Vincent et Théo

Although Robert Altman is proficient in re-creating the scenery of Van Gogh's life through the eyes of the painter with striking color and a vaguely bohemian atmosphere, he still fails to present Van Gogh the man or the artist in with any genuine originality. He focuses on Van Gogh, the tormented saint-artist, who forges ahead on the canvas with a drive to present the "suffering" of humanity. However, Altman precludes Van Gogh's obvious manias, his periods of demented elation. It is impossible to believe that the Van Gogh presented here could have produced those vibrant wheat fields in Arles, or the Night Café. What remains in this fractured (though never incompetent biopic), is Tim Roth's virtuoso performance; he managed to literally crawl into the skin of Van Gogh, and the result may frighten you. However, his virtuosity always overshadows Paul Rhys' rather tepid presentation of his brother Theo, though there are other admirable performances in the film, such as Wladimir Yordanoff's amiable presentation of Gauguin. Altman seems to be commenting, rather uninterestingly, about the commercial dimension of artistry, and of the impossibility of true recognition of genius. This is a conventional portrait of the unrecognized genius, it is a tale told again and again. However, Altman's imagery is captivating (with the help of Storraro), the photography looks like vibrant halos emitted by Van Gogh's paintings, though the musical score is dreadful and morbid. Still you much watch this one for Tim Roth's inspired performance if nothing else.

I knew something of Vincent van Gogh, and Theo for that matter, from reading Irving Stone's book about them (Titled "Lust for Life", I think). They were both copious letter writers, which is where most of the knowledge of them today comes from. I can't say enough about Tim Roth's performance in this film. As someone earlier remarked, Roth passed up the chance to ham it up, as many actors would do to portray van Gogh's madness. It's a much more realistic quiet desperation. I had barely heard of Roth, and didn't recognize him in "Pulp Fiction". Coincidentally, I had just seen him in "Little Odessa", another well done, but somewhat low-key performance. That one is worth checking out, too. The other actors, the direction, the photography were all first rate. The only reason I didn't give it a higher score is that the subject matter is sometimes unpleasant to watch. But if you are interested enough to read this comment, then you should see the film.

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.

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.

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.