El loco del pelo rojo

Irving Stone wrote his book 'Lust for Life' in 1934 and MGM obtained the film rights to it in 1946, long before there was any intention to create this film. Biographical films about the lives of artists were not regarded as likely to be financially viable, and at the time Van Gogh, who had only sold one painting in his lifetime, was not really well known to the public or regarded as the most promising subject for such a film. This changed following a very successful exhibition of his works in 1955 and MGM decided to commission Minnelli to direct the film for them, but they had little time left to create it as their film rights to the book expired at the end of 1955. This greatly complicated the production. For example, rights to create still reproductions of almost 200 of Van Gogh's works for this film had to be negotiated with all the museums, galleries and private collectors world-wide who owned them, the pictures then had to be copied by special still cameras requiring only low illumination levels, and printed as large transparencies that could be back-lit for filming in any scenes where they were visible. Minnelli was a good choice as Director - previously a stage designer he was known for artistic sensibilities and an eye for colour. In his memoirs Minnelli reports two major battles with the studio moguls, one he won - the other he lost. Minnelli knew the Metrocolor process used at MGM generated saturated colours which would be too garish for this film. He had recently finished filming Brigadoon using Anscocolor stock and insisted this was what was needed, but Anscocolor cine stock had just been discontinued. MGM eventually agreed to buy up the last 300,000 feet of unused Anscocolor stock available, and to set up a laboratory in which it could be processed. Minnelli also bitterly opposed working in CinemaScope format, claiming the large aspect ratio was incompatible with most paintings, and would also spoil the intimacy of many of the scenes to be filmed; but he was over-ruled on this.

Half a century later we are in a position to appreciate how right he was over both these issues. Like most viewers my first reactions to a film I am watching usually relate to the quality of the film-script, the direction and the acting. If these are acceptable I know I am likely to feel that I have seen a very good film. But film stock remains very important - as a still photographer myself I am well aware of the need to evaluate whether a particular shot should be made on, for example, Fuji's Sensia, Astia or Velvia emulsions - the wrong choice usually destroys the effect the photographer is striving for. It is the same with movies - I can recall just four films ('The Riddle of the Sands',' Laura, les Ombres de l'Ete', 'Black Narcissus' and 'Lust for Life') where one of my first reactions has been admiration for the atmospheric qualities and colour rendering of the photography. There may have been others but such films are certainly not very numerous. Although the opening credits of L4L still attribute the colour to Metrocolor, this film could not have succeeded as it did if MGM had been unable to obtain the Ansco stock that was actually used. As for aspect ratio, we have only to compare the VHS version with the new widescreen DVD to confirm that Minnelli's vision was correct (and this is of course after he did everything possible to utilise sequences which take maximum advantage of the widescreen presentation that he was forced to adopt.)

The film-script has been criticised for inaccuracies in Van Gogh's life as shown (unfairly as it is based on Irving Stone's book, which is normally classed as a novel rather than a biography. MGM might have done better to write an independent film-script and present their film as a biography- not as a film of a novel. What probably prevented this was recognition that they would then be responsible for any errors.) As written it is a very powerful depiction of the gradually increasing intensity of Van Gogh's commitment to his art, which increasingly became the only significant driving force in everything he did. The two hour overall running time is just about right - the emotional impact of watching the gradual disintegration of Van Gogh's personality might have become quite distressing for some viewers if the film has been a great deal longer.

The acting is exceptional. Kirk Douglas, a remarkable look-alike to extant pictures of Van Gogh, put everything into his effort to create a believable picture of a man with an increasingly fanatical drive which eventually overwhelmed him. It earned him an Oscar nomination, but not an award. This, I feel, was not his fault - Van Gogh was too insecure to interact normally with others and this would have showed in his whole bearing, something an individual as secure and stable as Kirk could not easily emulate. An actor is by nature an extreme extrovert and trying to take the part of an introvert is very difficult - when the introvert is both fanatical and unbalanced it probably becomes impossible. This makes it hard to become involved with Kirk's portrayal of the role in the same way that one would have done with Van Gogh himself. Anthony Quinn's Best Supporting Actor Oscar award for his role as Paul Gauguin was well deserved. There were also memorable performances by James Donald as Theo and Pamela Brown as Christine. Theo's anguish in the deathbed sequence came over very effectively. The direction and camera work, although not faultless, were both of an extremely high standard. All in all, anyone interested either in modern painting or in the lives of modern painters will find this a most rewarding film to watch.

I've seen this movie several times now, and every time with enjoyment and great appreciation.

The acting by Douglas and Quinn is truly first rate. It's a shame Douglas didn't get the best actor Oscar for which he was so deservedly nominated, but competition that year in that category was fierce. He truly makes you feel van Gogh's frightened agony, both at not being able to achieve what he wanted in his art and his fear of approaching insanity. (It ran in van Gogh's family; he knew what was coming.)

But I also enjoy the great efforts made to reproduce the scenes van Gogh painted, whether in Holland, Arles, or outside Paris. That couldn't have been easy, but if you know van Gogh's work, it really adds to the effect the movie makes.

There are times when the characters speak like an art history textbook - though those painters did love to discuss their theories on art, as you see in their letters.

Still, I consider this to be one fine movie. Whether it gives an accurate depiction of van Gogh or Gauguin is beside the point. It's based on a novel by Irving Stone, who didn't hesitate to change facts to make for a book that would sell; it's not a BBC documentary, and shouldn't be judged as such. It does a great job of showing us the torments of a great painter, and gives us some idea of what van Gogh was up to. That's more than enough for me.

This film is a rarity, a biopic which is more accurate than the book it's based on. Irving Stone's book was a major best-seller which did much to make Vincent Van Gogh one of the ten most famous artists in history but it did have its inaccuracies, particularly when it depicted its protagonist in Paris with other great painters of the time. In the book, Gauguin, Lautrec, Cezanne and Rousseau come off as typical bohemians while Vincent was made much more of a leader than he was. Minelli doesn't give us a detailed look at any of the artists except Gauguin but he is more accurate about who influenced Van Gogh and he does include his best friend, the now-forgotten Emile Bernard, if only as an extra in Tanguy's shop.

When Lust for Life came out, several critics dismissed it as too lurid and melodramatic, but those adjectives are accurate in describing Van Gogh's life. Note that Kirk Douglas does not play his usual cool, fun-loving tough guy and actually uses his whole body in his acting. For once Hollywood outdid itself.

Not only does KIRK DOUGLAS bear a remarkable resemblance to the real Vincent Van Gogh, but he gives a deeply felt, bigger than life performance in the role of a lifetime, fully deserving his Academy Award nomination.

The letterbox version on TCM doesn't do justice to the film's brilliant color photography, deliberately muted for the early coal mining scenes but crisp and clear when it comes to Van Gogh's now famous paintings. I haven't seen the DVD version, but I hope it's considerably better than the print showing on cable.

At any rate, it's tremendously well done--the entire look of the production creating the sense of time and authentic atmosphere and actually filmed on the actual location sites with an impressive cast of villagers and supporting actors. PAMELA BROWN, NIALL MacGINNIS (as The Postman), and most of all, JAMES DONALD as brother Theo, who nurtures his brother and supports him financially but is unable to sell any of his paintings--except one.

It's a fine recreation of the Irving Stone novel and Douglas immerses himself in the character of Van Gogh, much the way ANTHONY QUINN does as Gauguin. Quinn's stormy, tempestuous relationship with Douglas provides some electric moments of conflict.

The score by Miklos Rozsa accents the drama at every turn, slashing at the drama the way Van Gogh slashed at his canvas with thick brush strokes. It's starkly dramatic without ever being overbearing.

Vincent Minnelli's direction is above reproach. A finer tribute to the tormented artist could not be imagined with so many of his canvases shown on screen in impressive close-ups.

When I hear the name Vincente Minnelli certain scenes pop up on my inner screeningroom: A tracking shot at the fair (Some came running), the low tracking zoom towards Douglas and Turner at the pool (Bad and the Beautiful), snowmen (Meet me in St Louis) and the agony in Douglas's face in "Lust for life"; in fact as soon as his redbearded agonized face pops up, all the other movies fade away and "Lust for life" takes over my inner screening room.

But apart from being my favorite Minnelli movie, its a movie that more than any other shows his genius in use of colors; every scene is composed in breathtaking technicolor with the deepest respect for Van Gogh's own use of color, and Douglas's acting is filled with the same agony and passion as the strokes of Van Gogh's brush. As the other great movies who uses color to its fullest (Wizard of Oz, Black Narcissus, Ten Commandments), the simularities between the director and the painter is obvious. Hence, Minnelli's struggle for "painting" the scenes with the richness of technicolor becomes an echo of Van Gogh. It also reads as a textbook in composition from Steinberg's Dead Space to Eisenstein's juxtapositions. In all, Minnelli is of great skill and uses it to the fullest.

The story, which focuses on the struggle for a new way of expression, is tame at times and the acting (apart from Douglas) seems static most of the times, but the tortured face and body of Douglas and the use of color makes this one of the greatest achievements in MGM's history and one of the best movies Minnelli ever made.