Loving Vincent
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.