I wonder if IMDb users are watching the same film as me, or is their judgment being clouded over by nostalgia for the old studio system with actors like Kirk Douglas and directors like Vincent Minnelli.
First off, Douglas was waaaaaaay too old for the role of Van Gogh. In the opening scenes, Van Gogh is a young man of 25; Douglas was around 40, and it shows (Van Gogh was only 37 when he died). Secondly, where's the accent? Van Gogh was born in the Netherlands, and yet Douglas plays him all-American. Lastly and most importantly, this is the most terrible acting I have ever seen!!! Douglas chews the scenery frantically, playing the character like a 19th century James Dean. Call it "Earless Without a Cause." Kirk Douglas' voice and mannerisms make me cringe, his puppy-dog eagerness and submissive personality ringing untrue.
The next-worst performance belongs to Anthony Quinn, as an over-the-top Gauguin. I just wished he'd go to Tahaiti already.
The whole picture reeks of Hollywood romanticism rather than a more realistic European squalor. The script is overly melodramatic and obvious; every time it's mentioned, the word "crazy" jumps out, like a not-too-subtle foreshadowing.
This is a white-washed, sanitized version of Van Gogh's life -- though I'm surprised they included scenes where the artist lived with a prostitute (here called Christine) and her young child (in "Vincent and Theo" the prostitute is Sien, and the child considerably older, and a girl. Makes me wonder which version is correct. I'm guessing V&T). All the other stuff -- trips to the brothel, Theo's syphilis, the ear-cutting, and the suicide -- is either not mentioned, or occurs off-screen. Not surprising for a movie made in 1956.
Only worth seeing if you want to howl with laughter.
First off, Douglas was waaaaaaay too old for the role of Van Gogh. In the opening scenes, Van Gogh is a young man of 25; Douglas was around 40, and it shows (Van Gogh was only 37 when he died). Secondly, where's the accent? Van Gogh was born in the Netherlands, and yet Douglas plays him all-American. Lastly and most importantly, this is the most terrible acting I have ever seen!!! Douglas chews the scenery frantically, playing the character like a 19th century James Dean. Call it "Earless Without a Cause." Kirk Douglas' voice and mannerisms make me cringe, his puppy-dog eagerness and submissive personality ringing untrue.
The next-worst performance belongs to Anthony Quinn, as an over-the-top Gauguin. I just wished he'd go to Tahaiti already.
The whole picture reeks of Hollywood romanticism rather than a more realistic European squalor. The script is overly melodramatic and obvious; every time it's mentioned, the word "crazy" jumps out, like a not-too-subtle foreshadowing.
This is a white-washed, sanitized version of Van Gogh's life -- though I'm surprised they included scenes where the artist lived with a prostitute (here called Christine) and her young child (in "Vincent and Theo" the prostitute is Sien, and the child considerably older, and a girl. Makes me wonder which version is correct. I'm guessing V&T). All the other stuff -- trips to the brothel, Theo's syphilis, the ear-cutting, and the suicide -- is either not mentioned, or occurs off-screen. Not surprising for a movie made in 1956.
Only worth seeing if you want to howl with laughter.