You’re lucky I’m in a good mood. Few films deserve to be panned quite like this pointless, pretentious, repetitive biography of Vincent van Gogh-tell-it-somewhere-else, but I still have the genius of Loving Vincent enough in my mind to pretend this film was merely an error in judgment. Let’s be clear here, however, At Eternity’s Gate was most certainly an error in judgment.
Let’s start with the obvious casting problem: Vinny vago died at the age of 37. Willem Dafoe played this role in his 60s. Vincent cut his ear off to appease long-time friend Paul Gaugin (Oscar Isaac). Would you have guessed the real Gaugin was six years older than van Gogh? I sure wouldn’t have.
Let’s move on to the action. Try, try, try holding back the screen electricity when you see VVG paint his boots start-to-finish. Then we get to the walking. The walking. The mild jog. The terrible hat. Some more walking interrupted by random strolling. Vincent van Gogh does more walking in this film than a Mordor-bound hobbit. The one-eared introvert pretty much spent 98% of his life either on a stool or marching around in search of Aaron Sorkin dialogue.
And let’s finish with the look of the picture which was, and I’m being kind, unique. The general impression I got from straining through the visual feel of At Eternity’s Gate was that the cinematographer was compiling an audition tape for film school. A failed audition tape. Almost every walking scene involves hand-held camera work. There is strong interplay between “get a good shot of Dafoe’s ass” and “let’s pretend this is a fight scene.” Then there are many shots where the lower half of the screen is blurry. While I might be able to chalk those up to theater error, I cannot possibly forgive the plethora of intense close-ups. There are some actors you want to see close up. Keira Knightley comes to mind, Ryan Gosling, Viola Davis all immediately strike me as actors whom any camera will love. But Willem Dafoe? Really? And putting his face two inches away from the lens does not hide the fact that he’s thirty years too old for the part.
The Vincent van Gogh portrayed here is obstinate, penniless, and off-putting. Almost every interaction with a stranger in this film turns out poorly. Very poorly. Vinny just gotta paint, see? Well, great. I just gotta write, but you don’t see me harassing folks to do so. We feel sorry for Vincent vago, as he clearly ain’t right in the head 24/7. More than that, however, we also see this van Gogh as the kind of man whom children throw rocks at, and we understand why. I don’t know if this is a fair portrayal. I suspect it is and Dafoe handles it as well as any. Yet it makes me wonder, then, why go after this angle? Vincent talking about seeing eternity in every landscape immediately makes me believe I can see eternity every time I think of him walking somewhere.
I feel like At Eternity’s Gate found the wrong focus. Loving Vincent, a brilliant take on the same subject matter, investigated his death as an Agatha Christie mystery. Yes, the biopic exploring his death was, ironically, filled with life while the biopic exploring his life feels dead. Nobody needs this picture except the relatives Vincent abused. If Vincent van Gogh’s paintings never made it past 1890, this film would be 100% worthless. The only reason we are putting up with the minor eccentricities of this Dutch master is because people still pay the MOMA $10 a pop to see The Starry Night. Do yourself a favor and google it before you give this picture a chance.
Here’s a master who loved him some paint
While in life he was hardly a saint
His greatness and zeal
Does it show on the reel?
Yeah you want it to be there, but it ain’t
Rated PG-13, 111 Minutes
Director: Julian Schnabel
Writer: Jean-Claude Carrière and Julian Schnabel and Louise Kugelberg Genre: An artist’s lesser biopic
Type of being most likely to enjoy this film: Theo van Gogh
Type of being least likely to enjoy this film: Claude Monet
