directed by Dorota Kobiela, Hugh Welchman
written by Kobiela, Welchman and Jacek Dehnel
It's not often one gets to see a truly extraordinary piece of work unfold on the big screen, and I count myself fortunate that I was able to catch one such piece, the astonishing independent animated film Loving Vincent, before it's banished from theaters in favor of some blockbuster du jour.
The film, which boasts the distinction of being the world's first fully-painted feature length animated film, tells a story set a year after the death of renowned Dutch painter Vincent Van Gogh (Anastazja Seweryn), using people who were actually the subjects of his paintings. Armand Roulin (Douglas Booth), the son of Van Gogh's postman Joseph Roulin (Chris O'Dowd) is tasked with delivering Vincent Van Gogh's last letter to his brother, Theo (Bartlomiej Sroka). Reluctant at first, Armand agrees when his father explains why it is important that this letter be delivered personally after a failed attempt to mail it. Armand learns from one of Van Gogh's acquaintances, Julien "Pere" Tanguy (John Sessions) that Theo has passed away as well, but it then occurs to Armand to take the letter to Dr. Gachet (Jerome Flynn), the physician who attended to Van Gogh just before his death. As Armand travels to the small rural village where Van Gogh met his end, he learns many things about Van Gogh and the circumstances that surrounded both the last few days of his life and his actual death, all of which challenge many of the notions he once had about the man.
It's impossible to describe this film without some form of superlative. The technique with which it was made, which makes use of live-action photography, some computer-generated imagery, and, most importantly, actual oil painting, is nothing short of amazing, and watching the scenes unfold is probably the closest we'll ever get to seeing the art of a master like Van Gogh come to vivid life. Filmmakers Kobiela and Welchman, rather than simply use computers to simulate the effect of paintings come to life, went with a decidedly more difficult, but at the same time more striking approach. Sure, actors like Douglas Booth and Saoirse Ronan (as Marguerite Gachet, another of Van Gogh's subjects) needed to lend their likenesses and performances, but it's the painstaking work of the 100 or so painters that sets this film apart. These incredible images create a transcendent experience, and elevate the film from some art house murder/mystery about the death of an artist almost as renowned for his mental illness (for how else would you describe someone who chopped off his own ear and gave it to a prostitute as a gift) as he was for his craft to something that will be remembered for years.
The script, however, isn't quite as strong as I would have wanted to it be; the attempt to reconstruct Van Gogh's death from multiple points of view, has a vaguely hackneyed feel to it, even though Booth, who was last seen as an evil intergalactic prince trying to harvest earthlings for beauty care products in the Wachowskis' wretched flop Jupiter Ascending, tries his level best to engage the audience in the mystery he is investigating. Ultimately, it is the script that lets Booth and the rest of the cast down as it comes to a conclusion that feels a bit more sentimental than satisfactory. The movie's treacly climax and denouement feel distinctly disappointing after all the buildup.
All that said, thanks to solid performances by a great cast and the mind-blowing work of the painters who brought this movie to such colorful life, it's relatively easy to forgive these narrative shortcomings. It is a visual experience unlike any other, ably abetted by heartfelt performances and a stirring musical score by Clint Mansell.
This is a movie that has to be seen to be believed, and the Herculean efforts of those involved deserve utmost recognition. I hope this movie is at least nominated for an Oscar.
8/10
No comments:
Post a Comment