leeper@mtgzy.att.com (Mark R. Leeper) (12/31/90)
VINCENT AND THEO
A film review by Mark R. Leeper
Copyright 1990 Mark R. Leeper
Capsule review: Robert Altman does Ken Russell doing a
biography of Vincent Van Gogh. The film is over-long and
mostly very unappealing. Rating: -1 (-4 to +4).
With the world celebrating the 100th anniversary of Vincent Van Gogh's
death, the time was ripe for a biographic film about the artist. Kirk
Douglas had played Van Gogh in the 1956 film LUST FOR LIFE, but that was a
sort of polished Hollywood version. This time we have an international
production directed by Robert Altman. It seems from Altman's film about the
great artist who was so misunderstood in his own time that, in fact, there
was good reason to misunderstand Vincent Van Gogh.
Tim Roth, who plays Van Gogh with an English accent, makes his subject
not just someone you would *not* want to meet, he makes him someone who
could drive you out of a room just be entering it. Vincent chooses to live
in squalor not through poverty--at least initially--but through apathy. His
teeth are rotted and discolored through lack of care and his clothing is
tattered. His fascination with color is by no means limited to his
painting. He seems to have a passion for smearing himself with paint and
for eating his paints--we see him licking paint at several points in the
film.
VINCENT AND THEO concentrates, not surprisingly, on the love/hate
relationship between Vincent and his brother Theo. A little ungraciously
the film shows Theo's wife as having little but disgust and disregard for
Vincent while historically it was her perseverance that eventually brought
the art of Vincent Van Gogh to the attention of critics. While that is not
wholly inconsistent with what we see in the film, it does seem unlikely
considering her constantly unfriendly attitude toward her brother-in-law--
not surprisingly toward a man who seems to like to take a big mouthful of
wine and then drool it out of his mouth.
Kirk Douglas played Van Gogh as a man of deep passions. Roth plays him
as just plain weird and cold with occasional explosions of emotions. It is
hard to judge which is the more accurate representation, though the earlier
interpretation is by far the more watchable and dramatically interesting.
There is an odd disjointed quality to the script. Syphilis victim Theo
in one scene tries, fails, and tells his wife, "I can't pee any more." In
the next scene he is back at work as if it were just an activity of no
importance that has been dropped from his schedule. Though my wife did not
remember it, I really thought I heard one character tell another to look him
up in the phone book. We both heard a reference to South American velvet
painting, which seems a likely anachronism.
The time may have been ripe for a film biography of Van Gogh, but I
just don't feel this was the one. I give it a -1 on the -4 to +4 scale.
Mark R. Leeper
att!mtgzy!leeper
leeper@mtgzy.att.com