LOVING VINCENT: FILM REVIEW.

About a week ago (week ago) I went to see Dorota Kobiela and Hugh Welchman's Loving Vincent, the first ever feature film that exclusively used paintings to tell its story. In line with its subject matter, Vincent Van Gogh, the film employed a team of over a hundred painters that paint specifically in the style of Van Gogh’s post-impressionism to properly thrust us into his world and even mental state. I would like to break down separate aspects of the film as its individual aspects vary in their purpose.

VISUALS

The film opened with a Starry Night opening sequence that kicked off the giddy exciting sensation of engaging with a film that had entirely been painted. It further pushed me into the world with the post-impressionistic style that was employed but then subsequently found too harsh for my eyes. The compact and short brush strokes and endlessly vivid colours gave the illusion of a world on steroids, creating a warped and quite frankly torturous world of the film, which worked tremendously to convey Van Gogh's mental state but was painful for a 1 hour 35 minute sit down. It also transcribed the feelings of the settings in the village, Auvers, where Van Gogh took his life, relating to the emotions of paranoia and judgement. 

In contrast to this, the film contained flashback sequences that employed a softer black and white Realistic style. These were a lot easier to watch and were also magnificently cinematic, reminiscent of the popular Film Noir genre in 40's Hollywood. It was also interesting that realism was used to portray the flashbacks as in the timeline of art history Realism came before Impressionism which came before Post-Impressionism which therefore makes it an intriguing parallel to be drawn between the film and art history. Not to mention that the Impressionists that Van Gogh was influenced by in Paris like Monet and Pissarro were themselves influenced by pioneers in realism like Corot and Courbet. 

PLOT

I would say spoilers ahead but not really because there isn't much to spoil. The story follows Armard Roulin, played by Douglas Booth, one of the many subjects of Van Gogh's paintings and son of Van Gogh's dear friend and postman Joseph Roulin, played by Chris O'Dowd, as he struggles to deliver one of Van Gogh's last letters to a worthy recipient. 

Before I walked into the cinema, I prayed for one thing, that the spectacle of the film would not act as a compensation for a poor plot but alas, a girl cannot have everything she wants. So yes, the plot was underwhelming. The use of Armand Roulin as a main character was lazy and deceiving, it gave the illusion of something beyond the plot of just Van Gogh's life, it seemed like it would give us a character to thrust all our emotions upon and sympathise with but unfortunately that was not the case. While it had an arguably clear sense of journey it didn't have what we really look for in a protagonist; change and for us to understand why they change we have to know their goals, fears, wants and needs, Roulin lacked most if not all of these. He had one goal, to deliver the letter but beyond that there really wasn't much there. He was a passive protagonist in the worst sense where he did not make things happen and things did not happen to him. 

His journey was overshadowed by a cheap narration of Van Gogh's life inserting tropes here and there to cheekily recreate his iconic paintings, these made the plot branch out to stories and characters that were never developed. The film dragged creating a tiring motif of flashbacks and present time. It would have been more worthwhile had they just simply made a biopic. The potential that it had and did not live up to was painfully disappointing. 

VAN GOGH

Had one entered the cinema not knowing anything about the life of Van Gogh it may have been somewhat engaging. The film's success is in its communication of Van Gogh's state of mind and in it's conversation about mental health and society's perception of it, especially in times that were less sensitive to it. It explores a lot of different point of views on this and focuses on a key point in Van Gogh's life, his death, to tell the story of his life. Despite the fact that I have complained about the tropes that were used to recreate Van Gogh's  famed paintings they were also an incredibly exciting part of it as a fan of his work. Also notwithstanding my seemingly negative outlook on the film I thoroughly admire the work and effort put into making this film. I mean 7 years and over a hundred artists is no joke and that makes all the more painful that the story of the film didn't do more. 

Nevertheless, I see potential maybe even a genre in the future with painted films especially if they are done in the style of Realism, because boy oh boy those shots were great... I mean paintings, I guess.  For more specific details on the film visit its website here.

Thank you for reading. Come back next week for more :*