SYNOPSICS
Van Gogh (1991) is a French movie. Maurice Pialat has directed this movie. Jacques Dutronc,Alexandra London,Bernard Le Coq,Gérard Séty are the starring of this movie. It was released in 1991. Van Gogh (1991) is considered one of the best Biography,Drama movie in India and around the world.
In late spring, 1890, Vincent moves to Auvers-sur-Oise, near Paris, under the care of Dr. Gachet, living in a humble inn. Fewer than 70 days later, Vincent dies from a self-inflicted gunshot wound. We see Vincent at work, painting landscapes and portraits. His brother Theo, wife Johanna, and their baby visit Auvers. Vincent is playful and charming, engaging the attentions of Gachet's daughter Marguerite (who's half Vincent's age), a young maid at the inn, Cathy a Parisian prostitute, and Johanna. Shortly before his death, Vincent visits Paris, quarrels with Theo, disparages his own art and accomplishments, dances at a brothel, and is warm then cold toward Marguerite.
More
Van Gogh (1991) Reviews
One of the greatest French films ever !
This is Maurice Pialat's masterpiece, one of the best French films ever ! Unlike the title may induce, it's not a Van Gogh "classic" biography as Pialat only shows the last three months of the painter's life, from his arrival in Auvers sur Oise until his suicide. The picture is constantly moving, intelligent, funny and masterfully photographed (some sequences along the river look like Renoirs's paintings). It's as much a movie about Pialat himself as about Van Gogh. The scene between Vincent and his brother Theo , or the ones between the latter and her wife Jo are just extraordinary. And the way Pialat films Van Gogh's agony at the Auberge Ravoux in Auvers sur Oise is the mark of a genius. Jacques Dutronc may not be a Vincent van Gogh lookalike, he's absolutely outstanding. And Bernard Le Coq as Theo makes his best performance so far. Unmissable!!!!!!!!!!
Understated, Underrated Masterpiece
I loved every golden minute of this film. It was honest, sensitive and respectful of the artist and anyone who loves Van Gogh's paintings and wants the fly-on-the-wall glimpse of his last days on earth will be in for a wonderful experience. Unlike such films as "Lust for Life" with the Academy Awards so visibly in mind, this one doesn't offer any mad scenes, or pulpitizing or self-mutilation. In other words, if you are looking for Kirk Douglas chewing up the scenery or Stanley Kramer, bullhorn in hand, preaching one of his messages, or, heaven forbid, "Mondo Cane", this will be a disappointment. Unlike so many biopics of artists' lives, this one doesn't sell out to the mass audience with cheap histrionics. It dares to respect its subject and treat it humanely and humbly. Every object, every face, every scene evokes what Van Gogh would have witnessed himself before his death. Just walking through a field evokes the thrill of recognizing the scene from one of his paintings! As undramatic as it may seem to some, it's really quite exciting for those of us who revere the artist and his work. In fact, I was actually angry at the end of the film that the beauty finally had to stop. I would recommend this with all my heart to those viewers who love Van Gogh's paintings and are in search of a film that respects the artist in his dying days. It is moving and honest. Curtis Stotlar
Great Portrait of Van Gogh & His Last Days
If you haven't seen this movie yet, set aside a few hours and treat yourself to this gem of a film. Jacques Dutronc is great as the Von Gogh, but Alexandra London is fantastic stealing almost every scene she is in with Dutronc. Bernard Le Coq as big brother, Theo, turns in a good controlled performance as well. The supporting cast is also first rate. The movie covers the last two months of Van Gogh's life from his arrival in Auvers sur Oise ( then a sleepy suburb 17 miles from Paris) until his death from apparently self-inflicted wounds. He is buried there by the way, next to his brother Theo, and the inn where he stayed is still standing. (Google "Auvers-Sur-Oise") The sad part is that Van Gogh appeared to suffered from a form of depression, if it were today it could have been treated with proper medication. If he had lived 110 years later he might have been fine. I loved the research they appeared to do on everything from period trains, blacksmiths, inn keepers, farmers, day laborers, other artists and family members. It has an authentic feel to it. Another good part is the lack of a sappy soundtrack to detract from the story at hand. The lack of a soundtrack renders it almost as if you are standing in the same town watching what is going on. "Excuse me, are you Vincent Van Gogh?" The picture is beautifully photographed and as one IMDb'er from France pointed out in his comments "some sequences along the river look like Renoirs's paintings" It's true. Don't miss this.
Nice Try, but...
The strength of this film hinges on the plausibility of the account- if this is indeed an accurate portrayal of Van Gogh's last days then it at least has some innate value in that regard. Although the pain of V.G.'s suffering was excruciatingly heightened by the real-life pace, the film suffered overall from being too slow. I was left feeling depressed about Van Gogh and got the feeling that maybe some aspects of a person's life are better left undramatized. The character of "Van Gogh" ultimately comes across as a hopeless case--crazy, depressed, bitter, irresponsible and ill-tempered, hopelessly dependent on his brother and resentful to the point of suicide because of it. But is that the whole story? There must be more and this movie doesn't leave the viewer with the impression that any stones have been left unturned. Too much of this man's earlier life is unknown to us(assumed) and his actions and relationship with his brother, Theo have no real context for the viewer to truly sympathize or understand Van Gogh. And the relations he has with the love interests in the film are in many ways stilted and hard to believe. Van Gogh was a stormy, complex, singular type of human being whose story resists just this type of retelling. Nice try but I think this film missed.
A problem film, but a notable one
This long film, with Jacques Dutronc in the main role, is considered by the French to be Pialat's best. It seeks to be counter-intuitive -- and also to base its a-historical version of the artist on the conclusion that nobody who made that many paintings in the last 27 months of his life (which the film focuses on) could have been seriously impaired in function, either mental or physical; and that if he was crazy, he was high-functioning crazy. This Van Gogh has moody moments, but also laughs, drinks, has lots of sex, makes a lot of paintings, and doesn't have a cut ear. (Incidentally he also shows little sign of being Dutch; but neither did Kirk Douglas in Minelli's Lust for Life.) But this Van Gogh is also an enigma. The best feature of Van Gogh is its eccentric, surprising period film naturalism, analogous to that of Rossellini's 1966 The Rise of Louis XIV/La prise de pouvoir par Louis XIX, or Pasolini's Neorealism- influenced period effects in The Gospel According to Matthew and his Decameron, Canterbury Tales, and Arabian Nights films. Probably Pialat couldn't have made this without the Nouvelle Vague and Jules et Jim behind him. Van Gogh's best moments are just throwaways that make scenes seem more "real" because they have little to do with advancing the "plot" or with "character development" -- like the choo-choo train cigarette puffing scene in Jules et Jim. Pialat's biggest influence as a filmmaker is said to be Jean Renoir. But in his Chicago Reader review Jonathan Rosenaum mentions Bresson and notes Bresson called his actors "models." Dutronc is very assured but is a non-actor, a singer primarily. As Theo the film uses the rather wooden Bernard Le Coq. In a sense they both, like the many extras who are or could be non-actors, are "models." And that, like most of the film, can be stimulating, but also frustrating, in a film about a figure people are so interested in. The film excels at atmosphere, the way people wear their period clothes as if they were today's latest fashions, the everydayness of trains, meals, bars, and all the times Vincent refuses to eat or drink. And its key moments are its ensemble sequences, though one big one succeeds and the other fails. The highlight is a big collective picnic by the river Oise, with dancing, singing, Van Gogh doing an imitation of Lautrec and throwing himself in the river and getting fished out, and all in very long takes, with a wonderful, astonishing sense that we are right there the whole time. But the second long sequence, almost 20 minutes, is another story. It takes place in a Paris brothel with Vincent; Theo, away from Jo, his wife (Corinne Bourdon); Dr. Gachet's daughter Marguerite (a memorably vivacious Alexandra London) who's in love with Vincent and having an affair with him -- an invented plot twist; and a volatile prostitute Vincent has been involved with, Cathy (Elsa Zylberstein). This ambitious sequence meanders so much, is so unconvincing, and goes on so long, it winds up becoming merely boring and dreary and ruining the whole film at the point that should be its climax. In the end it is just confusion and debauchery, a distraction from whatever this is about; but that's where the film is best, otherwise. This is reminiscent of the long dance in Philippe Garrel's Regular Lovers/Les amants réguliers: but that becomes a magic moment, and is more germane because it's a film about a lost generation, not the end of a great artist. But if Pialat's Van Gogh is a failure it is a great failure. Van Gogh's death is disconcertingly real, without poetry or drama, merely flat and grim. And then it's over, with a couple of hints in posthumous scenes of how famous Van Gogh will be. But there have been enough living and thought-provoking moments to make this a distinctive film and maybe one that says something about its ostensible subjects. Such a failure is, though frustrating, better than many people's successes. Van Gogh (incidentally the French pronounce it "Van Gog," to rhyme with "jog"), 158 mins., opened theatrically in France 30 Oct. 1991, in the USA the same day in 1992. Vincent Canby wrote an understanding and clear review for the NY Times. Watched on a disk from Netflix 6 Dec. 2015, which has the option of no subtitles, English subtitles, or French ones, an unusual feature on US DVD's and a handy one.