At Eternity's Gate

Vincent Van Gogh's last days in the south of France are depicted in this heartfelt drama by Julian Schnabel. Willem Dafoe gives a powerful performance as the destitute, troubled painter who was not understood by those in his own time. As Van Gogh seeks to express his extraordinary eye for nature and portraits, those around him are either put off, wary or sometimes intrigued. His brother is his only real comfort.

A deliberately paced film with a mournful soundtrack, this will leave you in a contemplative state. It does not tell you everything about Van Gogh or when his self-isolation began but it does seek to offer insight into his profoundly troubled mental state. His demons are quite evident throughout the film- everything from his intolerant response to the curiosity of schoolchildren to his difficulty explaining his world to whatever doctor is examining him, Van Gogh is exemplified in Dafoe's anguished face. Schnabel, himself a painter, brings his own perspective in piecing this film together, especially in showing how Van Gogh paints and goes about his craft.

The film is not without drawbacks. Oscar Isaac is miscast as Paul Gauguin, the French painter whom Van Gogh couldn't bear losing company with. And Mads Mikkelsen gets minimal screen time in a very thoughtful performance as an inquisitive priest who recognizes Van Gogh's uniqueness. But this film is Schnabel's interpretation of Van Gogh and Dafoe's exemplary portrayal of him and in that regard it works quite well. Recommended.

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.

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).

This film doesn't follow the Hollywood structure. It's not a biography like you might expect, and the plot isn't defined. Instead, this is an attempt to get inside Van Gogh's head, and a brilliant one at that. Imagine being the world's greatest artist, with zero validation and constant ridicule by the establishment around you. That's the torturous state of being this film encapsulates and does it with purpose. At times, the cinema language gets more experimental than necessarily to accomplish its goal, but I commend the director for pushing the boundaries of standard filmmaking and letting us inhabit Van Gogh's mind for this brief period. I genuinely felt a loss for this escape from my own mind when Van Gogh passed. I recommend anyone involved with artistic or creative thinking to watch this film.

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.