Skip to main content

An Insightful, Visionary, and Loving Tribute


Loving Vincent is such an appropriately bittersweet title. It evokes the adoration of Vincent van Gogh’s genius and work that he never received during his lifetime. He was the epitome of the tortured artist, and his life was a very sad story, as is touched on in this revolutionary film -the first to ever be animated through painting. And the movie’s beautiful design is matched by its beautiful meaning, exactly like a van Gogh painting.
Set a year after van Gogh’s suicide, his friend and postman Joseph Roulin (Chris O’Dowd) asks his son Armand (Douglas Booth) do deliver the artists’ last letter to his brother Theo. Both are suspicious about his suicide as his last letters indicated he was in contented spirits. Learning that Theo too has died, Armand is soon directed to Auvers-sur-Oise, the community where van Gogh perished, and while there attempts an investigation into whether or not the painter may have been murdered.
Obviously the most vividly impressive feature of this movie is the painted animation. Mimicking van Gogh’s style quite closely, it’s glorious to watch. Every frame of Loving Vincent is mesmerizing, owing to the extreme and risky method chosen by directors Dorota Kobiela and Hugh Welchman. The movie opens boasting about this feat: 65,000 frames painted by over a hundred artists, but it certainly earns such bragging rights. You feel like you’re in a painting the whole movie, and the way the form is utilized is sublime. Various scene transitions in particular are astounding, with one image melting away so beautifully into another. There’s a rhythm to the motion that’s entirely its own, a luscious look and style that’s dazzling. To see clear, tangible human craftsmanship on display through this entire film, something that’s been absent from mainstream animation for quite some time, is wholly sensational!
As for the story, this film takes the Citizen Kane approach of having van Gogh’s last days told through recollections of the people who knew him. Only unlike Kane, the story’s not so much about Vincent (as he is almost exclusively referred to) as the impact he left on others, and Armand’s learning of this impact as he conducts his inquiry. Even in the flashbacks, illustrated in shades of black of white, Vincent doesn’t say much or is often muted. But with the exception of one religious woman played by Helen McCrory, everyone talks relatively fondly of him, his eccentricities, passion, and artistry. We learn to appreciate the man at the same time as Armand. Nonetheless, there are a couple subplots that aren’t necessary, most notably involving Armand and a nameless local he pursues, believing him to possibly be connected with this murder theory.
There comes a point where that theory becomes Armand’s drive, as he begins to suspect one person in particular to have murdered Vincent, due to the angle of the shot, a past antagonistic relationship, and the previously noted unpredictability of Vincent’s death. However it’s been historically accepted that van Gogh did in fact commit suicide, or rather he tried and died two days later of his injuries -so why then is the movie so concerned with a seemingly contrived conspiracy plot? Why couldn’t Armand just believe Vincent committed suicide? Because he seemed alright on the outside. Vincent van Gogh had severe depression, and like many who’ve suffered with it, it wasn’t always apparent. It’s an illness that’s connected firmly with feeling, and only those closest to Vincent could pick up on it. Armand’s journey in this film isn’t as much about uncovering how Vincent died as rationalizing how Vincent could kill himself. And in so doing he learns that there is no simple explanation. It’s not as thorough an exploration of depression as something like BoJack Horseman, but it gets the important strokes.
Though a number of characters in this film were real people van Gogh painted, they’re animated to resemble their actors, who performed most of the scenes in front of green screens as models for the painters. The effect can at times resemble the rotoscoping techniques of films like A Scanner Darkly, but because it’s stylized to van Gogh’s art, it’s much more visually appealing; and the actors’ performances still come through, much like with motion capture. Douglas Booth is a great audience surrogate, Chris O’Dowd a fitting paranoid old postman, John Sessions is a perfect art dealer in awe of Vincent’s skill, and Saoirse Ronan is obviously great as the fiery young woman with a possible romantic interest in Vincent. The cast also includes the aforementioned McCrory, an outstanding Eleanor Tomlinson, and her Poldark co-star Aidan Turner. Jerome Flynn plays the doctor, Gachet, who Armand goes to Auvers to find, and though he doesn’t appear until near the end, he really shines. Indeed there’s one scene between the two of them where both Flynn and Booth have never been better.
Loving Vincent is more than a tribute to van Gogh and his work, it’s a study of a troubled man and his illness and the impact they leave behind. Rendered through an intrepid artistic expression that captures the beauty of van Gogh’s influential style, it paints a rich and emotional portrait of the great legacy he suffered for.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...