Set in 1825, Clare, a young Irish convict woman, chases a British officer through the rugged Tasmanian wilderness, bent on revenge for a terrible act of violence he committed against her family. On the way she enlists the services of an Aboriginal tracker named Billy, who is also marked by trauma from his own violence-filled past.
In early 18th century England, a frail Queen Anne (Colman) occupies the throne and her close friend Lady Sarah (Weisz) governs the country in her stead. When a new servant Abigail (Stone) arrives, her charm endears her to Sarah.
With Italy about to go to war in 1914, this's the story of the encounter between a goatherd called Lucia, the commune of young Northern Europeans led by Seybu and the town's young doctor on the unique island of Capri.
Reinout Scholten van Aschat,
On an isolated road passing through the vast barren plains of Tibet, a truck driver, who has accidentally run over a sheep, chances upon a young man, who is hitching a ride. As they drive ... See full summary »
Set during the tumultuous mid-19th century Edo period of Japan Killing is the story of a masterless samurai or ronin named Ikematsu Sosuke. As the prevalent peace and tranquility are sure ... See full summary »
Three young women were sentenced to death in the infamous Manson murder case, but when the death penalty was lifted, their sentence became life imprisonment. One young graduate student was ... See full summary »
Stealing many a technique from far better filmmakers, Julian Schnabel botches this obviously personal film about Van Gogh. It fails to deliver any insight into the artist and is surprisingly stupid in terms of its treatment of basic themes.
Schnabel begins by stealing the technique developed over 40 years ago by director Peter Watkins, best known for his "Edvard Munch" film that JS certainly has seen. It is the "You Are There" approach to presenting period material, ironically adapted from the 1950s CBS TV series of that name (CBS Films is releasing "At Eternity's Gate"). Watkins uses the conceit of a first-person camera documentary crew on the scene photographing and interviewing characters from previous centuries (before cinema had been invented), and Schnabel repeatedly uses hand-held & first-person camera that proves to be annoying and distracting from letting the viewer enter Van Gogh's 19th Century milieu.
For Vincent's immediate point-of-view we are subjected repetitively to camera mounted on (presumably) star Dafoe's chest aimed at his legs walking and the ground beneath, a technique Nic Roeg used memorably in the 1967 Hardy adaptation of "Far From the Madding Crowd". Completing a trifecta of self-defeating steals, many shots from Van Gogh's POV have the bottom half of the camera lens covered with vaseline to create a blurring effect, an artistic approach which was developed in the 1960s by the unsung masters of stylization (or over-stylization if one is not a fan of their work), the son/father team of Jean-Gabriel and Quinto Albicocco, famed for their classic adaptation of "Le Grand Meaulnes".
Another disastrous technique has several dialogue exchanges repeated on the soundtrack in mind-numbing fashion, as if our heavy-handed director was trying to underline their importance. Main themes covered in the movie revolve around Van Gogh and Gauguin's differing ideas about what drives the creative artist and how he should approach his art, but even though actors do a good job at their craft (acting), both Dafoe and Oscar Isaac, the dialog is blunt and unsubtle, like the rest of the movie.
Worse yet, Schnabel refuses to let the viewer do any independent viewing, forcing one to look at what the director wants, especially in the ill-advised shaky hand-held sections. In a film about art one should be permitted to rove arouund looking at what's in the frame independent of such artificial spoon-feeding, and even when a painting or the creation of one (by Schnabel or Dafoe's hand) is shown we are denied the chance to linger and absorb the content.
So we are left with a remote, unmoving portrait of the artist as a troubled individual, gleaning next to nothing about him or his art. Post-movie emphasis (in the end credits) on a notebook of drawings not discovered till 2016 is strictly a gimmicky anti-climax, worthy of a horror movie director rather than an artist turned director.
7 of 10 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this