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.)
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.)