•
Rating: "It's all already present in nature, I just have to set it free."
This phrase uttered by Van Gogh in the film I highlight represents the best interpretative key of the film, created in 2018 by Julian Schnabel (who, moreover, is a complete artist since he is also a painter, which facilitates his work in representing the intense creative phase of the protagonist). I retrieved this title from my DVDs one of these evenings, which had fascinated me so much when it was released in theaters, and I rewatched it with great pleasure.
To motivate my preference, I could list many reasons, not least my interest in all those painters (not just Van Gogh) who contributed to creating modern art as we understand it today. As for the film itself, the director follows Van Gogh (even with point-of-view shots) in the last years of his life when, completely unknown, he creates his paintings around Arles in France. If the creative phase immensely satisfies him since he paints landscapes by immersing himself in nature (his is a true pantheistic inclination, a Pan-like love as a follower of the god Pan), on the other hand, he encounters only misunderstanding regarding his works. These are equated to unsightly daubs, and he himself is viewed with suspicion by many people.
Thankfully, his brother, as an art dealer, supports him financially and morally, and moreover, at least another painter like Paul Gauguin, met in similar circumstances, shares the idea of creating a new painting style. Unfortunately, when the latter expresses the idea of leaving for distant shores to continue his artistic works, Van Gogh will take it so badly that he will cut off an ear. This insane act will lead to a period of treatment for him since he is now considered an unstable subject (he will also claim to have strange visions).
Once recovered, he will learn from his brother that there is growing interest in his works from critics and the public, but he will not have the chance to live much longer following an attack by two youths who, robbing him of a painting, will shoot him, mortally wounding him. Van Gogh will not mention this wrongdoing, merely stating he does not remember how he got a gunshot wound to the abdomen.
One could say he was a truly singular man but undoubtedly unlucky in life (if you just think about how highly valued some of his paintings are today...). And here it is evident how hard life can be for those who fully live art, without other objectives than those related to the pleasure of expressing their potential to the fullest, without regard to any economic gain. It is rather shocking the ostracism that manifested at the time towards a true innovator like Van Gogh, but he himself admitted feeling ahead of his time, and one day perhaps, posterity would understand and appreciate his work (from above, he will be intent on pitying his contemporaries...).
Finally noteworthy is the great performance of Willem Dafoe in the role of the Dutch painter. Dafoe is exactly what one can call a great actor because of his extraordinary ability to immerse himself in the character. Here he is simply a resurrected Van Gogh, just as he had transformed into Pier Paolo Pasolini in the film "Pasolini" directed by Abel Ferrara in 2014. When you say impressive skill, you are not exaggerating: it is simply the truth (see to believe...).
Loading comments slowly
