"Vincent & Theo" tells of the later years of the too short lives of painter Vincent Van Gogh and his lesser known brother, Theo. I was surprised, after viewing a Tivo'd version of the film, at how little has been written about and made of this wonderfully crafted period film by Robert Altman. Roth (Vincent) and Ryhs (Theo) distinguish themselves with superb performances which make the spectacle of their work on screen as interesting, if not more so, than the lives of their humble characters. The entire cast turns in solid performances, something which must be attributed largely to Altman, and the film offers excellence in every aspect with the possible exception of sound. Running a tad long for a somewhat less than extraordinary biography, "Vincent & Theo" is recommended for more mature viewers into period films or those with a special interest in Van Gogh and/or classical painting.
32 Reviews
Roth shines
smatysia26 April 2007
I knew something of Vincent van Gogh, and Theo for that matter, from reading Irving Stone's book about them (Titled "Lust for Life", I think). They were both copious letter writers, which is where most of the knowledge of them today comes from. I can't say enough about Tim Roth's performance in this film. As someone earlier remarked, Roth passed up the chance to ham it up, as many actors would do to portray van Gogh's madness. It's a much more realistic quiet desperation. I had barely heard of Roth, and didn't recognize him in "Pulp Fiction". Coincidentally, I had just seen him in "Little Odessa", another well done, but somewhat low-key performance. That one is worth checking out, too. The other actors, the direction, the photography were all first rate. The only reason I didn't give it a higher score is that the subject matter is sometimes unpleasant to watch. But if you are interested enough to read this comment, then you should see the film.
I just preferred "Lust for Life" so much more....
planktonrules7 December 2013
The 1950s biopic about Vincent Van Gogh, "Lust for Life", was an obsessive-compulsive sort of picture. I watched a featurette of the making of this film and also have a huge book featuring all the available known paintings by the artist and was shocked just how exact the film was. Many minor characters in the film were copied EXACTLY from paintings by Van Gogh--such as Dr. Gachet, a sailor who looked a bit like Bluto from the Popeye cartoons and Van Gogh himself (with Kirk Douglas doing crazy things to make himself look more like the artist). Additionally, the filmmakers managed to actually get many of the ORIGINAL paintings by the artist and featured them in the film!! This attention to detail show that it truly was a work of love and money, in many ways, was no object.
"Vincent & Theo", on the other hand, was a very different sort of film. Director Robert Altman did NOT have a large budget, as the film was originally envisioned as a four-hour TV production, not a 'big' movie. In addition, they did not have access to the original paintings and had art students make copies inspired by Van Gogh's work--and in the making of featurette for "Vincent & Theo" Altman admitted that he really didn't wasn't concerned how close these art students' pictures were! I noticed that many of these copies were very, very poor--and I am very familiar with his work. Instead, this film seemed to care much less about details but tries to emphasize the craziness of both Van Gogh brothers. Kirk Douglas' version of Vincent was INTENSE, whereas Tim Roth's was much sicker and bizarre. Neither is necessarily wrong--as how the very mentally disturbed painter actually acted is only guesswork and based much on his writings.
So did I like "Vincent & Theo"? Yes, but I did not love the film like I did the other film. Too many scenes of women urinating and a few ultra-bizarre scenes (such as Vincent painting his face and others as well as eating paint) turned me off. If Van Gogh DID eat paint, drink thinner and paint his face and that of others, then perhaps they were right in showing this--but I really think this was more artistic license than anything else (if it IS true, write me--I'd love to know). Additionally, I would have really loved it if the film HAD been four-hours long like it was originally envisioned, as this film just seemed a bit too short and incomplete (despite many slow portions in the film). Worth seeing but I'd strongly recommend seeing "Lust for Life" first.
"Vincent & Theo", on the other hand, was a very different sort of film. Director Robert Altman did NOT have a large budget, as the film was originally envisioned as a four-hour TV production, not a 'big' movie. In addition, they did not have access to the original paintings and had art students make copies inspired by Van Gogh's work--and in the making of featurette for "Vincent & Theo" Altman admitted that he really didn't wasn't concerned how close these art students' pictures were! I noticed that many of these copies were very, very poor--and I am very familiar with his work. Instead, this film seemed to care much less about details but tries to emphasize the craziness of both Van Gogh brothers. Kirk Douglas' version of Vincent was INTENSE, whereas Tim Roth's was much sicker and bizarre. Neither is necessarily wrong--as how the very mentally disturbed painter actually acted is only guesswork and based much on his writings.
So did I like "Vincent & Theo"? Yes, but I did not love the film like I did the other film. Too many scenes of women urinating and a few ultra-bizarre scenes (such as Vincent painting his face and others as well as eating paint) turned me off. If Van Gogh DID eat paint, drink thinner and paint his face and that of others, then perhaps they were right in showing this--but I really think this was more artistic license than anything else (if it IS true, write me--I'd love to know). Additionally, I would have really loved it if the film HAD been four-hours long like it was originally envisioned, as this film just seemed a bit too short and incomplete (despite many slow portions in the film). Worth seeing but I'd strongly recommend seeing "Lust for Life" first.
Excellent, underrated Altman
philfromno19 September 2002
Altman tells the oft-told story of Vincent Van Gogh and the much less told story of his art dealer brother. The story deftly avoids tortured artist cliches and builds both characters as complex, contradictory individuals. The acting is beyond excellent. Tim Roth shows considerable restraint as Van Gogh, a character that many actors would have chosen to overact. And Rhys's Theo calm surface subtly betrays his inner torment.
Altman's camera is a star here as well, and few directors today understand the principle of movement as well as he does. The photography ranges from good to excellent, and the whole films feels like a glimpse into Vincent's world. Like most of Altman's better films, it's character rather than plot driven, so some will certainly say that it's 'boring'. If you are prone to say things like this, it's probably not for you, but anyone who is a fan of Altman's earlier films will be pleased.
Altman's camera is a star here as well, and few directors today understand the principle of movement as well as he does. The photography ranges from good to excellent, and the whole films feels like a glimpse into Vincent's world. Like most of Altman's better films, it's character rather than plot driven, so some will certainly say that it's 'boring'. If you are prone to say things like this, it's probably not for you, but anyone who is a fan of Altman's earlier films will be pleased.
Interesting Look
rbloom33329 November 2008
Although Robert Altman is proficient in re-creating the scenery of Van Gogh's life through the eyes of the painter with striking color and a vaguely bohemian atmosphere, he still fails to present Van Gogh the man or the artist in with any genuine originality. He focuses on Van Gogh, the tormented saint-artist, who forges ahead on the canvas with a drive to present the "suffering" of humanity. However, Altman precludes Van Gogh's obvious manias, his periods of demented elation. It is impossible to believe that the Van Gogh presented here could have produced those vibrant wheat fields in Arles, or the Night Café. What remains in this fractured (though never incompetent biopic), is Tim Roth's virtuoso performance; he managed to literally crawl into the skin of Van Gogh, and the result may frighten you. However, his virtuosity always overshadows Paul Rhys' rather tepid presentation of his brother Theo, though there are other admirable performances in the film, such as Wladimir Yordanoff's amiable presentation of Gauguin. Altman seems to be commenting, rather uninterestingly, about the commercial dimension of artistry, and of the impossibility of true recognition of genius. This is a conventional portrait of the unrecognized genius, it is a tale told again and again. However, Altman's imagery is captivating (with the help of Storraro), the photography looks like vibrant halos emitted by Van Gogh's paintings, though the musical score is dreadful and morbid. Still you much watch this one for Tim Roth's inspired performance if nothing else.
a comeback for Robert Altman
mjneu5913 January 2011
Robert Altman's flawed but compelling biography wants to explore the gap dividing creativity and commerce, but outside of a few temper tantrums the troubled relationship between the two Van Gogh siblings never quite finds the elusive balance between the business of art and the art of business. Brother Theo, the dealer whose passion for Vincent's work was equaled only by his inability to find a market for it, is presented in the role of Jekyll to his brother's unstable Hyde, and the tension of their mutual dependence on each other is reflected in a pair of dynamic performances. Both are shown to be equally neurotic and compulsive, but Altman clearly identifies with the under-appreciated artist, introduced in a stunning prologue contrasting his poverty with a multi-million dollar posthumous auction of one of his paintings. Altman can't sustain the same energy over the film's punishing 140-minute length, and his portrait of the artist can only take us as close as the brushstrokes on one of Vincent's canvasses. But if nothing else the unique cinematic style is unlikely to displease the director's many admirers, who at the time had been waiting for him to make a genuine film again.
a vibrant, strange, and completely absorbing look at the strife and creation of two brothers
Quinoa198419 September 2007
Robert Altman makes one of the great films about artistic expression, the utter and complete frustration with it, the dregs of having to go through the motions in a capitalistic society where taste is so subjective that it combs over the fact that an artist needs some recognition. We never see Vincent Van Gogh, via equally frustrated (though nowhere near as insane) brother Theo, sell any of his work, and it doesn't help things that as things get more and more desperate, and funds dry up and mental disintegration kicks in, Vincent just starts to snap or look like he'll snap any minute. It's a powerful film not because so much of the full-on drive of the plot, as Altman is infamous for making that the secondary characteristic (if at all) of his films, but for the camaraderie of two brothers, of the very intense push-and-pull between the two of them.
It also helps that Altman has three very crucial and, ultimately, exquisitely successful assets. First are his two main actors, Tim Roth and Paul Rhys. Both actors make up the brothers as having a similar temperament: anxiety brushed over by a quiet, isolated mind-set. But as brothers, the two of them act them as two far reaching personalities that somehow come back to the other through some form of need. That, in a way, is a subtext to much of what happens to either brother, of a need of acceptance never reached, either through financial gain or reputation, or just through some semblance of sanity or reason for being with the opposite sex. Rhys is perfect as an uptight, shy, but also very conflicted- sexually and sort of existentially- about what to do with his life, and with his poor brother. He has that look in his eyes like he's a solid individual, but seething underneath is rage and discontent, despite his best efforts. He pulls off this emotive being quite well, even if dipping a little into over-acting at times (he might seem to yell every other scene).
Roth, meanwhile, gives one of his crowning achievements as an actor, worthy of Pacino. When he's not going totally ape-s*** in throwing stuff on the ground or painting his or another's face or doing the token ear cutting scene (it's only a lobe, by the way, sorry to disappoint), he seems to be perfectly still with a calm voice, but eyes darting much of the time around. Roth makes Van Gogh less a caricature and more a full-bodied being, as far as can be in an Altman film this understanding of the nature of an artist of the period. You're never sure when he might suddenly snap back, and its equally tense and compelling to see Roth in the scenes of Van Gogh painting, in a field of flowers giving up or when he's transfixed in the act of creating when drawing the prostitute when she's not paying attention. This leads to the second asset, which is Stephen Altman's production design, where nothing is left to the imagination. This, in a way, allows for an almost surreal feeling underneath the veneer of the straightforward. It looks all as if it's shot on location; even the paintings look like they were on loan from the big galleries of the world.
And the third asset is Altman himself, though more over his trust in the material. One might wonder what Altman made his own of the script or what was already there. But it seems very much a move from the director to see how the film opens, which is odd and interesting, as footage from an auction where a Van Gogh fetches tens of millions of dollars goes on, with the audio transposed as if it were on some radio somewhere that doesn't exist in the background during the first scene with the brothers where they argue about money and painting and going to Paris. Throughout Altman is always assured with the lens, allowing his actors total freedom, and in this he evens gets creative as his main subject: watch the scene with Van Gogh in the field of dandelions, as his camera starts to do the small zooms and pans with the surroundings, as opposed to just the actor (this also goes for when Vincent and his first lady are in the gallery with the long landscape portrait that at first looks like a shot out of Antonioni). And Altman never goes for easy or cheesy stylizations when it comes to Vincent going off the deep end- we're given a look at it all as if it's so very simple, which makes it even more effective for his intents and purposes.
A tale that acts as a slight cautionary tale for aspiring artists, while also probing a mind so delirious and brilliant that it acts as a tale that offers up many interpretations psychologically and historically, Vincent & Theo is ultimately worthwhile for its collection of superlative scenes, of passion running through even in the smaller moments between characters. And the musical score is affecting as well- think a baroque duet with one side a punk rocker.
It also helps that Altman has three very crucial and, ultimately, exquisitely successful assets. First are his two main actors, Tim Roth and Paul Rhys. Both actors make up the brothers as having a similar temperament: anxiety brushed over by a quiet, isolated mind-set. But as brothers, the two of them act them as two far reaching personalities that somehow come back to the other through some form of need. That, in a way, is a subtext to much of what happens to either brother, of a need of acceptance never reached, either through financial gain or reputation, or just through some semblance of sanity or reason for being with the opposite sex. Rhys is perfect as an uptight, shy, but also very conflicted- sexually and sort of existentially- about what to do with his life, and with his poor brother. He has that look in his eyes like he's a solid individual, but seething underneath is rage and discontent, despite his best efforts. He pulls off this emotive being quite well, even if dipping a little into over-acting at times (he might seem to yell every other scene).
Roth, meanwhile, gives one of his crowning achievements as an actor, worthy of Pacino. When he's not going totally ape-s*** in throwing stuff on the ground or painting his or another's face or doing the token ear cutting scene (it's only a lobe, by the way, sorry to disappoint), he seems to be perfectly still with a calm voice, but eyes darting much of the time around. Roth makes Van Gogh less a caricature and more a full-bodied being, as far as can be in an Altman film this understanding of the nature of an artist of the period. You're never sure when he might suddenly snap back, and its equally tense and compelling to see Roth in the scenes of Van Gogh painting, in a field of flowers giving up or when he's transfixed in the act of creating when drawing the prostitute when she's not paying attention. This leads to the second asset, which is Stephen Altman's production design, where nothing is left to the imagination. This, in a way, allows for an almost surreal feeling underneath the veneer of the straightforward. It looks all as if it's shot on location; even the paintings look like they were on loan from the big galleries of the world.
And the third asset is Altman himself, though more over his trust in the material. One might wonder what Altman made his own of the script or what was already there. But it seems very much a move from the director to see how the film opens, which is odd and interesting, as footage from an auction where a Van Gogh fetches tens of millions of dollars goes on, with the audio transposed as if it were on some radio somewhere that doesn't exist in the background during the first scene with the brothers where they argue about money and painting and going to Paris. Throughout Altman is always assured with the lens, allowing his actors total freedom, and in this he evens gets creative as his main subject: watch the scene with Van Gogh in the field of dandelions, as his camera starts to do the small zooms and pans with the surroundings, as opposed to just the actor (this also goes for when Vincent and his first lady are in the gallery with the long landscape portrait that at first looks like a shot out of Antonioni). And Altman never goes for easy or cheesy stylizations when it comes to Vincent going off the deep end- we're given a look at it all as if it's so very simple, which makes it even more effective for his intents and purposes.
A tale that acts as a slight cautionary tale for aspiring artists, while also probing a mind so delirious and brilliant that it acts as a tale that offers up many interpretations psychologically and historically, Vincent & Theo is ultimately worthwhile for its collection of superlative scenes, of passion running through even in the smaller moments between characters. And the musical score is affecting as well- think a baroque duet with one side a punk rocker.
Vincent & Theo (1990)
MartinTeller4 January 2012
I really enjoyed Pialat's VAN GOGH, a quiet, languid look at the last two months of the artist's life. While I wouldn't say Altman's take on it follows a standard biopic formula, it does lean more in that direction. It's got a lot more drama, a lot of more of those "jeez, this guy was nuts" moments (and a lot more too-clever "Ah ha, there he is painting that famous work!" bits). We see a number of angry, frustrated outbursts but don't really get a feel for what drove the man in his work or even in his torment. Still, it's a very watchable film with a compelling and not-too-hammy performance by Tim Roth. Paul Rhys is also good in a more subdued role. Although the film is generally rather conventional, there are a few interesting touches, most memorably the film's opening as one of his sunflowers paintings is auctioned for millions, intercut with a scene of the artist living in poverty. A little too on-the-nose, but effective. Interesting score as well.
Among Altman's Best
gavin694210 July 2014
The familiar tragic story of Vincent van Gogh (Tim Roth) is broadened by focusing as well on his brother Theodore (Paul Rhys), who helped support Vincent. The movie also provides a nice view of the locations which Vincent painted.
There is no overstating the acting talents of Tim Roth. While American audiences may not have really noticed him until "Reservoir Dogs", he had been acting since 1982 and this film may have been his first great role. He makes Vincent his own, fully becoming the character.
Robert Altman had a great decade in the 1970s, slumped a bit in the 1980s, but came back hard in the 1990s with this one. He was a master and utilized Roth to the fullest.
There is no overstating the acting talents of Tim Roth. While American audiences may not have really noticed him until "Reservoir Dogs", he had been acting since 1982 and this film may have been his first great role. He makes Vincent his own, fully becoming the character.
Robert Altman had a great decade in the 1970s, slumped a bit in the 1980s, but came back hard in the 1990s with this one. He was a master and utilized Roth to the fullest.
Mad Men
evanston_dad11 September 2008
I found myself admiring Robert Altman's film about Vincent Van Gogh much less on my recent viewing than I had on previous ones. I will admit that there's something fascinating about it, as there almost always is with any Altman film, even his really bad ones (and this is certainly not one of his really bad ones), but it's a one-note and monotonous film, and the central relationship that the film explores remains cloudy and obscure.
Altman isn't interested in making a straight biopic about Van Gogh, and for that I'm grateful. The last thing the world needs is another tortured artist biopic. He instead focuses, as the film's title implies, on the relationship between Vincent and his brother, Theo. Tim Roth plays Vincent as a portrait of the artist as a mad man; in his hands, Vincent is mentally ill to the point that he can barely function. This gives Roth lots of scenery to chew, and it may even be an accurate portrayal, but it doesn't make for a very interesting character. It falls to Paul Rhys, playing Theo, to develop a character around which the film can anchor itself, but I'm not sure I ever fully understood Theo either. He seems as troubled as Vincent, but we're never sure why. He seems to regard himself as a failure, in business and the bedroom. He spends his working hours selling bad art to people with no artistic sensibility and harboring feelings of guilt at not being able to sell his brother's paintings. His love life is hampered by syphilis.
The script suggests that the two brothers had a love/hate relationship -- they couldn't get along, yet each got from the other something he couldn't get anywhere else. What that something is is never clear, and without that, the film unfolds as a series of scenes in which the men flare out in erratic bursts of anger, over and over and over again, until both die, miserable and alone.
Visually, the film looks terrific. The art director suggests Van Gogh in his production design, and it's fun to pick out the locations that would become the subjects of some of Van Gogh's most famous paintings. Gabriel Yared provides the weird electronic score, which sometimes is too much and other times is just right.
Whatever its flaws, "Vincent & Theo" is miles ahead of that other Van Gogh film, Vincente Minellie's hopelessly dull and overacted "Lust for Life" from 1956.
Grade: B
Altman isn't interested in making a straight biopic about Van Gogh, and for that I'm grateful. The last thing the world needs is another tortured artist biopic. He instead focuses, as the film's title implies, on the relationship between Vincent and his brother, Theo. Tim Roth plays Vincent as a portrait of the artist as a mad man; in his hands, Vincent is mentally ill to the point that he can barely function. This gives Roth lots of scenery to chew, and it may even be an accurate portrayal, but it doesn't make for a very interesting character. It falls to Paul Rhys, playing Theo, to develop a character around which the film can anchor itself, but I'm not sure I ever fully understood Theo either. He seems as troubled as Vincent, but we're never sure why. He seems to regard himself as a failure, in business and the bedroom. He spends his working hours selling bad art to people with no artistic sensibility and harboring feelings of guilt at not being able to sell his brother's paintings. His love life is hampered by syphilis.
The script suggests that the two brothers had a love/hate relationship -- they couldn't get along, yet each got from the other something he couldn't get anywhere else. What that something is is never clear, and without that, the film unfolds as a series of scenes in which the men flare out in erratic bursts of anger, over and over and over again, until both die, miserable and alone.
Visually, the film looks terrific. The art director suggests Van Gogh in his production design, and it's fun to pick out the locations that would become the subjects of some of Van Gogh's most famous paintings. Gabriel Yared provides the weird electronic score, which sometimes is too much and other times is just right.
Whatever its flaws, "Vincent & Theo" is miles ahead of that other Van Gogh film, Vincente Minellie's hopelessly dull and overacted "Lust for Life" from 1956.
Grade: B
Degrading
daniel-p-becker22 January 2014
"Vincent and Theo" invents one sordid and revolting scene after another and succeeds only in cheapening the legacy of both Vincent and his brother Theo. Though distinctly argumentative and quirky, Vincent was exceedingly well read and well spoken, and had a deeply thoughtful and intellectual rationale for his passionate art, while Theo was an intelligent and personable individual who was successful and highly regarded. Both brothers are ruthlessly sullied and presented as pathetic individuals without any positive attributes in this horrid film. As another reviewer noted, the art works presented in this film are amateur cartoons of the originals, which is certainly not an insignificant detail in a film about a great artist. To understand Vincent and his brother Theo as complex and remarkable individuals, read "Van Gogh: The Life" by Steven Naifeh and Gregory White Smith, a brilliantly researched and eloquently written biography, which is like living with Vincent through nearly every day of his entire life, enabled through the many letters preserved, not just between the brothers but among Vincent's entire family and other artists as well. The 1956 film, "Lust for Life", while admittedly quaint, offers a much more accurate biographical sketch in representing the significant life events of Vincent Van Gogh, and more accurately reveals the complexity of the characters. Further, "Lust for Life", uses actual reproductions of all of the original artwork presented, adding up to a very enjoyable and insightful film. "Vincent and Theo" is a ghastly, cheap horror flick that panders with its base vulgarity and is successful only in defiling the complex and fascinating story of Vincent and his beloved brother Theo.
"Now I think I know what you tried to say to me....
Galina_movie_fan23 October 2006
...How you suffered for your sanity,
How you tried to set them free.
They would not listen, they're not listening still.
Perhaps they never will... "
Don McLean "Vincent (Starry, Starry Night)
Robert Altman's "Vincent & Theo" (1990), is as beautiful, powerful, and disturbing as the life of a man who could create the richest, most exiting paintings, who could never paint from his imagination but only by what he saw. How he saw the world around him was extraordinary. The life of the artist was not glamorous, it was depressing and self-destructing but as a result of his Art, we all have became a little richer, happier (even if for a moment) and better.
Based on letters written by Vincent van Gogh to his art-dealer brother Theo, this is a wonderful cinematic biography, perhaps one of the best ever made about the life of a painter. Tim Roth was sensational and Robert Altman IS one of the greatest directors of all times. His film looks at us through Vincent's eyes, and for two hours we are in Vincent's world of madness and genius.
How you tried to set them free.
They would not listen, they're not listening still.
Perhaps they never will... "
Don McLean "Vincent (Starry, Starry Night)
Robert Altman's "Vincent & Theo" (1990), is as beautiful, powerful, and disturbing as the life of a man who could create the richest, most exiting paintings, who could never paint from his imagination but only by what he saw. How he saw the world around him was extraordinary. The life of the artist was not glamorous, it was depressing and self-destructing but as a result of his Art, we all have became a little richer, happier (even if for a moment) and better.
Based on letters written by Vincent van Gogh to his art-dealer brother Theo, this is a wonderful cinematic biography, perhaps one of the best ever made about the life of a painter. Tim Roth was sensational and Robert Altman IS one of the greatest directors of all times. His film looks at us through Vincent's eyes, and for two hours we are in Vincent's world of madness and genius.
Art Trageity- Art1145
dmes-1415721 September 2023
Warning: Spoilers
"Vincent and Theo" was directed by the acclaimed director Robert Altman in 1990. It is a biographical movie that looks deep into the life of famous artist Vincent Van Gogh, specifically the relationship he had with his art dealer brother Theo. I typically enjoy biographical films, especially when it involves someone as complex as Van Gogh. I also thought seeing all the art, and a behind the scenes look at the process of what a great artist goes through was a really cool feature of the film.
Tim Roth plays Vincent Van Gogh and everything from his facial expression, demeanor, and dialog do a great conveying the many challenges Van Gogh went through. He was obviously a very complex individual with many issues. Paul Rhys plays Theo and he was very good in the role of providing his brother with continued support.
The film begins by offering glimpses into the great artistic mind, and the many struggles, of Vincent Van Gogh. As he dove even deeper into his art, his mental state grew worse and worse until his ultimate passing. Throughout all that, his brother, Theo, offers him both emotional and financial support, even throughout Vincent's most difficult times.
All in all, I thought the film was fine, but not something that I'd be interested in watching again. I understand the need to build up and really develop a character as complex as Van Gogh, but it was just too slow for me. The movie is also somewhat of a tragedy, not a movie that makes you feel good inside, so perhaps it is good as a one-time watch to appreciate what Van Gogh went through in his life. Also, did we really need to see her pee in a pot?
This movie was a very well-done biography of Vincent Van Gogh, and I know far more about his life now than I did previously. His life is a tragic story, as he realized none of the fame that his works like "stary night" provide today. The highlight of the film is the unwavering support and love his brother shows for him, and this is something many people with family can understand.
Tim Roth plays Vincent Van Gogh and everything from his facial expression, demeanor, and dialog do a great conveying the many challenges Van Gogh went through. He was obviously a very complex individual with many issues. Paul Rhys plays Theo and he was very good in the role of providing his brother with continued support.
The film begins by offering glimpses into the great artistic mind, and the many struggles, of Vincent Van Gogh. As he dove even deeper into his art, his mental state grew worse and worse until his ultimate passing. Throughout all that, his brother, Theo, offers him both emotional and financial support, even throughout Vincent's most difficult times.
All in all, I thought the film was fine, but not something that I'd be interested in watching again. I understand the need to build up and really develop a character as complex as Van Gogh, but it was just too slow for me. The movie is also somewhat of a tragedy, not a movie that makes you feel good inside, so perhaps it is good as a one-time watch to appreciate what Van Gogh went through in his life. Also, did we really need to see her pee in a pot?
This movie was a very well-done biography of Vincent Van Gogh, and I know far more about his life now than I did previously. His life is a tragic story, as he realized none of the fame that his works like "stary night" provide today. The highlight of the film is the unwavering support and love his brother shows for him, and this is something many people with family can understand.
Bad
Cosmoeticadotcom23 September 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Vincent & Theo, a 1990 film by director Robert Altman, may be the worst film ever made by a major director who has made a great film. Watching this two hour and twenty minute abomination left me, and my wife, stunned by its wretchedness. From the nonexistent narrative, to the indulgence of every artistic cliché imaginable by screenwriter Julian Mitchell, to possibly the worst soundtrack, by Gabriel Yared, ever used in a film (even worse than the estimably bad Robot Monster!), it's a wonder Altman ever crawled his way out from under the odium of this horrorshow, the nadir of his career- even more so than Popeye a decade before. Yet, his very next film, The Player, somehow relaunched his career. If I can indulge a cliché, maybe it really can be darkest before the dawn!
I have still yet to see a successful film made on the life of a real artist, where all the clichés were not utilized. Perhaps the closest to that ideal was Amadeus, save for the fact that its protagonist was not Mozart, but Salieri, and the story was the latter's envy of the former's talent, and the truth was that that whole film was an almost total fiction.
This film, however, does not even address the artistic impulse, and the paintings, which is the ONLY reason anyone gives a damn about Vincent Van Gogh, his suffering, or even his brother. Altman states, in the featurette, that what interested him were Vincent's letters to Theo, yet we NEVER get a hint of what they say, only one ridiculously melodramatic scene where a raving Theo bitches at his wife's opening up of the letters.
Altman's always been at his best in ensemble pieces, like Nashville, M*A*S*H, The Player, and Gosford Park. He seems utterly adrift in this intense de facto two person stage play where both actors wildly overact, as if they were in a Roger Corman 1960s comic-horror version of Lust For Life, save with British accents, not Dutch.
Vincent & Theo is a horrible film, in its own stolid way as bad as Steven Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan or Schindler's List, but it seems even worse because Spielberg's never come within a light year of a film as complex as Nashville. There is no progression nor insight into Vincent Van Gogh in this film, nor even his brother. When the brothers die we do not care, nor do we have an iota of insight into Altman's ideas on life and art. Vincent's graffiti that 'I AM THE HOLY SPIRIT. I AM WHOLE IN SPIRIT.' are not only dull and trite, but not given a shred of evidence one way nor the other by Altman. I could go on and on, and list a few dozen other reasons why this is easily Altman's worst film, and a terrible film, period, but hopefully I've earned enough trust with my readership that I can tell them to simply skip this one and watch Lust For Life instead. It's a better film, and more intellectually honest, to boot. OK, exhale!
I have still yet to see a successful film made on the life of a real artist, where all the clichés were not utilized. Perhaps the closest to that ideal was Amadeus, save for the fact that its protagonist was not Mozart, but Salieri, and the story was the latter's envy of the former's talent, and the truth was that that whole film was an almost total fiction.
This film, however, does not even address the artistic impulse, and the paintings, which is the ONLY reason anyone gives a damn about Vincent Van Gogh, his suffering, or even his brother. Altman states, in the featurette, that what interested him were Vincent's letters to Theo, yet we NEVER get a hint of what they say, only one ridiculously melodramatic scene where a raving Theo bitches at his wife's opening up of the letters.
Altman's always been at his best in ensemble pieces, like Nashville, M*A*S*H, The Player, and Gosford Park. He seems utterly adrift in this intense de facto two person stage play where both actors wildly overact, as if they were in a Roger Corman 1960s comic-horror version of Lust For Life, save with British accents, not Dutch.
Vincent & Theo is a horrible film, in its own stolid way as bad as Steven Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan or Schindler's List, but it seems even worse because Spielberg's never come within a light year of a film as complex as Nashville. There is no progression nor insight into Vincent Van Gogh in this film, nor even his brother. When the brothers die we do not care, nor do we have an iota of insight into Altman's ideas on life and art. Vincent's graffiti that 'I AM THE HOLY SPIRIT. I AM WHOLE IN SPIRIT.' are not only dull and trite, but not given a shred of evidence one way nor the other by Altman. I could go on and on, and list a few dozen other reasons why this is easily Altman's worst film, and a terrible film, period, but hopefully I've earned enough trust with my readership that I can tell them to simply skip this one and watch Lust For Life instead. It's a better film, and more intellectually honest, to boot. OK, exhale!
Altman uses Vincent's lighting
tedg14 March 2000
This story is one of the most interesting I know. Unfortunately, the script misses the real drama of this important life. But never mind. The real art of the film is in two achievements:
--Altman frames and colors his shots through Vincent's eyes. This is the most sensitive use of the cinematic palette I've seen, and makes the experience singular. I saw it on a TV, which I hate to do. I would travel to see this properly projected.
--Time Roth gives interprets Vincent wonderfully. If you ignore the lines, which are vapid, and concentrate on his being, it's quite nuanced. He is meek in body, but passionate in expression. The teeth and pipe are great.
--Altman frames and colors his shots through Vincent's eyes. This is the most sensitive use of the cinematic palette I've seen, and makes the experience singular. I saw it on a TV, which I hate to do. I would travel to see this properly projected.
--Time Roth gives interprets Vincent wonderfully. If you ignore the lines, which are vapid, and concentrate on his being, it's quite nuanced. He is meek in body, but passionate in expression. The teeth and pipe are great.
Realistic and interesting
Rojinnew7 September 2021
Pretty good
labontearia25 January 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Vincent and Theo is a film that details the lives and relationship of the Van Gogh brothers. Though Vincent name may be more easily recognizable, Theo is often behind the scenes, supporting his brother and giving him the means to discover and become the artist the world eventually comes to respect and admire. The movie begins at an auction where one of Vincent's painting is being bid on, ultimately selling for millions of pounds. The film then goes back in time, introducing a young Vincent who is just beginning his artistic career. He wants to live as an artist and so is choosing to live in poor conditions. Theo, his brother, lets Vincent know that it's him who has been sending him money to help him and support his artistic dreams and not their father. Vincent is untroubled by this proclamation and decides to continue pursuing his artistic dreams by whatever means necessary.
Throughout the film we witness the different lives of the brothers. Vincent battles mental illness while also pursuing his creative passions. He threatens others, destroys paintings, and (famously) cuts off his own ear. He demands his brother take his art and sell it and accuses him of not believing him, which frustrates Theo to no extent. From Theo's point of view, we see a man who loves his brother. No matter what the circumstances, he supports him, sending him money to make sure he can follow his passions while also trying to show off his art. Theo, a lover of art but never a painter, works as an art dealer, selling paintings he doesn't love and keeping paintings he does (Vincent's). Despite starting a family and receiving less than an ideal salary to support his family, Theo always make sure to support Theo, much to the chagrin of his wife. The couple frequently fight about Theo being overly supportive all the while Vincent accuses Theo of not being supportive enough.
It is a sad story of two men in a complex brotherly relationship. Directed by David Altman, the film truly transports us back in time. Truly the production design and choices of location and costume transport us back to earlier times that inspired the artist Vincent. The movie uses locations that bring Vincent's paintings to life, subjecting us to backgrounds that inspired the artist's original paintings.
Though slow paced and dull at times, the ever-changing relationship of two brothers is a relatable one. The production values and casting choices were also well thought out, making the movie much more enjoyable to watch. Overall, I would give this movie a 7/10
An overlooked Altman masterpiece - I prefer the theatrical cut
runamokprods26 August 2016
A woefully overlooked film, this is one of my very favorite by Altman. Amazing acting by Tim Roth and Paul Rhys, and the whole film is tremendously moving.
For me, Altman achieves a sort of dream state even more interesting than in the more critically acclaimed '3 Women'. He manages to make you feel the whole story as completely real, as if you were there in history, and yet, it has a fractured, dreamlike quality, with moments left unexplained and mysterious, but always making emotional sense.
I don't know any film that better captures the pain of being an artist, or the pain of being unable to save someone you love. Also, the whole film looks gloriously like a painting.
There is a longer version, originally made for European TV, but I actually think the rhythms are better in the US theatrical cut. The Euro version mostly adds tons of exposition that takes away from the mysterious, subjective tone that makes this work so well -- at least for me.
For me, Altman achieves a sort of dream state even more interesting than in the more critically acclaimed '3 Women'. He manages to make you feel the whole story as completely real, as if you were there in history, and yet, it has a fractured, dreamlike quality, with moments left unexplained and mysterious, but always making emotional sense.
I don't know any film that better captures the pain of being an artist, or the pain of being unable to save someone you love. Also, the whole film looks gloriously like a painting.
There is a longer version, originally made for European TV, but I actually think the rhythms are better in the US theatrical cut. The Euro version mostly adds tons of exposition that takes away from the mysterious, subjective tone that makes this work so well -- at least for me.
Vincent and Theo: Brotherly Love of the Intense Kind
Author_Poet_Aberjhani25 July 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I have one favorite scene in the film VINCENT AND THEO, the late Robert Altman's highly acclaimed masterwork on the life of Dutch painter Vincent Van Gogh. It is a short brutal scene in the first half of the movie when Van Gogh's model and mistress is leaving him: she slaps him witless, and then kisses him hard on the mouth before storming out of the apartment.
That double action of pained frustration and loving adoration seems a sad but accurate metaphor for the entire film and possibly for Van Gogh himself. Whereas life bestowed upon him a bliss-filled kiss of exceptional artistic and spiritual vision, the hand of fate slapped him so hard that he was robbed of any lasting personal joy that might have come from this great gift.
Van Gogh (in the film played brilliantly by Tim Roth) is one of those creative geniuses of history whose life story continues to haunt and inform us from one century to the next. The question is "Why?" Could it be because the beauty and evidence of that genius continues to increase with time and therefore makes us wonder about the cultural values and "personalities" we tend to either champion or malign in modern days? That it definitely does increase can be measured in one sense by the millions of dollars for which this eighteenth century impressionist artist's paintings now sell.
The whole point of Altman's film seems to be to illustrate how Vincent's genius found refuge for a while in his brother Theo's love. It is well known that even though Theo (who is played with mesmerizing neurotic precision by Paul Rhys) was a relatively successful art dealer, he was unable to manipulate the market to his brother's advantage. That did not, however, stop him from financially supporting him throughout his short adult life as a painter. Altman makes that point clear enough when Theo informs his brother that the money Vincent thought their father had been sending him had in fact been provided by Theo. Rather than belaboring this aspect of their relationship, director Altman moves his camera back and forth between scenes that show us how very much alike, and yet simultaneously different, Vincent and Theo were in their thwarted pursuits of a triumphant life.
As Theo eagerly courted "respectable ladies," Vincent just as eagerly enjoyed women of a certain profession. Whereas Vincent yearned to prove himself an artist worthy of the name, Theo yearned to prove himself a businessman worthy of prominence and prosperity. Vincent's descent into madness manifests more tangibly because it takes on the more graphically visual qualities associated with art itself: we see him court and then violently alienate the attentions of his equally genius friend Paul Gauguin; watch him stick knives menacingly in his mouth, cut off his earlobe, meekly endure his stay in an asylum, stand in a sunlit field where he has been painting black birds and calmly shoot himself. All the while, some of the most celebrated canvases in art history, depicting a virtual of ecstasy of sunflowers, starry nights, and golden wheat fields, rapidly pile up.
Theo is actually able to resist the powerful tug of debilitating madness until after his brother succumbs to it. That he does fall prey to it is tragically ironic because despite the syphilis that mars his happiness, he achieves some measure of the "ideal life" with a wife, new baby, and modest advancement in his career. He therefore appears to have all the motivation necessary to sustain a stable existence. But when he places all of Vincent's work (after the artist's death) in a suite of rooms for an exhibit, he screams at his wife that "This is the most important thing in my life!" and forces her to leave. It would seem at that point that he not only loved Vincent and believed deeply in his talent, but was in fact a kind of extension of him, and vice versa. The loss of Vincent on July 29, 1890, at the age of only 37, triggered in Theo a mental and physical collapse. He died less than a year later on January 25, 1891, at the age of 33.
This 1990 movie (released on DVD in 2005) is 138 minutes long so no one can claim it's too short. I only wish Altman had included somewhere in it the story of howafter studying for the ministry and before he became a painterVincent spent forty days nursing back to health a miner who had been injured in an explosion and whom doctors had expected to die. The miner's recovery was described as a miracle and, from the scars left on his face, Van Gogh experienced a vision of the wounds that Christ suffered from the crown of thorns placed on his head. Some allusion to this may have added greater understanding to the intense spiritual impulses that drove Van Gogh's devotion to his art and helped clarify what he hoped to communicate through it. Even so, the film as it stands is itself a remarkable painting of two extraordinary brothers who shared one profound and astonishing destiny.
by Author-Poet Aberjhani
author of ELEMENTAL, The Power of Illuminated Love
and Encyclopedia of the Harlem Renaissance
That double action of pained frustration and loving adoration seems a sad but accurate metaphor for the entire film and possibly for Van Gogh himself. Whereas life bestowed upon him a bliss-filled kiss of exceptional artistic and spiritual vision, the hand of fate slapped him so hard that he was robbed of any lasting personal joy that might have come from this great gift.
Van Gogh (in the film played brilliantly by Tim Roth) is one of those creative geniuses of history whose life story continues to haunt and inform us from one century to the next. The question is "Why?" Could it be because the beauty and evidence of that genius continues to increase with time and therefore makes us wonder about the cultural values and "personalities" we tend to either champion or malign in modern days? That it definitely does increase can be measured in one sense by the millions of dollars for which this eighteenth century impressionist artist's paintings now sell.
The whole point of Altman's film seems to be to illustrate how Vincent's genius found refuge for a while in his brother Theo's love. It is well known that even though Theo (who is played with mesmerizing neurotic precision by Paul Rhys) was a relatively successful art dealer, he was unable to manipulate the market to his brother's advantage. That did not, however, stop him from financially supporting him throughout his short adult life as a painter. Altman makes that point clear enough when Theo informs his brother that the money Vincent thought their father had been sending him had in fact been provided by Theo. Rather than belaboring this aspect of their relationship, director Altman moves his camera back and forth between scenes that show us how very much alike, and yet simultaneously different, Vincent and Theo were in their thwarted pursuits of a triumphant life.
As Theo eagerly courted "respectable ladies," Vincent just as eagerly enjoyed women of a certain profession. Whereas Vincent yearned to prove himself an artist worthy of the name, Theo yearned to prove himself a businessman worthy of prominence and prosperity. Vincent's descent into madness manifests more tangibly because it takes on the more graphically visual qualities associated with art itself: we see him court and then violently alienate the attentions of his equally genius friend Paul Gauguin; watch him stick knives menacingly in his mouth, cut off his earlobe, meekly endure his stay in an asylum, stand in a sunlit field where he has been painting black birds and calmly shoot himself. All the while, some of the most celebrated canvases in art history, depicting a virtual of ecstasy of sunflowers, starry nights, and golden wheat fields, rapidly pile up.
Theo is actually able to resist the powerful tug of debilitating madness until after his brother succumbs to it. That he does fall prey to it is tragically ironic because despite the syphilis that mars his happiness, he achieves some measure of the "ideal life" with a wife, new baby, and modest advancement in his career. He therefore appears to have all the motivation necessary to sustain a stable existence. But when he places all of Vincent's work (after the artist's death) in a suite of rooms for an exhibit, he screams at his wife that "This is the most important thing in my life!" and forces her to leave. It would seem at that point that he not only loved Vincent and believed deeply in his talent, but was in fact a kind of extension of him, and vice versa. The loss of Vincent on July 29, 1890, at the age of only 37, triggered in Theo a mental and physical collapse. He died less than a year later on January 25, 1891, at the age of 33.
This 1990 movie (released on DVD in 2005) is 138 minutes long so no one can claim it's too short. I only wish Altman had included somewhere in it the story of howafter studying for the ministry and before he became a painterVincent spent forty days nursing back to health a miner who had been injured in an explosion and whom doctors had expected to die. The miner's recovery was described as a miracle and, from the scars left on his face, Van Gogh experienced a vision of the wounds that Christ suffered from the crown of thorns placed on his head. Some allusion to this may have added greater understanding to the intense spiritual impulses that drove Van Gogh's devotion to his art and helped clarify what he hoped to communicate through it. Even so, the film as it stands is itself a remarkable painting of two extraordinary brothers who shared one profound and astonishing destiny.
by Author-Poet Aberjhani
author of ELEMENTAL, The Power of Illuminated Love
and Encyclopedia of the Harlem Renaissance
Where is the tenderness?
Avwillfan8931 August 2015
As a huge fan of Van Gogh, this film really let me down. I wasn't betting on it being that good, since it had Robert Altman directing the film, a filmmaker known for making extremely boring films, and Tim Roth playing Vincent.
My low expectations were not rewarded. No one has any real conversations in the movie. It's just a long line of taunting, hissy-fits and unspoken feelings running high.
Theo's story has been virtually unheard of, due to his brother's overwhelming talent and popularity. But this version of his story doesn't do the art dealer any kind of justice. He is aggressive, whiny and seemingly just as mad as his brother. He is needlessly cruel to his wife and neglects his baby. Worst of all, there is no genuine portrayal of tenderness towards his brother Vincent. Their relationship, although tumultuous at times, was extremely loving, sweet and caring in real life, but I find none of it here.
Tim Roth as Vincent simply just doesn't cut it for me. Just like his paintings, Vincent was variegated, passionate, intense and caring, as well as troubled, manic and deeply sad. Roth, who is known for playing gangsters or London thugs, is portrayed as nothing more than a bipolar painter who harms himself.
The script also just made the film very boring indeed. There is no nuanced flexibility in the story arc of the Van Gogh brother's lives. I didn't really feel any artistic passion or benevolent feelings for the characters.
If you want a good portrayal of Vincent Van Gogh, watch Benedict Cumberbatch in Van Gogh Painted With Words, or Tony Curran in the Doctor Who episode "Vincent and The Doctor". These two performances give out a much better understanding of the man behind all of the famously rich, vibrant paintings.
My low expectations were not rewarded. No one has any real conversations in the movie. It's just a long line of taunting, hissy-fits and unspoken feelings running high.
Theo's story has been virtually unheard of, due to his brother's overwhelming talent and popularity. But this version of his story doesn't do the art dealer any kind of justice. He is aggressive, whiny and seemingly just as mad as his brother. He is needlessly cruel to his wife and neglects his baby. Worst of all, there is no genuine portrayal of tenderness towards his brother Vincent. Their relationship, although tumultuous at times, was extremely loving, sweet and caring in real life, but I find none of it here.
Tim Roth as Vincent simply just doesn't cut it for me. Just like his paintings, Vincent was variegated, passionate, intense and caring, as well as troubled, manic and deeply sad. Roth, who is known for playing gangsters or London thugs, is portrayed as nothing more than a bipolar painter who harms himself.
The script also just made the film very boring indeed. There is no nuanced flexibility in the story arc of the Van Gogh brother's lives. I didn't really feel any artistic passion or benevolent feelings for the characters.
If you want a good portrayal of Vincent Van Gogh, watch Benedict Cumberbatch in Van Gogh Painted With Words, or Tony Curran in the Doctor Who episode "Vincent and The Doctor". These two performances give out a much better understanding of the man behind all of the famously rich, vibrant paintings.
Vincent and Theo Review
lisayannaco29 September 2021
Vincent and Theo, directed by Robert Altman, was released in November of 1990. The film was produced by Ludi Boeken and written by Julian Mitchell, with Jean Lépine serving as cinematographer. Gabriel Yared, who has previous experience working with Altman, composed the film's musical score. Vincent and Theo stars Tim Roth as Victor van Gogh and Paul Rhys as Theo van Gogh.
Vincent and Theo focuses on the dynamic between Vincent van Gogh and his brother Theo van Gogh, and the way that the two men move throughout their interconnected lives. The film opens by showing an art auction, at which we see van Gogh's painting Vase with Fifteen Sunflowers sell for millions of dollars. Van Gogh's work was largely unrecognized during his lifetime, but gained prominence and fame after his death. From there, Altman takes the audience on a journey of the two brother's lives, showing Vincent's development as an artist under the financial support of his brother, along with his deteriorating mental stability. Concurrently, the audience learns about the events of Theo's life, including his battle with syphilis and the pressure for him to be a successful art dealer. Additionally, Altman uses part of the film to highlight the time Vincent spent in Arles, France, with Paul Gauguin (played by Wladimir Yordanoff).
Tim Roth is masterful in his performance as Vincent van Gogh, he completely commits to the character and offers a deeply moving portrayal of van Gogh's tragic life. Paul Rhys also has a very compelling performance, as the audience learns more about the history of his life in relation to his brother's. The cinematography of the film is beautiful, and many of the landscapes shown almost looking like paintings themselves (which is noteworthy because van Gogh painted so many versions of the environments around him). Additionally, Gabriel Yared's musical score complements the visuals of the film, and is also used to showcase Vincent's erratic emotional state. During the film, scenes in which Vincent is shown having emotional outbursts are set to intense music which enables the audience to appreciate the severity of these episodes. One of these scenes takes place in a field of sunflowers, also providing a callback to the opening of the film in which Vase with Fifteen Sunflowers sells at auction.
I enjoyed and would recommend this film, especially for viewers who are interested in an untraditional look at some of the intricacies of van Gogh's life.
Vincent and Theo focuses on the dynamic between Vincent van Gogh and his brother Theo van Gogh, and the way that the two men move throughout their interconnected lives. The film opens by showing an art auction, at which we see van Gogh's painting Vase with Fifteen Sunflowers sell for millions of dollars. Van Gogh's work was largely unrecognized during his lifetime, but gained prominence and fame after his death. From there, Altman takes the audience on a journey of the two brother's lives, showing Vincent's development as an artist under the financial support of his brother, along with his deteriorating mental stability. Concurrently, the audience learns about the events of Theo's life, including his battle with syphilis and the pressure for him to be a successful art dealer. Additionally, Altman uses part of the film to highlight the time Vincent spent in Arles, France, with Paul Gauguin (played by Wladimir Yordanoff).
Tim Roth is masterful in his performance as Vincent van Gogh, he completely commits to the character and offers a deeply moving portrayal of van Gogh's tragic life. Paul Rhys also has a very compelling performance, as the audience learns more about the history of his life in relation to his brother's. The cinematography of the film is beautiful, and many of the landscapes shown almost looking like paintings themselves (which is noteworthy because van Gogh painted so many versions of the environments around him). Additionally, Gabriel Yared's musical score complements the visuals of the film, and is also used to showcase Vincent's erratic emotional state. During the film, scenes in which Vincent is shown having emotional outbursts are set to intense music which enables the audience to appreciate the severity of these episodes. One of these scenes takes place in a field of sunflowers, also providing a callback to the opening of the film in which Vase with Fifteen Sunflowers sells at auction.
I enjoyed and would recommend this film, especially for viewers who are interested in an untraditional look at some of the intricacies of van Gogh's life.
"Vincent & Theo" - A Struggle to Connect
yasminemoise26 September 2023
Basic Info:
Director: Robert Altman
Writer: Julian Mitchell
Key Players: Tim Roth, Paul Rhys, Johanna ter Steege, Wladimir Yordanoff
Producer: Ludi Boeken, David Willis, and Stuart Baird
The movie "Vincent & Theo" is a biographical drama directed by Robert Altman attempting to explore the intricate relationship between Vincent van Gogh and his brother, Theo. The film tells the story of the iconic artist, Vincent, and his brother Theo, who supports him throughout their turbulent lives.
"Vincent & Theo" has its merits, but it does not live up to its potential. Tim Roth and Paul Rhys, who portray Vincent and Theo in the film, deliver the film's strongest performances, bringing depth to their complex characters. Tim Roth's portrayal of Vincent's mental anguish and artistic passion is notable, but it also contributes to the film's disturbing nature.
The film suffers from a disjointed narrative that is often confusing and fragmented. The movie's storyline lacks cohesion, often jumping randomly between different parts of Vincent's life. Viewers may find the slow pace tedious, and the long runtime can become tiresome. It was difficult for me to get through this movie due to the slow pacing and the many disturbing scenes.
The film is disturbing in the sense that it delves deeply into Vincent van Gogh's mental struggles and his troubled relationship with his brother. It doesn't shy away from depicting Vincent van Gogh's inner torment, which I found to be emotionally distressing as a viewer.
I wanted to like this movie, but unfortunately, it fell short of my expectations. The film attempted to shed light on the complex dynamics between two brothers, but its disjointed narrative and slow pacing made it a challenging watch. The disturbing portrayal of Vincent's mental state was very unsettling to watch.
In conclusion, "Vincent & Theo" might interest art history enthusiasts, but I wouldn't recommend it. It fails to provide a satisfying exploration of the Van Gogh brothers' relationship and struggles, and its disturbing elements may deter many viewers from fully enjoying the experience. Four stars for the effort but not the execution.
The movie "Vincent & Theo" is a biographical drama directed by Robert Altman attempting to explore the intricate relationship between Vincent van Gogh and his brother, Theo. The film tells the story of the iconic artist, Vincent, and his brother Theo, who supports him throughout their turbulent lives.
"Vincent & Theo" has its merits, but it does not live up to its potential. Tim Roth and Paul Rhys, who portray Vincent and Theo in the film, deliver the film's strongest performances, bringing depth to their complex characters. Tim Roth's portrayal of Vincent's mental anguish and artistic passion is notable, but it also contributes to the film's disturbing nature.
The film suffers from a disjointed narrative that is often confusing and fragmented. The movie's storyline lacks cohesion, often jumping randomly between different parts of Vincent's life. Viewers may find the slow pace tedious, and the long runtime can become tiresome. It was difficult for me to get through this movie due to the slow pacing and the many disturbing scenes.
The film is disturbing in the sense that it delves deeply into Vincent van Gogh's mental struggles and his troubled relationship with his brother. It doesn't shy away from depicting Vincent van Gogh's inner torment, which I found to be emotionally distressing as a viewer.
I wanted to like this movie, but unfortunately, it fell short of my expectations. The film attempted to shed light on the complex dynamics between two brothers, but its disjointed narrative and slow pacing made it a challenging watch. The disturbing portrayal of Vincent's mental state was very unsettling to watch.
In conclusion, "Vincent & Theo" might interest art history enthusiasts, but I wouldn't recommend it. It fails to provide a satisfying exploration of the Van Gogh brothers' relationship and struggles, and its disturbing elements may deter many viewers from fully enjoying the experience. Four stars for the effort but not the execution.
The most interesting life story is shown in the best way possible
talporat26 January 2001
I have to admit that it took me a while to grasp this movie. My knowledge about Vincent Van Gogh's life is huge (very modest, I know), and I thought that there is nothing new I could learn about him- until I saw this film. Its realistic style is just killing me. You're not gonna see in it any Hollywood glamour or something, Nothing's fixed or cut- Everything is shown like it's for real (unlike "Lust for life", which is a great film, but not as "Vincent and Theo"- well, it's very different). The focusing on the amazing relationship between the two brothers is great, but I think they should focus on the famous letters as well... but it's okay anyway. Tim Roth is a fabulous actor, and he acted Vincent's role very good.
The one who act Theo is also great. The end is so sad and good, and shows that not only Vincent needed Theo's help. Theo needed Vincent's help as well. Some of the scenes are just unforgettable- Vincent painting in the sunflowers field, for example. The director used amazing camera effects! It looks soooo surrealistic, but yes, you feel like you're watching the sunflowers through Vincent's eyes, through the madness. It's an amazing, shocking, interesting and full of Vincent's magical yet tragic life.
Everyone who has even the slightest interest in Vincent Van Gogh- watch it!!!
The one who act Theo is also great. The end is so sad and good, and shows that not only Vincent needed Theo's help. Theo needed Vincent's help as well. Some of the scenes are just unforgettable- Vincent painting in the sunflowers field, for example. The director used amazing camera effects! It looks soooo surrealistic, but yes, you feel like you're watching the sunflowers through Vincent's eyes, through the madness. It's an amazing, shocking, interesting and full of Vincent's magical yet tragic life.
Everyone who has even the slightest interest in Vincent Van Gogh- watch it!!!
Emotions are High and Life is Low
brijfuchs25 September 2022
Vincent and Theo were directed by Robert Altman and written by Julian Mitchell in 1990. The film is produced by Ludi Boeken. The movie is a tragic biography of two brothers named Vincent Van Gogh and Theo Van Gogh. Vincent, starring Tim Roth, is a painter who struggles with many mental health issues and who is financially supported by his brother. Theo Van Gogh, starring Paul Rhys, is a well-known art dealer who has difficulties with his own health and financial responsibilities to him and his brother. It dives into the interpersonal relationships between the brothers and the effects of Vincent's mental illness on each other's lives. The film portrays a realistic perspective of how life was back then and how emotions were managed.
Robert Altman has a profound sense of creativity of positioning the camera as well as re-creating reality with the characters. In one of the scenes Altman chooses to film a scene of Theo and as the camera pans out the audience realizes that the scene is shot from a mirror. I thought this was a highly creative way of showing a scene then panning out to the whole picture. There were a few things that recreate reality with the characters. One of them was a character talking over each other during an argument. People arguing with each other mostly talk over one another. Altman displays this audio as both characters are arguing and they are not hearing each other out. He also displays other sounds in the background during characters conversations which is unusual in films. He used kerosene lamps lighting only to film with which created a more realistic interpretation the scene. I really like how Altman tries to be mindful of creating a film with realistic features such as lighting, sound, and camera position as described.
I adored how the actors expressed their characters emotions. The emotions were very raw, and it seemed accurate how people would behave back in those times such as breaking things when angered. Vincent's emotions and behavior were quite interesting and seemed to be displayed more intensely over the course of the film to the point of causing physical harm to oneself. The film also shows the lack of support for those who struggle with mental health issues other than medicating oneself with alcohol and sex.
Overall, I would recommend this film. The storytelling is intriguing and pulled me in with its realism. In conclusion, Robert Altman directed a beautiful tragic biography of the famous brothers with different camera angles, unique lighting, and recreating reality in film with sound and behavior.
Robert Altman has a profound sense of creativity of positioning the camera as well as re-creating reality with the characters. In one of the scenes Altman chooses to film a scene of Theo and as the camera pans out the audience realizes that the scene is shot from a mirror. I thought this was a highly creative way of showing a scene then panning out to the whole picture. There were a few things that recreate reality with the characters. One of them was a character talking over each other during an argument. People arguing with each other mostly talk over one another. Altman displays this audio as both characters are arguing and they are not hearing each other out. He also displays other sounds in the background during characters conversations which is unusual in films. He used kerosene lamps lighting only to film with which created a more realistic interpretation the scene. I really like how Altman tries to be mindful of creating a film with realistic features such as lighting, sound, and camera position as described.
I adored how the actors expressed their characters emotions. The emotions were very raw, and it seemed accurate how people would behave back in those times such as breaking things when angered. Vincent's emotions and behavior were quite interesting and seemed to be displayed more intensely over the course of the film to the point of causing physical harm to oneself. The film also shows the lack of support for those who struggle with mental health issues other than medicating oneself with alcohol and sex.
Overall, I would recommend this film. The storytelling is intriguing and pulled me in with its realism. In conclusion, Robert Altman directed a beautiful tragic biography of the famous brothers with different camera angles, unique lighting, and recreating reality in film with sound and behavior.
Review for ART 1145 American Cinema - Vincent & Theo
natalyasn29 September 2021
Warning: Spoilers
SPOILER WARNING
Vincent & Theo is a biographical drama directed by Oscar-winner Robert Altman, written by Julian Mitchell, and produced by Ludi Boeken and David Conroy in 1990. This film stars Tim Roth as the famous painter Vincent Van Gogh, and Paul Rhys as Theo Van Gogh, Vincent's art dealing brother. This film is described as one of Altman's most underrated masterpieces.
In this film, we follow the life of Vincent Van Gogh and his brother Theo Van Gogh through their difficult and codependent relationship. Throughout the story, we are shown multiple turning points in the brother's lives. From when Vincent initially tells Theo he wants to become an artist, to the financial hardships and emotional turmoil the brothers must go through to the downward spiral of depression Vincent experiences. The story ultimately ends with the violent and tragic suicide of Vincent, and a heartbroken Theo, who has lost the person he not only holds dear but has spent most of his life emotionally dependent on.
I really enjoyed the production of this film. The visuals are stunning, from the landscaping of the flower fields Vincent is in, to the dark, gritty scenes of Vincent having an emotional breakdown. Tom and Paul's acting in this are also quite phenomenal. They have good chemistry and at times made it uncomfortable for me to watch as if I was watching an actual personal conversation (or arguments/fights) between the brothers. However, at the same time, there are multiple times where the sound is muffled and the actors sound like they are mumbling.
As someone whose favorite artist is Vincent Van Gogh, this was definitely very interesting to watch. It is painfully honest how Vincent felt about himself and his craft, feeling like an outsider in society and using painting as a somewhat toxic coping mechanism. The movie does get very intense and brutal, so if you have a sensitive heart, I will not recommend you watch it. However, if you also enjoy Van Gogh's works and are interested in how his craft affected everything in his life from his family, his marriage, and his overall life, I recommend watching it.
Vincent & Theo is a biographical drama directed by Oscar-winner Robert Altman, written by Julian Mitchell, and produced by Ludi Boeken and David Conroy in 1990. This film stars Tim Roth as the famous painter Vincent Van Gogh, and Paul Rhys as Theo Van Gogh, Vincent's art dealing brother. This film is described as one of Altman's most underrated masterpieces.
In this film, we follow the life of Vincent Van Gogh and his brother Theo Van Gogh through their difficult and codependent relationship. Throughout the story, we are shown multiple turning points in the brother's lives. From when Vincent initially tells Theo he wants to become an artist, to the financial hardships and emotional turmoil the brothers must go through to the downward spiral of depression Vincent experiences. The story ultimately ends with the violent and tragic suicide of Vincent, and a heartbroken Theo, who has lost the person he not only holds dear but has spent most of his life emotionally dependent on.
I really enjoyed the production of this film. The visuals are stunning, from the landscaping of the flower fields Vincent is in, to the dark, gritty scenes of Vincent having an emotional breakdown. Tom and Paul's acting in this are also quite phenomenal. They have good chemistry and at times made it uncomfortable for me to watch as if I was watching an actual personal conversation (or arguments/fights) between the brothers. However, at the same time, there are multiple times where the sound is muffled and the actors sound like they are mumbling.
As someone whose favorite artist is Vincent Van Gogh, this was definitely very interesting to watch. It is painfully honest how Vincent felt about himself and his craft, feeling like an outsider in society and using painting as a somewhat toxic coping mechanism. The movie does get very intense and brutal, so if you have a sensitive heart, I will not recommend you watch it. However, if you also enjoy Van Gogh's works and are interested in how his craft affected everything in his life from his family, his marriage, and his overall life, I recommend watching it.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
