At Eternity's Gate

It’s a beautiful visual and spiritual journey through the glorious highs and devastating lows of a brilliant artist who was ahead of his time.

I’m not a fan of Schnabel’s paintings, but I think he’s a born film painter, and even if At Eternity’s Gate doesn’t reliably cross the blood-brain barrier, his frames are like no one else’s. (His cinematographer is Benoît Delhomme.)

Dafoe never begs for attention or sympathy; he’s there, like the seasoned, craftsmanlike actor he is, as a conduit and a sort of medium.

As an impressionistic portrait of the man, it works, mainly because of the intense vulnerability Dafoe brings to the role.

It’s an impressionistic film, concerned more with the atmosphere around genius than explaining it away.

Despite a strong, affecting performance by Willem Dafoe – who, even more than Kirk Douglas or Pialat’s star Jacques Dutronc, looks born to the part – the director’s pugnacious visual and editing style never impart the kinetic emotional charge of his 2007 drama The Diving Bell and the Butterfly.

The point with van Gogh is that he produced mind-boggling art while stricken with doubt that he’d failed all his life. This film is his spiritual antithesis – so recklessly confident that it paints right over him.

"At Eternity's Gate" is a highly impressionistic, strongly emotional look at the last days of legendary artist Vincent Van Gogh. It is certainly no standard biopic, but rather one that pays tribute to the art and artist involved in a highly original way. Thanks to a truly sublime powerhouse performance by Willem Dafoe as Van Gogh who captures all the torment and struggle locked inside the artist, director Julian Schnabel, an artist himself, perfectly captures and conveys the complex life of this complicated artist. As we follow the last days of the life of Van Gogh, his move to Arles, his friendship with Gauguin, his mental breakdown which leads to him being locked in an asylum and then finally his shocking tragic death. This film is all handled with such compassion and provocative care that you can really feel the art and the life that inspired it. Willem Dafoe is perfectly cast as Vincent van Gogh. Not only does he bear a startling physical resemblance to the artist, but he also manages to convey the mental turmoil and wild swings of emotion that he underwent during his periods of mania and depression in a realistic way. He has something about the eyes that is just so powerful. This is a painful, beautiful examination of the artist and his time in Arles where he produced his most famous and enduring work. It tells the story in snippets and scenes which perfectly captures the mood of the letters written by the artist, his family and his carers during those latter stages of his tragically short life. Julian Schnabel known for his work on "Before Night Falls" and "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly" is really great at creating and visually translating these lyrical character studies in a beautiful way. The cinematography from Benoît Delhome who shot "The Theory of Everything"is exquisite as he uses this immersive point of view perspective to show a biographical experience through Van Gogh's eyes, through his love of nature, through his fear of being left alone with his hauntings, through his illness, and through the pain and beauty that was his mind. With a great supporting cast with Rupert Friend as Vincent's brother Theo van Gogh, Mads Mikkelsen as the priest who Vincent regularly confided in, Mathieu Amalric as Dr. Paul Guaguin his doctor, Oscar Isaac as Paul Guaguin and Amira Casar as Johanna van Gogh-Beonger, Theo's wife and Vincent's sister-in-law who translated letters between the brothers after Vincent's death. This is an interesting and moving portrayal of one of the greatest artists we think we knew but also a moving examination of mental health, identity and legacy.

At Eternity’s Gate is a promising film about Vincent Van Gogh as it seems to hint at more than a standard biopic about the post-impressionist artist, featuring an intriguing title and trailer that hinted at themes of eternity. However, the film falls short of exploring the theme of eternity. It touches on Van Gogh's faith but does not delve deeply into his experience of faith. The film is sketchy, leaving the audience wanting more depth and richness. However, the film includes a liberal interpretation of Jesus' history and a brief mention of the Holy Spirit, but this does not feel enough. A scene where Van Gogh and Gaugin mockingly admire nature by peeing in the countryside distances itself from spiritual themes. It ultimately amounts to a disappointing experience apart from Willem Dafoe’s performance. As it goes, the film explores Van Gogh's journey to Arles in the South of France, encouraged by fellow artist Gaugin, to capture the beauty of life on his canvas. Van Gogh's artistic pursuit stemmed from a deep desire to possess and depict beauty. A question left unexplored here is whether Van Gogh could capture the essence of eternity on earth through his art, while landscapes might have spoken of the eternal to Van Gogh and could have been explored further. However, the film delves into his personal life, including his close relationship with his brother, the persecution he faced, his financial difficulties, and his time in an asylum. The drama of his life as a misunderstood artist is stated, but what stands out is Willem Dafoe's performance as Van Gogh.

At Eternity's Gate is more like an early concept for Loving Vincent than a movie, a boring storytelling was the big problem in the movie, but thanks to Dafoe great perfomance and good ending, the movie is not completely awful, At Eternity's Gate is basically a theory movie whether Van Gogh shoot himself or got killed, and the one that lived a very long one is that Van Gogh shoot himself, At Eternity's Gate try the second version of it, and the result is? i'm not interested at all.

I went on Friday (Sydney time) to see this movie. I enjoy seeing historically based movies, even if they are not 100% factually accurate as such (i.e. the age of the real Van Gough was much younger than portrayed by the actor). I only stayed for about 30 to 40 minutes because I found the camera work very disturbing. It appeared to be held by hand and had a very jilted, moving all other the place impact. I started to feel as if I was at sea or something like motion sickness so had to leave. Hope nobody else experiences this, but it wasn't worth staying to see the end.

After the first 10 minutes I was ready to walk out of “At Eternity’s Gate” and I was waiting for Allen to say that we should leave but he didn’t. Talk about walking—if they cut all the scenes showing van Gogh walking, especially those of just from lower shins down, in silence, well except for excruciating music on the soundtrack, this would have been considered a short. Sixty-two years ago (1956) there was a ‘Hollywood’ version called “Lust For Life” starring Kirk Douglas as Vincent van Gogh for which he won a Golden Globe for Best Actor and Anthony Quinn as Paul Gauguin who won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor. The movie was based on a story by Irving Stone and written by Norman Corwin and this movie is written by Jean Claude Carrierre, Louise Kugelberg and Julian Schnabel, the latter also directing with it being his version, based on fact, letters, speculation and fiction. The major plus of both films is showing the authentic paintings of Vincent van Gogh and, to a certain degree, his road to insanity. Did van Gogh kill himself by shooting himself in the stomach as Stone says or did 2 kids shoot and kill him? The scenes between Douglas and Quinn are electric while the scenes in “At Eternity’s Gate” between Rupert Friend, as Theo, Vincent’s brother, especially one in a hospital, are moving and those between Oscar Isaac, as Gauguin, showing the respect he had for van Gogh, enlightening. Vladimir Consigny as a young doctor shows compassion for the man who sits before him after cutting his ear off while Mads Mikkelsen as a priest who is no match for van Gogh’s interpretation of the bible. The women’s roles are secondary and neither add or take away from the film. William Dafoe, as van Gogh, in his 60s, playing the latter in his 30s, shows more in his face of the pain of life that the artist probably did. Sadly the performances of Dafoe and Friend, with the paintings of van Gogh, are not enough to make the picture worthwhile while the offbeat piano tinkering of music by Tatiana Lisovskaya, the endless walking scenes, the handheld camera shots and the lack of drama make this more of a ‘skip it’ than a ‘must see’.