Vincent & Theo

"Vincent & Theo" tells of the later years of the too short lives of painter Vincent Van Gogh and his lesser known brother, Theo. I was surprised, after viewing a Tivo'd version of the film, at how little has been written about and made of this wonderfully crafted period film by Robert Altman. Roth (Vincent) and Ryhs (Theo) distinguish themselves with superb performances which make the spectacle of their work on screen as interesting, if not more so, than the lives of their humble characters. The entire cast turns in solid performances, something which must be attributed largely to Altman, and the film offers excellence in every aspect with the possible exception of sound. Running a tad long for a somewhat less than extraordinary biography, "Vincent & Theo" is recommended for more mature viewers into period films or those with a special interest in Van Gogh and/or classical painting.

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.

The familiar tragic story of Vincent van Gogh (Tim Roth) is broadened by focusing as well on his brother Theodore (Paul Rhys), who helped support Vincent. The movie also provides a nice view of the locations which Vincent painted.

There is no overstating the acting talents of Tim Roth. While American audiences may not have really noticed him until "Reservoir Dogs", he had been acting since 1982 and this film may have been his first great role. He makes Vincent his own, fully becoming the character.

Robert Altman had a great decade in the 1970s, slumped a bit in the 1980s, but came back hard in the 1990s with this one. He was a master and utilized Roth to the fullest.

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.

Long time I searched for this movie, and when I fainly found it I was very enthusiastic to see it. I have a great connection with Vincent Van Gogh, and I would like to see every movie that was made about him, ever. Before I saw "Vincent and Theo" I saw "Lust for life", another movie about Vincent, with Kirk Douglas. and I have to say it's very different. "Vincent and Theo" Focus on the relationship between Vincent and his brother. And it also shows Vincent's life in a very realistic and different film I saw about him. Last thing-the actors are incredible! Especially Tim Roth. he's perfect as Vincent.