tightly hidden in the Vatican archives.
It is a pity that many people only know him as an artist who cut off his ear. On the Threshold of Eternity can definitely help broaden your horizons and learn almost everything you need to know about Van Gogh. Two hours of the film fly by in one moment, and in the end you realize that no one would have performed this role better than Defoe, and the best biographical production that intertwines facts with the worldview was not created for the entire existence of the film.
A year ago, we had the pleasure of witnessing the wonderful animated work of Van Gogh. With love, Vincent, the language of the artist’s paintings tells an almost detective story from his life. To tell about the last days of Van Gogh, this time in the format of a feature film, wanted Julian Schnabel, known for his dramas about the tragic fate of real people (“Until night falls”, “Spacesuit and butterfly”). “On the Threshold of Eternity” does not seek the language of banal biopics, betting on the emotional transmission of the worldview of a creative person in the most acute life phase for him – for example, something similar was sought to portray Bruno Dumont in Camille Claudel 1915.
The title of the film “On the Threshold of Eternity” (or, more precisely, “At the Gates of Eternity”) refers to one of Van Gogh’s last paintings, also known as “The Old Man Who Put His Head on His Arms”, the image of which so fits to describe the permanent tormented state of an unrecognized genius during his lifetime, tormented by passion, reaching madness, and suffering from misunderstanding by society. Schnabel’s main emphasis predictably does not focus on the plot, refusing to delve into the traditional conflicts for such stories, more or less describing only Van Gogh’s relationship with his brother Theo and Paul Gauguin. The main characters here are two – the incomparable Willem Dafoe and the most expressive camera of Benoit Delomme. Received for his game the fourth nomination for “Oscar” actor in this film definitely played one of the best roles, selflessly immersed in the enthusiastic consciousness of the artist. It seems that this picture does not need any script at all - Defoe is like a solid film language of the tape, although not very deep and not for everyone fascinating, but surprisingly lively and tangible. Subtly feeling the character in the smallest detail, he deftly captures the painful state of Van Gogh, balancing on the verge of common sense and insanity, who lived and worked as if only in anticipation of his own death.
As for the camera work, to which claims were made regarding indigestible for the eye and vestibular apparatus of technology, then, for personal taste, Delomm caused discomfort only with a couple of feverish scenes. Otherwise, his shooting style, based not only on the percussion expression of the frame, but also on the amazing composition and color scheme, makes the film very sensual, breathing, extremely alive and devoid of falsehood. Thanks to the operator, we not only feel the hot state of the protagonist, but also understand what inspires him: plants, fields, a bouquet of flowers in a vase, tree roots, a random peasant woman on a rural road - all this is transmitted to the screen incredibly picturesque and textured as much as possible. Accustomed to the event biographical dramas from the series “the lives of wonderful people” viewers, most likely, the work of Schnabel will not taste, because the attempt to force to look at the world exclusively through the eyes of the artist for almost two hours and not always in comfortable conditions may seem a test. But, on the other hand, after viewing, you understand that Van Gogh can hardly be filmed otherwise, and this beautiful, sad and brilliantly played exhibition will definitely replenish the treasury of outstanding paintings about outstanding artists.
Review of the film by Julian Schnabel called ' Van Gogh. On the threshold of eternity'
Vincent Van Gogh... How many stories, rumors about his life, cases, and most importantly - meaning. He was friends with Paul Gauguin, preferred to paint his paintings in nature, his works no one recognized, believing that they are too pretentious, unlike others. Many people have played in the cinema of this great artist, but we only got a really live Van Gogh in 2019. .
Why not?
Let's start by taking this tape, which is oddly enough, by an artist named Julian Schnabel, and shooting it beautifully, each frame feels like a separate picture, and that's beautiful. Also in this film starred infamous Willem Defoe, who perfectly played the role of Van Gogh. If an actor cries during a scene for a reason, but because of the grief of his character, then this means only one thing: we are a real master. Dafoe is not far behind his colleagues at work: Mads Mikkelsen, Oscar Isaac and other actors play believably and make them believe in their heroes. The picture is perfect, for which I thank the cameraman. The music is amazing. It is harmoniously combined with the action on the screen. That's the whole secret of this movie about a great artist.
The film is not for everyone, so it is recommended to watch fans of Schnabel, Defoe, Van Gogh and all those who care about such a movie.
10 out of 10
Incomprehensible and unclaimed during his lifetime, Van Gogh is represented here by a man with a tear, angular and painful. No refinement, the creators allow the audience to feel in some moments rejection of this artist, in others to feel sorry for him, in others to think about his talent and his own idea of the world.
' On the threshold of eternity' can not be called an art house, but this movie is not shot for the masses, and not at all because it is some abstruse, overly metaphorical, no. It just has no cliché, no love line, no history of formation (as often happens in biographical Hollywood tapes).
The galloping camera, the blurred landscapes of French fields, yellowing autumn trees, lilac flowers in a glass - everything is filmed movingly, like an operator and is the eyes of Van Gogh. Cinematography is at a height and at times much higher than the content of the film. This is some kind of magic: combinations of colors, colors, nature in all its diversity. The creators paid great attention to how the artist created paintings. This is so rare for biopics. And here the work takes place right in front of the viewer.
Van Gogh was ahead of his time. His work was far from conservatism and classicism. It was catchy, angular, pure ' on the amateur'. And after the death of the artist, such amateurs appeared. Everything that was previously ridiculed in his paintings became a certain style.
The disgusting children mocked him, threw stones at him, for which they would tear their hands off, but the parents of these prodigies ' would cry about ' these antidepressants!'. That's sad. The rudeness and anger of such people caused even more confusion, Van Gogh’s feeling of his insignificance and uselessness.
The film has its own style, allowing you to better understand and reflect the work of the main character. It was boring in some places, but it is worth seeing this picture. Classical music is good.
Crying from “delight” and “nbsp” could not be satisfied.
This movie is full of love. In all its forms.
The most perfect, complete, unconditional and unconditional love in every frame, in every word, in the director’s view of this story and the artist who won many hearts with his unreal paintings.
I’ve loved Van Gogh for a long time and that feeling will always be with me. Ever since I first saw reproductions of his paintings in a book at age 14, I guess my mother showed them. He is one of my three favorite artists and I admire his work. It is difficult to take your eyes off the brushstrokes in his paintings. A few years ago, I was in an interactive exhibition, and watching screens three times my height at these impossible irises, or at the almonds blooming, or the fields and expanses painted by his hand - it was so incredible that I cried with delight and could not get enough. This movie is exactly the same.
Delightfully emotionally and indescribably beautifully conveyed the light of his paintings. At some point, you just fall into the sky above his head, you look at the world through his eyes, literally in his head. How valuable it is to make such films. You can't resist that kind of flow of love because, God, you don't have that much power at all.
Willem Defoe wasn’t one of my favorite actors, and I didn’t follow his filmography, but he’s brilliant. I think Vincent himself would thank him for such a performance. He lives this life on the screen, he conveys naivety and sophistication, credulity, the desire to run away from everything and at the same time face difficulties, all those contradictions that I think constituted the personality of a great genius. Geniuses are not like us mere mortals, geniuses who create the whole universe with their own hands, literally with one glance, live a billion lives in short hours of their lives, they are comets in our sky. We'll never reach them. But we can see.
What did Vincent Van Gogh try to tell people? The answer is obvious: peace. It may be so capacious and so accurate a description of Van Gogh’s art that “On the Threshold of Eternity” would not be needed at all, as an independent work. Nevertheless, the film exists and correctly conveys to the viewer the quintessence of the work of an outstanding artist: it is this film (probably even more than the recent Van Gogh). With love, Vincent" allows the viewer to feel how the admiring everyday life was transformed into a mystical spirit and sensuality.
“On the Threshold of Eternity” does not pretend to show the viewer the finished story. It is a drama consisting of moments, fragments, episodes and impressions, and although Van Gogh is in the center of the tragedy, locked up alone with his mental illness, it is likely that the film tells primarily about the nature of inspiration. The image of Van Gogh in the film is honest, witty and at the same time romantic.
Vincent, depicted by the bright and strong Willem Defoe, is represented by a man literally in love with the transcendence of nature. It all begins as a traditional biography: Van Gogh in Paris arranges a “showing” of paintings somewhere in a dark pub, but even that audience is not able to appreciate his work. The artist is on the verge of despair, but meets Gauguin, recommending to move from Paris to the provinces. In the French wilderness, Van Gogh finally realized that he was at home and began to create.
The camera constantly follows Van Gogh: he wanders through the swaying wheat fields in a straw hat, here he paints paintings in the open air. It sounds a little corny, but sometimes the movie has to rely on banality: even though “On the threshold of eternity” is not perfect, it is still a complete vision of the creative process. The film is complex enough to portray the creator as a depressed person, and candid enough to discuss nature and passion for painting. The film under the influence of emotions literally comes to life before our eyes.
Since The Last Temptation of Christ, Defoe has not had a worthy role to combine agony and joy, to show devotion to acting with a capital letter. “On the Threshold of Eternity” was probably Defoe’s best acting work in the last few years. As claimed by the film crew, Willem drew a description of the image from the real letters of Vincent van Gogh, which the artist wrote to his brother Theo. Defoe represents the legendary person in a thoughtful and lonely way, but still rationality in the personality is present: the art that fills the soul of this person flows through the screen.
Dialogue, like the nature and mediativity of what is happening, is assertive and insightful. Here you will find a place and lively monologues of Vincent about his work, and conversations with the fastidious Gauguin and a dark debate with a priest who considers Van Gogh paintings ugly. It is during this conversation that Vincent’s complete identification with the flight of creative thought as such is felt: nevertheless, there is an ordinary world, and there is a world of feelings, which the artist touched upon.
A fragmented look at the soul of Vincent Van Gogh, captured in the style of a film - a spiritual journey, first-person camera shooting and an experimental approach to some moments of the notorious storytelling, is a complex and mediative experience, but still powerful. On the Threshold of Eternity avoids whining, instead focusing on the consequences of feelings of emotion and self-fear of the central person. The result is a little sad, lost in itself film, very different from the typical biopic. Thanks to this focus, of course, the script misses the chance to deepen the relationship between Van Gogh and his brother, Gauguin or other minor persons, but deep and thoughtful dialogues and monologues suggest thoughts about the nature of art and existence in general.
7 out of 10
Van Gogh. On the threshold of eternity At Eternity's Gate
It seemed to me that the artist should teach others.
- Yeah, but what is it? Look what these lines are, you don’t think about technique at all, your paintings look like sculpture. Understand, no one wants to learn to draw, inspired by sculpture, no matter how expensive it looks.
Is cinema life or soul? Is it a visualization of experiences, feelings, and emotions, or a dry sequence of historical facts? What is the main purpose of cinema: to direct us on the right path or to describe it in all the colors of life?
After watching the first “unfestival” film in a long time, such questions are the main ones for every viewer leaving the cinema. Despite the fact that in recent years there have been many films about Van Gogh (including the charming “Love, Vincent”), the picture of Julian Schnabel stands out against their background for its uniqueness, the director seems to open for us the master again. We watch an artist who works with incredible self-forgetfulness, in all weather, burned by his pursuit of idealism and the southern sun of France. But what did Julian Schnabel want to say, showing us his interpretation of the life story of the now great post-impressionist painter Vincent Van Gogh, so popular among filmmakers? . .
...
The film "Van Gogh." On the threshold of eternity covers the time when Vincent moves almost penniless from Paris to Arles (1888), where after a harsh winter he rents the famous “yellow house”. The artist’s stay in this small Provence town, the “Arles period”, is also associated with the name of the famous artist Paul Gauguin. It was here that Vincent began to move away from impressionism, plunging into post-impressionism. In Arles, his series of still lifes “Sunflowers” was born, as well as the paintings “Bedroom in Arles”, “Red Vineyards in Arles”, “Pink Peach in Flower” and portraits in which he mastered new techniques – a total of more than two hundred canvases.
...
Did the director have anything to say to the audience? No, this movie, like the world of Vincent himself, is created only by literally “transmitted in the frame” emotions and the inner state of the artist, which make the camera breathe, and the warm south wind of France penetrate into cinemas around the world. Julian Schnabel, himself an artist, the main goal in the creation of the film is to revive the beauty and transience of Vincent’s world. Manual shooting, shooting “from the shoulder”, the effect of “Fish-eye” and the natural light so necessary for a real artist, conveying every shade of nature La provence, only visualize the very way Van Gogh accepts life, his special vision of the world, but not his life path. The biographical aspect is, of course, important for understanding the depth of each frame drawn. Benoit Delomme, but it is not worth evaluating this film like any other biopic, a film about the lives of famous people. "Van Gogh." On the threshold of eternity" is, first of all, not a "heavy historical and biographical" plot, but in places bulky, as well as "plaster, sculptural" painting of Van Gogh, heavy for unprepared eyes picture. All the images that fill the frame accumulate layer by layer and are imprinted in your memory with a riot of colors and greasy strokes. For their awareness, the silence of thought is important, and not the attraction of the director and screenwriters to “convey” all the bright details of the human life path in the stated two hours.
But the silence of thought, oddly enough, in this film is emphasized by music, which in many ways slows down the course of the artistic narrative, but fills it with a kind of atmosphere of the attractive world of the artist. Very heavy overlay of works by Tatiana Lisovskaya on the paintings created by Julian Schnabel and Benoit Delomm, may seem a heap, but it can not be called empty, because it is in the music of the film that Vincent Van Gogh reflects the desire to get ahead of himself, take possession of time and have time to give this world the opportunity to see true beauty.
Masterfully written dialogues also complement this silence. Not being slaves to the plot, they determine the development of the characters’ images and their life goals. Magnificent dialogues and creative disputes between Van Gogh and Paul Gauguin interrupt the silence of the picture’s thought, allowing Julian Schnabel to whisper to the viewer the cherished words about the bright purpose of art against the background of French olives, valles, montange. Julian Schnabel, by adding a dialogue between Van Gogh and the priest, in which the phrase “Jesus too was almost unknown to anyone before the age of 33,” gave us the hope that, leaving this world, the great master knew his true destiny and accepted the fact that he was born for generations that have not yet been born.
It seemed to me that the artist should teach others.
What is the dominant character in the film Van Gogh? On the threshold of eternity? This painting is the very life of the soul of the great artist. It is a visualization of his experiences, feelings and emotions. But what is the main purpose of this film: to direct us on the right path or to describe it in all the colors of life? Or to discover the mystery of eternity - the eternity of the human soul, which gave the world the opportunity to see the beauty of nature and art, life and death, inspiration and freedom.
Tell me, why do you consider yourself an artist?
I can't do anything else, believe me, I've tried it.
Do you think your paintings will last forever?
Now I am just trying to understand my relationship with eternity.
It's hard to get started. The trailer is already preparing us for the fact that the film will understand only a lover of works of genius. And the trailer, as it turned out, does not convey the picture itself. It does not reveal and only confuses. You think to yourself, “You have to prepare, you will be burdened with suffering.” In reality, the opposite is true. The film is smooth, lyrical. You admire nature, light, color. You walk out of the room and breathe full. Yes, there are tense moments and emotional suffering. But do you see it in Van Gogh’s paintings? A film about the attitude of the artist to his work. The vocation and the path.
I have to give credit to the director and the cameraman. A special highlight of the film is an attempt to find moments of Van Gogh’s inspiration and convey their screen. Many experiments with the position of the frame, especially at the beginning of the film. The experiment focuses on playing with natural sunlight in landscapes. Noon and sunset. You can guess motives and even colors from the plots of the artist. It is not easy to get rid of the feeling that in these experiments there is something superfluous, incomprehensible, too hyperbolic. Recognising the accents of the director from his earlier work “Spacesuit and Butterfly”, but in the new picture everything is very fresh. In general, "freshness" - well describes what is happening in the film.
Actor Willem Dafoe shows us Van Gogh in the last years of his life in Arles, the time of his greatest hardships and finding his unique vision of light. “I like to paint and have always done so. For as long as I can remember, I've always been an artist," Vincent Van Gogh recounts his destiny. Willem Defoe organically entered this game of light, shadow and colors. An amazing job at the level of psychophysics. Of course, this is not the view of historians. This is the view of an actor who carries an artistic interpretation. Willem does not explain anything to us, but smoothly leads to the recreated image. The actor shows us an incredible dedication to the cause of Van Gogh. One of the final scenes, where we see Vincent in the hospital talking to a priest, perfectly illustrates this almost fanatical desire to convey how he saw the world. The scene itself is a reference to the artist’s past life. “I cannot do anything else. Believe me, I tried," — this phrase would sound very pathetic if we did not know that Vincent himself aspired to become a priest in his early years.
The integrity of the film would have been broken without the rest of the characters and scenes. They wrapped the game into something historic and complete, adding a very important ingredient that gives rise to that freshness. An ingredient that seems beaten in our time, but not in this movie. This is love for others, willingness to lend a helping hand.
All together gives us that rare freshness with all the tragedy. I recommend after the film to walk in the sunny weather with eyes wide open, and when you return home, hug your loved one for no reason.
9 out of 10
Van Gogh. On the threshold of eternity. Another biographical film, telling us about the life (or as in this film) of an excerpt from the life of a famous person. In this case, we are told a part of the life of an ordinary person who was obsessed with painting, who always tried to draw something on a successful occasion. Fine art was everything to him - life, bread, best friend. After all, he was a person with a specific character, he was not interested in other sciences or professions, and if he was interested, then not for long. With regard to a bad relationship with the outside world, it can be explained by one simple saying: ' if you want to do something, do it yourself ' Vincent didn’t trust anyone, didn’t open up to anyone, if he needed a person, it was only for the sake of posing for another picture. This can also explain the meaning of the title of the film - ' On the threshold of eternity' - in this case, eternity is memory, fame, reverence, enthusiasm. Before his death, Van Gogh asked a maid to hand over a book with many of his drawings to the innkeeper for further (most likely) sale, but this maid simply left the book to dust on the shelf. A hundred years later, this book was found. It was only after so much time that Vincent Van Gogh found what he wanted in life. And in his time he remained standing ' on the threshold of eternity'...
I want to say a big thank you to the director Julian Schnabel for taking the picture and showing his vision of the story of the post-impressionist artist. After all, there is still debate about the end of Van Gogh’s life.
I also want to mention Benoit Delomm’s good camera work. Dynamic camera, different viewing angles, not often you see this in other paintings. I also liked the move, namely to show the world ' through the eyes of a psychopath' which he looks at through yellow lenses. Such a small analogy with people looking at the world through rose-colored glasses.
7 out of 10
One of the few films of the past Oscars, which for most of its dialogue with the audience included aesthetics rather than consumer satisfaction. "Van Gogh." On the threshold of eternity, unlike most Hollywood biopics, it immerses the viewer in its protagonist rather than trying to quickly read as many dates and facts as possible from the biography of the great creator.
Willem Defoe in the role of Vincent Van Gogh was perhaps noted for his best role in his career, and Julian Schnabel confirmed that he is one of the few directors of our time devoted to an independent vision of cinema. The story begins with the moment when Van Gogh, unrecognized even in narrow circles of artists, limits himself from the community of artists, and later, with the help of his brother and Paul Gauguin, enters the path intended for him.
Details from the biography of the artist are not much in the film, and unlike other iconic figures of any art, the director gives his vision and tries to point out what exactly made Van Gogh different from the rest. The endless, deep, philosophical dialogues, panoramic shootings are all part of meditation in the space created by Julian Schnabel. There have been many attempts to tell the story of Van Gogh’s life in the cinema, but what makes this film special is Defoe’s failure to accept his madness.
Just worth the final conversation with the priest in the hospital - perhaps one of the best dialogues in cinema last year, this film had no chance to launch a campaign comparable to other nominees of the last "Oscar", but the nomination "Willem Defoe" - as a ray of light in the politicized and commercial "Oscar". The result is a great independent film, full of thoughts and emotions.
8 out of 10
It seems that making films about Van Gogh has already become a real mainstream. It is understandable, such an extraordinary artist with a peculiar biography, not accepted during life, but exalted after death. . .
However, Julian Schneibel manages to make an interesting film. A lot of it from a point of view. I mean, on the one hand, dizzying (this is not a beautiful word now, I really got sick of it) camera work, and on the other hand, the way almost all the information in the film is presented - in fact through the eyes of the artist.
Thus, the film focuses not so much on the biography of the artist as on his extraordinary creative vision, and the film is filled with inexpressible beauty landscapes.
In fact, I had the impression that the image of Van Gogh came out too smoothly, not like Van Gogh is a timid romantic in his letters to his brother, rather, he was a man, paradoxically it may sound, with an unusually sober mind, allowing him to draw quite deep conclusions, another thing - what was concerned with his intellectual quest.
However, I really liked Gauguin in the performance of Oscar Isaac, detached and somewhat selfish.
In short, this is a very interesting film, which sets itself a difficult task - to convey the vision of the world by the artist and, in my opinion, cope with it in an original way.
The film is an attempt to understand Van Gogh’s creative method. Why did he write like he did? Did the artist create the person or the person of the artist? What did he see around him? How did he see? How did he feel? What technique did you use and why? Director Julian Schnabel conducts research on the personality of the master for himself and the audience.
The movie is beautiful. The rays of the sun stream from the screen, the rustle of grass and leaves is heard. The color scheme is bright and juicy when the action unfolds in the summer. It is cold and cold when winter comes.
Filmed everything in the corporate style of Schnabel with a shaking camera, close-ups of faces, hands, legs. It can also be difficult to watch.
The film contains a flower garden of actors, many of whom work with the director not for the first time, for example, Senje and Amalric. I liked Rupert Friend as Theo Van Gogh. It’s great to see that the career of this interesting actor is developing.
In general, it seems that Schnabel himself writes the picture and even uses the faces of the actors as a canvas. Especially the face of Willem Dafoe with lying shadows or illuminated by the sun.
It is always a pleasure to see such films in Oscar nominations, thus gaining access to a wider audience.