Vincent und Theo

I have to admit that it took me a while to grasp this movie. My knowledge about Vincent Van Gogh's life is huge (very modest, I know), and I thought that there is nothing new I could learn about him- until I saw this film. Its realistic style is just killing me. You're not gonna see in it any Hollywood glamour or something, Nothing's fixed or cut- Everything is shown like it's for real (unlike "Lust for life", which is a great film, but not as "Vincent and Theo"- well, it's very different). The focusing on the amazing relationship between the two brothers is great, but I think they should focus on the famous letters as well... but it's okay anyway. Tim Roth is a fabulous actor, and he acted Vincent's role very good.

The one who act Theo is also great. The end is so sad and good, and shows that not only Vincent needed Theo's help. Theo needed Vincent's help as well. Some of the scenes are just unforgettable- Vincent painting in the sunflowers field, for example. The director used amazing camera effects! It looks soooo surrealistic, but yes, you feel like you're watching the sunflowers through Vincent's eyes, through the madness. It's an amazing, shocking, interesting and full of Vincent's magical yet tragic life.

Everyone who has even the slightest interest in Vincent Van Gogh- watch it!!!

Altman tells the oft-told story of Vincent Van Gogh and the much less told story of his art dealer brother. The story deftly avoids tortured artist cliches and builds both characters as complex, contradictory individuals. The acting is beyond excellent. Tim Roth shows considerable restraint as Van Gogh, a character that many actors would have chosen to overact. And Rhys's Theo calm surface subtly betrays his inner torment.

Altman's camera is a star here as well, and few directors today understand the principle of movement as well as he does. The photography ranges from good to excellent, and the whole films feels like a glimpse into Vincent's world. Like most of Altman's better films, it's character rather than plot driven, so some will certainly say that it's 'boring'. If you are prone to say things like this, it's probably not for you, but anyone who is a fan of Altman's earlier films will be pleased.

I knew something of Vincent van Gogh, and Theo for that matter, from reading Irving Stone's book about them (Titled "Lust for Life", I think). They were both copious letter writers, which is where most of the knowledge of them today comes from. I can't say enough about Tim Roth's performance in this film. As someone earlier remarked, Roth passed up the chance to ham it up, as many actors would do to portray van Gogh's madness. It's a much more realistic quiet desperation. I had barely heard of Roth, and didn't recognize him in "Pulp Fiction". Coincidentally, I had just seen him in "Little Odessa", another well done, but somewhat low-key performance. That one is worth checking out, too. The other actors, the direction, the photography were all first rate. The only reason I didn't give it a higher score is that the subject matter is sometimes unpleasant to watch. But if you are interested enough to read this comment, then you should see the film.

This story is one of the most interesting I know. Unfortunately, the script misses the real drama of this important life. But never mind. The real art of the film is in two achievements:

--Altman frames and colors his shots through Vincent's eyes. This is the most sensitive use of the cinematic palette I've seen, and makes the experience singular. I saw it on a TV, which I hate to do. I would travel to see this properly projected.

--Time Roth gives interprets Vincent wonderfully. If you ignore the lines, which are vapid, and concentrate on his being, it's quite nuanced. He is meek in body, but passionate in expression. The teeth and pipe are great.

The 1950s biopic about Vincent Van Gogh, "Lust for Life", was an obsessive-compulsive sort of picture. I watched a featurette of the making of this film and also have a huge book featuring all the available known paintings by the artist and was shocked just how exact the film was. Many minor characters in the film were copied EXACTLY from paintings by Van Gogh--such as Dr. Gachet, a sailor who looked a bit like Bluto from the Popeye cartoons and Van Gogh himself (with Kirk Douglas doing crazy things to make himself look more like the artist). Additionally, the filmmakers managed to actually get many of the ORIGINAL paintings by the artist and featured them in the film!! This attention to detail show that it truly was a work of love and money, in many ways, was no object.

"Vincent & Theo", on the other hand, was a very different sort of film. Director Robert Altman did NOT have a large budget, as the film was originally envisioned as a four-hour TV production, not a 'big' movie. In addition, they did not have access to the original paintings and had art students make copies inspired by Van Gogh's work--and in the making of featurette for "Vincent & Theo" Altman admitted that he really didn't wasn't concerned how close these art students' pictures were! I noticed that many of these copies were very, very poor--and I am very familiar with his work. Instead, this film seemed to care much less about details but tries to emphasize the craziness of both Van Gogh brothers. Kirk Douglas' version of Vincent was INTENSE, whereas Tim Roth's was much sicker and bizarre. Neither is necessarily wrong--as how the very mentally disturbed painter actually acted is only guesswork and based much on his writings.

So did I like "Vincent & Theo"? Yes, but I did not love the film like I did the other film. Too many scenes of women urinating and a few ultra-bizarre scenes (such as Vincent painting his face and others as well as eating paint) turned me off. If Van Gogh DID eat paint, drink thinner and paint his face and that of others, then perhaps they were right in showing this--but I really think this was more artistic license than anything else (if it IS true, write me--I'd love to know). Additionally, I would have really loved it if the film HAD been four-hours long like it was originally envisioned, as this film just seemed a bit too short and incomplete (despite many slow portions in the film). Worth seeing but I'd strongly recommend seeing "Lust for Life" first.