phred22

Several people here have seen this movie as very '40s. Actually, it is an awkward mixing of that era and Dreiser's 1900s. Dreiser was one of several writers who tried to bring the naturalism of European writers like Emile Zola to America. His story was intended to be the antithesis of the Horatio Alger story, where a poor boy with pluck and ambition could always make good.

Stevens was careful to keep Dreiser's indictment of the American dream intact but for some reason decided to update the book to his own time. Thus we have the wide gap between the arrogant, overbearing rich and the meek but honest poor facing a hopeless struggle. You would never guess the changes brought about by two World Wars, Prohibition and the Depression from this film. The only changes from Dreiser's time seem to be more cars, radio and clothing styles.

To Stevens' credit, he remained as neutral about his characters as Dreiser was, though by 1951 it was no longer the height of realism. Elizabeth Taylor had her first opportunity to show sexuality, and her performance still effective. Montgomery Clift's method acting is not so lucky while Shelley Winters does the best she can with a pathetic character.

This film is a rarity, a biopic which is more accurate than the book it's based on. Irving Stone's book was a major best-seller which did much to make Vincent Van Gogh one of the ten most famous artists in history but it did have its inaccuracies, particularly when it depicted its protagonist in Paris with other great painters of the time. In the book, Gauguin, Lautrec, Cezanne and Rousseau come off as typical bohemians while Vincent was made much more of a leader than he was. Minelli doesn't give us a detailed look at any of the artists except Gauguin but he is more accurate about who influenced Van Gogh and he does include his best friend, the now-forgotten Emile Bernard, if only as an extra in Tanguy's shop.

When Lust for Life came out, several critics dismissed it as too lurid and melodramatic, but those adjectives are accurate in describing Van Gogh's life. Note that Kirk Douglas does not play his usual cool, fun-loving tough guy and actually uses his whole body in his acting. For once Hollywood outdid itself.

It may be just the dubbed version I caught, but Brigitte Bardot's breakthrough film seemed unintentionally but hilariously funny to me. I don't know if the original script showed a tin ear for dialogue or if BB really was much worse delivering lines than she was at using her body to act. But it looked like Vadim and Bardot had not perfected their styles and could not help making an artificial attempt at realism. What was looked on as cool in 1956 now looks hopelessly dated, a fate that has befallen many of the early efforts to be sexy and scandalous, but not bring the censors down too harshly. Not a great work of art, but amusing and interesting as a period piece.