It's a thankless thing to make a biography of a complex and introverted character, so Kirk Douglas made Van Gogh a big madman, or that kind of rogue, congenital madness, and he couldn't play it any more. .
The screenwriter's efforts were obviously not enough to explain Van Gogh's shocking behaviors, so what appeared on the screen were some crazy actions that stayed on the surface. People who didn't know enough about Van Gogh didn't know much about it. It may enter the hearts of the painters, they will only leave an impression of "this person, or the artist is a lunatic" after seeing the whole film.
The images of Theo and his wife, Van Gogh's father, cousin, cousin's parents, and Sheehan all have a good sense of proportion.
In that year, the film won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor, and Anthony Quinn was worthy of this award. In front of him, Kirk Douglas looked like a childish young man with unshed hair.
After reading "Before After" - a memoir written by Gauguin before his death - you know that, like Gauguin, Anthony Quinn has grasped his soul. I guess this is also a man who has suffered through vicissitudes of life.
Kirk Douglas begged Anthony Quinn to stay and not go, because loneliness was too bitter, too bitter. People who have experienced loneliness will be moved when they hear his confession. But the latter's answer is even more extreme: I know more about loneliness than you, and I will endure and get used to it, instead of complaining like you. The screenwriter's attitude of praise and criticism is obvious. He may not sympathize with Van Gogh, but try to analyze and criticize him in a film based on him. This approach is inauthentic in my opinion, and also Limits the depth of the piece.
Van Gogh and Gogh are two people with completely different temperaments, and to engage in art itself is to choose the lifestyle of "going up high-rise buildings alone, looking to the end of the world". Van Gogh may not be aware of this, but his personality determines it. He never goes out of his way to get closer to reality.
The screenwriter reflects the difference between the two artists, but there is one thing: artistically, there is no better, or more right, creators should not have subjective tendencies, just be faithful to the original appearance. Just a change of tone: I doubt that two people can be alone without being alone. Loneliness is painful, yes, but all we can do is endure and get used to loneliness.
Anywhere & anytime, Americans can't forget their "American humor", just like their signature food McDonald's and KFC, the unique taste comes from a long distance, and it's unforgettable for those with a keen sense of smell. Not a stimulus. Filmed in 1957's "Van Gogh", this tendency is not as widespread as it is today - it seems that the film itself does not exist without one-liners. People at that time were quite restrained in their use of humor, maybe It's not intentional, but the whole society is more prudent and low-key than it is today. Like all Americanized films, Van Gogh has lines that people can recite aloud like aphorisms:
I want to be of use, to work, to bring something to the world.
I've made one bad start after another, one mess after another.
I'm in the cage, cage of shame and self-doubt, and failure.
I'm caged, I'm alone, I'm frightened.
Paul, when you look back, so much of life is wasted in loneliness.
View more about Lust for Life reviews
