At Eternity's Gate

AT ETERNITY'S GATE is by no stretch meant to be a pure biography of Van Gogh. I think you need to already be familiar with some of the outlines of his story and it would help to be an appreciator of his work already. What we're really seeing here is director Julian Schnabel's attempt to show us the world as seen through the eyes of Van Gogh. How did he see things and what inspired him. What drove him to madness? What frustrated him in his relations with people? How did he slip into madness (if, indeed, he did)?

Hence, there are a lot of shots of scenery seen through Van Gogh's eyes. I don't know if star Willem Dafoe had a go-pro strapped to his head, or what...but we see walking feet, we see the ground, then the sky, then the landscape...over and over. We see him painting. We see him sitting still and contemplating the land around him. If you can give yourself over to this, it is fairly effective. Instead of wondering when something will happen, just try to experience what you're seeing and hearing. You may be drawn into seeing how Van Gogh saw beauty in the rough landscape around him and how he could NOT stop from painting it in a fever of wanting to catch it before it slipped away. At the same time, these scenes teeter on the edge of tedium.

There are more conventional scenes, to be sure. We see interactions between Van Gogh and Paul Gaughin (Oscar Isaac) and an extensive conversation between Van Gogh and a priest (the excellent Mads Mikkelsen). However, these scenes are full of characters talking about how they see art and the world around them...they speak to each other in lectures. So, the dialogue is not convincing...but it IS interesting. Again, I think it may help to already be interested in Van Gogh.

Scenes with Vincent and his brother Theo (Rupert Friend) are more poignant and personal, along with his interactions with the villagers around him. We see his awkwardness with people and yet feel his need to connect. We get a sense of his crushing poverty. (By the way, Dafoe is WAY too old to be playing this part...but his unusual face actually seems right for the role. No doubt Van Gogh would have been weary and weathered at the end of his life. Dafoe, overall, is pretty darn good here.)

It's an effective movie in many regards, but I tried hard to let myself be completely swept away by it and couldn't quite escape my impatience from time to time.

(I will say that if I were an art teacher; this would be a great film to show my college class. Study the bio of Van Gogh from a textbook, and then show this film. I've never seen a better attempt to put the viewer into the mind, or even psyche, of a great painter. It's a very noble, worthwhile effort. Very much for art lovers, or those wishing to be.)

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 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'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.

At Eternity's Gate is an amazing piece of art. I will admit that in order to fully appreciate its artistic offerings one would most definitely need very minor prior knowledge to who Vincent Van Gogh was. What his ideologies were, and the major events of his life, as well as his relationship with his brother. The way lines are repeated multiple times in a way that sounds like an echo chamber to show the audience the way Vincent is perceiving conversation on a delay, rationally speaking. One critique I see a lot is of the very long scenes of Vincent running around in wilderness looking for something to paint, and the overbearing music that surrounds those scenes. I disagree with these critiques but I do understand them. I feel it was necessary to have this music in order for the audience to understand the pure child-like joy Vincent felt while looking for something to paint, and while experiencing nature. I highly recommend this film for any Vincent Van Gogh fans. It is just shy of a perfect movie in my opinion, but I can see why someone would very much disagree with that.