Loving Vincent California Typewriter -- Film Review

Loving Vincent

Directed by Dorota Kobiela and Hugh Welchman

This is a beautifully made animation of the life of Vincent Van Gogh, told in retrospect about a year after his death.  It is done in the style of Van Gogh's painting with many of the paintings of Van Gogh incorporated into the various scenes and events depicted.  It is an interesting concept and makes the film especially engaging if you are familiar with the paintings of Van Gogh.  The animus for the film is the attempt to deliver Van Gogh's final letter to his brother Theo.  The letter had been mailed, but was returned as undeliverable.  The postmaster, Roulin, who knew Van Gogh well, because Van Gogh was such a prolific letter writer, enlists his son, Armand, to seek out Van Gogh's brother, Theo, and deliver the letter personally.  However, Theo is already dead, having passed away just six months after Vincent.  Armand's quest and the various people in 

Van Gogh's life whom he meets in his travels is the content of the film. 

As he delves into Van Gogh's life and the circumstances of his death, Armand becomes something of a detective, attempting to piece together the strands of an intriguing mystery, namely, Van Gogh's alleged suicide at age 37.  The film is ultimately disappointing.  After building a compelling case for Van Gogh being murdered rather than committing suicide, it backs off its provocative conclusion and concedes that Doctor Gachet's official account is most likely correct, even though Gachet was a prime suspect and had plenty of motivation.  I felt that these filmmakers were timid and conservative and failed to look closely at Van Gogh's life, his character, and his relationships, particularly with Doctor Gachet.  There is no in depth examination of Doctor Gachet other than to present his version of the story, in which he poses as a sort of paternal figure to this troubled, wayward soul and absolves himself, of course, of any role in Van Gogh's death.  This film stayed very much on the surface.  It presented the obvious, the known facts, as well as the questions that have been around since 1890, but then settles for the conventional interpretation and understanding of events.  But it doesn't add up.

First of all it does not present us with a fleshed out portrait of Van Gogh himself.  We get a better feel for the character of Armand than we do for Van Gogh.  This is an honorific presentation that depicts Van Gogh as the struggling, rejected, misunderstood artist, totally devoted to his art, but without any deep insight into what was driving him and how it was that his closest relationships tended to become antagonistic (Gauguin, Gachet, Rene Secretan, Theo).  Van Gogh seems to have been soundly rejected by most of the people of the town of  Auvers-sur-Oise where he was living.  Kids threw stones at him while he was out in the fields painting.  Numerous people in the town seemed to harbor an intense dislike for him.  Why?  Were they just bigoted and hostile to outsiders of any kind, or was there something particular about Van Gogh or his behavior that antagonized them?  There is no consideration given to the possibility of a same sex liaison with either Gachet, or Rene.  In fact, this film presents Van Gogh as more or less asexual.  But this was a man who cut off his ear and gave it to a whore.  What was that all about?  The film does not go into it. 

There is so much that this film leaves out.  It's no wonder it cannot make sense of Van Gogh's death.  I think Don McLean's song, "Vincent," (which I have always liked) has helped to popularize this romantic conception of Van Gogh the Saint, Van Gogh the Martyr, Van Gogh the Apostle of Goodness and Light to a world of darkness and stiffnecked, uncomprehending recalcitrants.  It sells, but how real is it? 

Van Gogh started painting for the first time at age 28, according to this film, and he was largely self taught.  Fine, but there must have been precursors, something must have laid a foundation, there must have been some preparation.  He didn't just hatch from an egg fully developed.  There is little examination of his childhood, except for his loneliness and his mother's grieving devotion to a stillborn older brother.  I think this was very crucial and it is rather summarily glossed over.  The significance is not comprehended.  He spent some time in an insane asylum, which in those days could be quite wretched.  But for what?  What were his symptoms? 

Suicide can be made plausible in almost anyone.  Everyone has frustrations, disappointments, and difficulties in their life, and suicides do occur in people who otherwise seem to be doing well -- such as Van Gogh.  Suicides are often staged or declared by authorities to cover up murders.  Intelligence agencies, the FBI, local police forces and prisons often do this.  Medical examiner reports can be written to declare or to cover up a suicide.  In this case, Dr. Gachet, himself a prime suspect, was the authoritative opinion.  The gun that was used was never found, and Van Gogh did not own a gun -- but Gachet did.  There are a whole array of suspicious circumstances surrounding Van Gogh's death.  The film does a good job of laying them out, and then closes by endorsing Gachet's version of events. 

This film is just plain unsatisfying and doesn't make any sense.  Van Gogh doesn't make any sense, and his alleged suicide doesn't make any sense.  I just don't buy any of this story, that is, the interpretation of his life and death that is served up.  Somebody else needs to do this better.  These filmmakers were too enthralled with Van Gogh's art to actually see the man.  They did a magnificent job of presenting Van Gogh's paintings and his style in animation.  They raised provocative questions about his death and what might have led up to it, and singled out several likely candidates who might have played a role in it.  But they lack psychological insight and sophistication.  They seem naive and shallow in their understanding of human relations.  Maybe someone got to them.  Maybe it was decided that it is better for business to keep this myth alive of Van Gogh the tortured, misunderstood artist who kills himself at the height of his powers, than to promote the idea that he was most likely murdered in an ill fated love venture, or killed in a drunken fracas with some low life companions. 

My opinion is that Gachet is the most likely perpetrator.  Rene Secretan is less likely unless the shooting was an accidental outcome of drunken horseplay -- a possibility not even floated in the film.  Rene looks a little bit like the Lee Harvey Oswald of this drama: the bewildered patsy who was set up to take the fall. 

The film does leave a strong impression.  The imagery in the style of Van Gogh is quite striking and memorable.  The circumstantial case for Van Gogh being murdered rather than a suicide is quite convincing and leaves me strongly curious.  And the sense of dissatisfaction at this film's spinelessness, its conservatism, and its lack of follow through is also very strong and enduring.  

California Typewriter

Directed by Doug Nichol

There is pushback.  There is dissent.  I thought I was the only one, but I found I am not alone.  We don't all have to be digital zombies.   There are still people out there using typewriters and loving it, even championing it.  For example, Tom Hanks, Sam Shepard (recently deceased), David McCullough, Mason Williams, John Mayer, and many others.  There are people out there collecting manual typewriters.  And there is one place left in Berkeley, California that fixes them:  California Typewriter on San Pablo Avenue. 

I used to have an IBM electric typewriter, which I had had since my mid-twenties.  I donated it to Goodwill some years ago in a downsizing, with painful regret.  I hadn't used it in years and didn't intend to, but I still liked it, and I liked having it.  It was a perfectly good, working typewriter.  I am not nostalgic for manual typewriters, but I stand in league with people who are resisting the digitization of every aspect of our lives.  Vinyl records are making a comeback as well.  I saw vinyl record players for sale in a Target recently.  Many people like the sound of vinyl records better than the remastered CDs.  Digital may be more efficient, but it is not necessarily better.  The film points out some of what is being lost with our increased dependence on digital devices.  I wouldn't call this film an indulgence in nostalgia.  There is some nostalgia expressed, but there is a meaningful protest and a mobilization of resistance going on here to an increasingly imposing culture of dependence on digital devices and a domination of our time and attention by online demands.  The typewriter is a symbol of respite, a reassertion of the tactile. 

I have long worried about the fact that so much of our society and our communication and our record keeping depends on digital technology.  In order to access and use this information one needs very sophisticated machines that depend on a very complex, technologically advanced society to produce, and they require electricity to operate.  Batteries for these machines are also very sophisticated and depend on very advanced production methods, as well as advanced materials.  If our infrastructure were to collapse for any length of time, all of the information, knowledge, and know-how of civilization would be inaccessible -- except for what is written on well preserved paper or books.  I especially dislike that libraries are digitizing their holdings and disposing of books and paper.  True, it takes up less room, but if the lights go out, we're back in the Stone Age. 

The people in this film who use typewriters instead of computers for writing do it for a wide range of reasons.  It does not represent a wholesale rejection of the digital age.  It has more to do with personal preferences, aesthetics.  Most of these people are over fifty.  The friend who accompanied me to the film thought they were all crazy.  But I happen to like weird people with quirky interests.  I'm one of them.  My friend is normal.  However, there are many within Silicon Valley itself, including some prominent engineers and designers, who are renouncing the digital domination of life and raising alarms against its overwhelming intrusion and envelopment of our time and attention.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/oct/05/smartphone-addiction-silicon-valley-dystopia

The typewriter was part of a massive technological revolution at the end of the nineteenth century that made the twentieth century very different from the nineteenth, just as the computer and the cell phone are making life in the twenty-first century very different from what it was in the twentieth.   The film draws these parallels very effectively, tracing the history and development of the typewriter from the late 1800s, and focuses on a series of people who all have some special interest in typewriters.  One is a collector of vintage typewriters from the 1800s, Tom Hanks we all know, David McCullough is a prominent historian, Richard Polt is a writer and blogger, Jeremy Mayer is an artist who makes sculptures from the parts of discarded typewriters, the playwright Sam Shepard, Grammy award winning singer John Mayer, as well as other typewriter enthusiasts.  Each has an interesting, unique personal perspective on the typewriter and its application in their daily lives.  However, the center of gravity of the film is the California Typewriter Company of Berkeley, California, owned by Martin Howard.   The film explores the lives of all of these people and delves into the origins of their interest in typewriters and examines the persistence of their use despite the overwhelming onslaught of digital word processing and printing. 

This film had special relevance for me because I lived through all of these developments.  My father had a manual typewriter from the World War 2 era whose keys were so stiff I could hardly depress them as a kid.  I always hated that typewriter.  That might be why I never remained attached to typewriters and was so ready to embrace the computer for composing documents.  As a graduate student I bought an IBM electric, which was an advanced modern wonder at the time.  My girlfriend at that time used to make fun of me because I was so proud of it.  This is the one I regretfully gave away several years ago.  But I was the first graduate student in my department to use the university's computer for word processing.  I typed it my thesis myself and printed it on the advanced printer connected to the computer system.  When the professors saw the results they made the secretaries learn how to use the new technology and had computer terminals installed in our department.  I spearheaded the digital revolution in writing and document printing.  I've never had any inclination to go back to a typewriter, but after seeing this film I feel I would like to have one.  I can see some uses for it and I have become increasingly resistant to the digital invasion of our lives. 

I still use a landline phone and do not use a cell phone (but I do use one while traveling).  I don't own a television set, and haven't for many years, but I can watch videos on the internet.  I do almost all of my shopping online and believe Amazon.com was the best thing that ever happened to retail shopping.  I carry a pocketwatch that you wind up (no battery).  I've been using pocketwatches since I was about twelve years old.  I don't like wristwatches and I don't like clocks with batteries that run down and LED screens that go bad that you can't read.  I bought a new bathroom scale recently that is analog.  No batteries to replace, no digital screen.  It replaced one that was about 50 years old and was inaccurate by about 7 or 8 pounds in my favor.  I gained weight just by replacing the scale.  I drive a manual transmission car, and always have.  I never use a GPS, always depend on paper maps.   I am learning wood engraving, which is an art form that went out of style about a hundred years ago.  I bind my own books, and have taken numerous workshops in book binding at the Center for the Book in San Francisco.  I was a dark room photographer for many years, but have gone completely digital.  I love Photoshop and my digital photo printer.  I have no desire to go back into a darkroom, but darkroom photographic prints have a special look and feel that digital papers do not replicate.  I have numerous fountain pens and mechanical pencils, and have taken workshops in calligraphy.  I disagree intensely with the removal of cursive writing from the curriculum of school children.  Raising children to be completely dependent on digital devices is a huge mistake and a great lament. 

This film could become a cult favorite among a certain subgroup of retros in our society.  They are more numerous that I might have imagined.  I was glad to see it and hope it will be a coalescing point and an inspiration for other digital refuseniks.  I am not a relic after all;  I am part of a nascent counterculture.  This well constructed documentary helped me see my true place in an awakening community.