À la porte de l'éternité

This film tackles the story of an artist creating masterpieces for later generations but not for his own. All the techniques that bothered other reviewers--the handheld camera, loud piano soundtrack, looped dialog--all emphasized a life of loneliness and ridicule that made the audience experience those emotions.

Clearly the story lacked a typical plot, not so much because it wasn't there as much as that Van Gogh's story is so well known and portrayed. I sensed that my companions may have been wishing they had chosen a different movie but for me this film further added to the tapestry of Van Gogh's unique story. Plus the film addresses the two biggest points of contention about him ... his ear and his death ... and suggests that Van Gogh's character traits have turned those into unsolvable mysteries.

Vincent Van Gogh was a tortured soul that was, paradoxically, obsessed with beauty and wonder. Julian Schnabel (director) tries to give us a glimpse into the mind of the painter with this film and he delivers. This movie is not a biopic. It is more of an homage, an attempt to make us look at the world the way Vincent did.

With a dynamic camera, often hand-held, we wander around with Van Gogh (Willem Dafoe) trying to find interesting and striking images of nature, villages, people... The camera is always searching; different lenses, different angels, different distances... It finds new and inventive ways of filming. For example the split diopter is used, not to bring two objects into focus, but to blur par of the screen; and since Vincent had an eye condition, we are truly put in the artists shoes. Such a shame the movie at times loses itself in its eager to find yet another camera angle.

Sometimes a voice-over paints another image on top of what is shown. The score paints an atmosphere of ecstasy with a darker undertone. And Willem Dafoe paints an A+ performance, but he does it so well other actors sometimes disappear into his shadow.

Yet, this movie is an experience worth exploring. However it's tempo occasionally falters and instead of one long smooth stroke over the canvas, it sometimes feels more like a rough patchwork of different stories. It's sometimes messy, sometimes incredibly beautiful. Quite like Van Gogh.

This movie is not for everyone. Those who shiver when encountering vague, artsy-fartsy movies that call themselves art, better turn elsewhere. But those who can appreciate this way of filming and especially those who love Van Gogh's work, will adore this dreamlike exploration of Vincent's mind.

This film succeeds in various ways: Dafoe delivers a marvelous portrayal of van Gogh, and Rupert Friend offers a dignified performance as Theo, his brother. The production design, costuming, and lush landscapes are all outstanding. As someone who has seen most of the films directed by Schnabel, I find him an insightful, astute director, yet I wish he would have introduced more nuance into certain scenes.

The invigorating piano score suffers from an overblown volume at various times. At the pre-release screening, more than a handful of people walked out of the film, midway. I think they were overwhelmed by a dizzy combination of loud music and jumpy, blurred camera techniques. As for me, the approach worked, adding a visceral punch.

Some of the dialogue was culled from Vincent's letters to his brother, and Dafoe rendered the text with a vulnerable immediacy. Several roles were aptly cast, but could have benefited from additional screen time: Isaac (as Gauguin), Almaric (Dr. Gachet), and Seigner (Madame Ginoux).

Rather think of it as a painted film, with one artist (Schnabel) trying to convey what it is to be another (Van Gogh). At Eternity's Gate is an immersion into the world of Van Gogh. Art conveys something about the world and the human condition words can never express. After watching the movie I came to realize other ways of trying to understand Van Gogh and his art fall short of this immersion. If you were to take an audio tour of a Van Gogh exhibit you would not finish the tour with the same feeling or understanding as you might get from watching the movie. Everything about the movie is spare, whittled down to an essential nub. The dialogue doesn't matter. What does matter are the long, silent scenes of Van Gogh in Nature and at home, and the times where he speaks directly to the audience, informing it of what it is to be Van Gogh. The occasionally jumpy camera shots and the overlapping dialogue may not have been completely necessary (and obviously a major turn-off for various other viewers), but they do help to establish what it may have been like to be Van Gogh. Madness? Sure, if that label works for you. Clearly, Van Gogh was different. Mad or not, he had his difficulties fitting in to society, any society. The last 20 minutes or so are the most painterly. After absorbing an hour of background material, all the film and Van Gogh have told you allows you to understand his world. When he talks about light, the screen is flooded with light, but even when the screen turns to gloom, you see the world as Van Gogh did. The walls are painted as they were in the background of a Van Gogh painting. And you the viewer? You sit back and drink it all in.

Loved the raw hand held camera work . The director shows the scene in such a that u can really enter into vincent's mind and can see his vision . Obviously the acting of Willem Dafoe was tremendous and he took the character to another level .