Kuroneko (1968)

Directed by Kaneto Shindo

MV5BZDM5ZDAwNmQtZmNjMi00NTJhLThkNTMtNzlhZWIyZmVlMzRiXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNzI1NzMxNzM@._V1_SY1000_SX710_AL_

“What ghost would dare hate us?”

Kuroneko is directed by the late Kaneto Shindo (1912–2012), already at the time a revered figure in Japanese cinema with features such as Hadaka no shima (1960) or Onibaba (1964). The film takes place in medieval Japan during the Heian period, torn by civil war. In the opening scene a group of samurai approaches a bamboo house owned by two women: Yone (Nobuku Otowa) and her daughter-in-law Shige (Kiwako Taichi). They end up raping and killing both and the house is razed by flames. It’s a powerful opening shot that challenges the chivalrous notion associated with the honoured samurai. Out of nowhere, in this devastating scenario appears an eerie black cat that licks the dead bodies. The cat, surely a representation of evil, is a presence through the film until its final climax .The spirits of the two dead women then make a pact with evil forces in order to be allowed to return to Japan. With revenge in their minds they will now dedicate their time to kill and drink the blood of the samurai.

“You must be a ghost to be wandering so late at night”

In the following scenes we see a careful and well managed method of creating tension in the viewer. The younger woman seduces a horse-riding samurai to her house, where her mother in law is waiting. There the man is well received by the two hosts, in a charming and warming manner. The samurai is completely relaxed and inebriated by all the sake he could drink, which makes this the perfect opportunity to attack. It’s a slow and well-constructed pace that serves the purpose of creating a stressful environment quite well. An unnerving meowing is heard in the background, always reminding of the dark spirits within the two woman ghosts. The pattern of killing is repeated with a few more samurai soldiers. Waiting for them at the Rashomon (a big gate at Kyoto’s entrance), the younger woman plays an angelic and naïve part, entrancing the man also with her physical attributes

.A dance before the sudden atack

The film takes an even more tragic turn when we’re introduced to the character of Gintoki (Kichiemon Nakamura). He is the son of Yone and was soon to be married to Shige, before the civil war separated them. His success in the conflict has made him a respected samurai, creating a conundrum when he finally meets the ghosts of his family. To worsen things, he his pressured by his superior to eradicate the ghost problem that has killed a lot of his men.

As a horror film, Kuroneko takes by the hand of his director extreme care with creating an eerie atmosphere, especially with the extensive use of fog. It is present in a lot of scenes and creates a sense of unrest in the viewer. The use of shadows as a visual cue is also very interesting, notably in one of the kills. Here, the shadowy effect behind a curtain creates a different way of displaying death, never boring the viewer despite the similar scenarios. Regarding the lighting, it accentuates murky rooms and backgrounds, while spotlights and backlighting seem to illuminate a character in the frame. The translucid clothing and curtains in the house are great means to accentuate the supernatural and ghostly figure of the two women.

Kuroneko functions as more than a simple horror film. Like referenced above, it crushes the image of sainthood a lot of times imposed to the armed forces. It challenges the discrepancy between ethic codes like the samurai’s Bushido, and the real actions of the regular soldiers in the war. Despite this code being a big influence on Japanese’s ethics (even in the modern times), it didn’t avoid the numerous war crimes committed by Japan during World War II. The film tries to separate the idyllic from the real, demonstrating that the honour and respect for the other is something bigger than the job or title they assume. The film has also clearly a feminist approach against models of toxic masculinity displayed here by most of the men. The rape scene in the beginning of the film is shocking not because of any gratuitous violence displayed, but by the total normality of it. For the soldiers it’s just one more day in their lives, and not an ounce of regret is exhibited. So it makes the violence against the samurai throughout the film justified and deserved in a certain way. But in the end, when there is the confrontation with a loved one belonging to the class they swore to kill, an internal dilemma heaves out of this conflict. Is there space for forgiveness or must it be completed without any exception? Is direct revenge the only true way to resolve one’s problems or will it make even more harm?

Green Book (2019)

Directed by Peter Farrelly

green book 2.png “So if I’m not black enough and if I’m not white enough, then tell me, Tony, what am I?” – Don Shirley

Green Book is a film directed by Peter Farrelly, who has mostly a bunch of major successful comedies on his record like Dumb and Dumber (1994) and There’s Something About Mary (1998). This comedy past is clearly an influence on this production, which provides a more light-hearted mood to an otherwise dark themed film.

The story follows Tony Lip (Viggo Mortensen), a rough Italian-American bouncer in a upper class night club during the 1960’s. Suddenly out of work after the club closes for renovations, he is compelled to get a new job fast to pay for his bills. An old acquaintance gives him the contact of a “doctor” who is in the need for a new chauffer. This “doctor” ends up not being a medical one, but a stage name for pianist Dr. Donald Shirley (Mahershala Ali), who is planning a concert tour in the south of the USA. As an African American Don is clearly anticipating problems relating his skin colour on the deep American south, so he is counting on Tony to not only drive him around but also be a kind of bodyguard. After some reluctance, he accepts the job. His hesitation is mainly due to racism: having a black person in charge felt humiliating for Tony.

The film does a good job portraying the mob mentality of racism inside the Italian-American community, who suffered discrimination from the other white ethnicities. John M. Parker, a American Democratic politician from Louisiana (ironically one of the places where Don Shirley stopped in his tour) described the Italians as “just a little worse than the Negro, being if anything filthier in their habits, lawless, and treacherous”. Despite that, they hold on to their white ethnicity very strongly as in a way to feel superior. This power relationship was explored in a powerful manner by Spike Lee´s work Do The Right Thing (1989). There we see that despite similar economic backgrounds of low-income status, racism is still a powerful tool for compensating internalized shame, as in a way as saying, “at least I’m not black”.

The first meeting in Don Shirley’s house

But in this film the power dynamic is different, because of the economical status of the two main characters. Shirley is a rich and highly refined pianist, familliar with the best things in life. Tony on the other hand comes from a low-income family and must work hard just to make ends meet. He tries to show throughout the film how he is closer to the African-American culture than Shirley, by showing him things that he has not experienced in his life such as listening to black music and eating fried chicken (which was apparently false in real life, accordingly to Shirley’s family). The film tries to get across the image that the racism that Tony displays is completely unjustified because he is closer to black culture than Don. But what Tony fails to understand is that despite not being connoisseur of the typical black culture, he stills suffers discrimination from the fact that he is black. More than that, it sure has racist undertones, especially in the correlation between being black and enjoying the stereotypical black culture, especially when made by a white man.

“Thats why you drivin’ him around. You´re half N- yourself”

As the film goes by the relationship between the two grows stronger, with Tony Lip saving the pianist from many problems derived from the blatant racism in the south. This is another problem that the film ends up creating. The protagonist of the film is clearly Viggo Mortensen’s character and not Don. It is a movie trope present in a lot of Hollywood films (such as a classic like To Kill a Mockingbird (1962) or more recently The Blind Side (2009) that shifts the focus of the film from the narrative of suffering of the minority to the act of saving by the white character. Worse than that, it almost creates the image that the non-white person is incapable of saving him/herself from all their problems, many of them ironically created by the whites themselves. Despite this drawback, there are some funny and engaging moments portrayed by Viggo Mortensen, and a stellar performance by Mahershala Ali, which ended up earning him the Oscar.

The film ends on a cosy Christmas dinner with Tony Lip’s family where Don Shirley ends up joining them. The resentment against black people suddenly disappears and everybody accepts the black man at the table. This Christmas setting (despite not clearly being the director’s decision to make this statement) is the perfect analogy for racism amongst the white society. We all remember the messages of forgiveness and solidarity that go around in text messages, and suddenly everybody recognizes the need to help the homeless and foster care children. The warm and fuzzy ending to this film encapsulates precisely that feeling. It feels more like holiday spirit than a real change of attitude. Giving this film the Best Picture award at the Oscars – especially when a more poignant movie like BlacKkKlansman (2018) is also nominated – feels like Hollywood only wants to scrape the surface of the problem, without creating much fuss and controversy.

5 out of 10

A Brighter Summer Day (1991)

(original title: Gu ling jie shao nian sha ren shi jian)

Directed by Edward Young

MV5BNzQ1OTRjYWYtZTZhYy00YTU5LWEwZjMtMThhYmM4YjA1NjI0XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTQxNzMzNDI@._V1_

“Are you lonesome tonight?”

With almost four hours of runtime, watching A Brighter Summer Day may feel like too much too handle for the average movie goer. Even more if you take in account the fact that the movie is not spoken in English on the like of epics as Lawrence of Arabia (1962) or Ben Hur (1959). But despite all that, there is plenty of reasons to dedicate time for this Taiwanese gem. Spoken in mandarin (among other local Chinese dialects), it was at the time a considerably large project with more than a hundred actors participating. The directing was at the hands of Edward Young, one of the most important figures of the Taiwan cinema, responsible for Terrorizers (1986) and most notably Yi Yi (2000). This was his most critically acclaimed masterpiece and ended up granting him the best director award at Cannes.

The film takes place on the island of Taiwan, during the autocratic regime led by Chiang Kai-shek and the Kuomitang party. After the defeat in the Chinese civil war and escape of the nationalist forces to Taiwan, the Republic of China (RoC) was declared in the island. This two-china scenario, where both of them (the other being the communist People’s Republic of China (PRC)) claimed the legitimacy to control the whole China. The storyline follows Xiao Si’r (Chang Chen), a junior high student, from 1959 to 1963. Lacking on his studies he has to attend night school, full of delinquents, and where gang warfare is a commonplace. Si’r sits between the Little Park Boys, composed by the children of civil servants, and the 217s, made up of children of military officers.

The two gang leaders

This duality between army and civil populace is a common theme through all the film, especially to make clear of the impotence of the army authority to create a true sense of national identity. Important to notice though that in the period retracted in the film, the RoC was the official China to the West, in particular the USA. The western influence is very strong on the construction of a identity in this troubled Taiwanese youth. In a ballroom scene we can see the American, UN and RoC flags together, noting this hope for the West to resolve the many problems of a fragile state. A state that enforces militaristic views on his citizens starting obviously by the young. From the school uniforms that resemble army like ones, to the practice of western marching tunes (like the famous Prussian march Alte Kameraden) in school, everything is catered to give identity from war. But amidst all this we have the traditional Chinese views of family, which are in danger against growing western influence. The authoritarian views and the importance of the unity of the family trace back to the Confucius teachings that modelled the Chinese civilization, with values like the deep need for a hierarchy based on age and meritocracy. In the film we see in S’ir family how debt, problems with state authority (those two being his parents’ fault) and his failure of to get good results and respect his school superiors all culminate in deep shame for them all. Outside the family core, this coming of age film takes also a deep look into the value of friendship and love between the Taiwanese youth. Girls are seen as mere objects of enjoyment for most of the boys, but not as much for S’ir. A few scenes in we are introduced to this girl Ming (Lisa Yang), the girlfriend of the leader of The Lost Boys, Honey (Hung-Ming Lin), an outlaw running away from police authorities. Trough the film S’ir gets more and more infatuated with her which among the violent gang fights and his obsession to “save” her from the promiscuity ultimately leads to a tragic conclusion. One cannot help to feel a somewhat paternalistic side in S’ir regarding woman, as if they are incapable of taking responsibility for themselves and need a male saviour.

“I’ll protect you!”

Regarding the cinematography there is a deep care for mainly long framed shots, with almost no use of close ups. The only exception are the ones shot inside of S’ir’s house. Being a traditional Japanese house, the viewer can’t help to feel an homage to directors like Yasujiro Ozu, especially for use of a low placed camera and use of sliding doors to create different camera framings.

“So when will we see each other again?”

On A Brighter Summer Day, director Young tries to give a deep analysis on the basis of the Taiwanese identity. An island controlled by the Japanese for many years before, now is ruled by the nationalist forces, losers of the civil war. The gang violence (that goes to extremes in some scenes) goes hand in hand with the Elvis song “Are You Lonesome Tonight” whose lyrics give the English title of the film. A duality between violence and authority against lack of identity, naivety and melancholy is constant as the film goes by, leaving the viewer astonished by some of the decisions of the characters. In 1991, year of its release, the RoC was an economic powerhouse but has lost most of its international diplomatic reputation to the PRC (especially after it was replaced as the “true” China in the United Nations).

A Brighter Summer Day is not only a coming of age film about the Taiwanese youth but Taiwan itself. It shows the struggle of creating a new identity out of a lot of different and sometimes contrasting cultures. The two China problem has no end in sight but as the years go by, the more cemented it gets the construction of the Taiwanese identity, something that films like this one helps a lot to create.

Vice (2019)

Directed by Adam McKay

0190456.jpg-r_1280_720-f_jpg-q_x-xxyxx

‘If you have power, people will always try to take it from you. Always’ – Lynne Cheney

Adam Mckay gives another try on directing a political commentary film with Vice, three years after his last production. His career is filled with comedy directing credits, from SNL sketches to Hollywood hits like Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy (2004) or Step Brothers (2008). In The Big Short (2015), McKay tried to ally the seriousness of the 2007’s mortgage housing crisis in the US with a combination of humorous characters that work as a comic relief on such a severe topic. On Vice, the recipe is taken up a notch with an even more extreme approach to the theme of the film.

Vice works, on a primary level, as a biopic of the Vice President of the USA during the George W. Bush era (2001-2009), Dick Cheney (Christian Bale). From his troubled Yale years to the personal ascension inside the power dynamics of the White House, the film is never clear on what are his real goals. A scene on the first half if the movie shows his wife Lynne Cheney (Amy Adams) giving him an ultimatum implying she would abandon him in case he didn’t amend his behaviour. In all the motion picture, the figure of Lynne is a potent influence on the action of Cheney. Throughout the film, a clear connection between Cheney and his family is shown, as a way of not only trying to give an alternative and more positive view of him, but also serve as a motivation as to why he is acting as the way he is. The family is painted as a close clan whose protection and ascension are the primary goal for him.

McKay tries to paint an image of a man whose obsession for power makes him look like an introverted sociopath without any ethics, except for his own personal gain, with the leverage of a kind family man to balance it all out. But even his close ones suffer from the thirst for power, especially his daughter Mary (Alison Pill). Although he always accepted her choices, her sexuality is the appointed reason by Cheney for not running for President, as it is something that would diminish his chances. Later when his other daughter Liz (Lily Rabe) decides to run for Senate, he approves her decision to not support gay marriage, as it would hurt her chances with the more conservative Republican voters. After the crumbling of his political career, the family cohesion is also shattered, leaving the viewer confused on what were his real motivations after all.

Christian Bale, who also worked with McKay on The Big Short (2015), goes again to extreme measures in an effort to give the closest portrayal of Cheney. His method acting made him gain almost 20 kilos and shave his hair. Besides the work on physical aspect, the voice and mannerisms are also not missed, making Bale a strong contender for the Best Actor award on the upcoming Academy Awards. The rest of the cast also delivers strong performances. Amy Adams incarnates a strong wife that, in a way, feels that she is the one truly in charge. Sam Rockwell does what he is best at: after winning the Oscar for best supporting actor last year, he displays here an eerie similarity with George W. Bush, especially with both the accent and tone of his voice. Despite this, the viewer cannot help but feel that he is spared of much of the guilt, by displaying Bush one sided only as an ignorant fool. Steve Carrell (playing Donald Rumsfeld) distances himself even more from the comedy actor typecast, showing once again that he is capable of doing more serious types of characters.

Despite the powerful performances, it feels somewhat exaggerated at times, mainly because of McKay’s editing quirks and misplaced satire. It works, for instance, on the Macbeth reenactment by the Cheney couple, establishing, like the original Shakespeare work, the importance of the wife in the way the lead behavior. But on the other hand, the constant uses of documentary footage make the film lose focus as on what it is trying to be. The “credit roll” on the middle of the film doesn’t really work and appears a little bit forced, especially because the second half doesn’t fit that narrative (and being the second fake ending I watched recently after Gaspar Noe’s Climax (2018), let’s hope it doesn’t become a trend). The narrator (Jesse Plemons) is also a character that shows up in the film without much reason and the plot twist feels a tad forced (especially on the light of the trope of Cheney’s almost humorous heart attacks).

“I believe we can make this work.”

It’s a film of the Trump era, clearly making a lot of connections between Cheney and the current US President. The rage that McKay tries to impulse on the viewer by Cheney’s actions serve as a warning for the present American administration. After the final credits roll there’s an extra scene that disperses any doubt that this is a movie for the current times. One of the mechanisms used by the Bush administration were the creation of focus groups which helped justify the war to the American people. But in this after credit scene it is the movie itself that is being discussed. The same focus group reappears where a stereotypical white Trump supporter denounces a liberal bias throughout the film, starting a fiery discussion in the room. As it erupts, one disinterested member remarks that she is looking forward to the new installment of the Fast and Furious franchise. It’s a cheap shot to audience as it tries to tell them that the fault is also theirs. Nonetheless, despite the lack of interest in politics which usually results in abuses in power, it’s not impossible to enjoy popular culture and take political stands. A populist conclusion on a movie that supposedly criticizes the same evil.

6 out of 10

Le Silence de la Mer (1949)

(eng: The Silence of the Sea)

Directed by Jean-Pierre Melville

Filmed in 1947 and released two years after, Le Silence de la Mer was the answer of Jean-Pierre Melville to the dark period of Nazi Germany’s occupation of France. The script is inspired on the book by the same name written by the French author Jean Bruller. This novel, published secretly in France during the first year of the Nazi invasion, became a beacon of inspiration to the Resistance. Melville himself joined the French Resistance and fought for the liberation of his country. He established a deep connection with the book, noting later that it was the logic choice of inspiration for the script of his first feature film.

The narrative of the film follows a young German officer, Werner von Ebrennac (Howard Vernon), in a recently occupied French town. There he takes hold of a room in a house belonging to an old Frenchman (Jean-Marie Robain) and his niece (Nicole Stéphane). The new occupant is given a complete silence treatment by the French, despite the constant attempts of conversation by the German. A self-proclaimed Francophone, von Ebrennac speaks fluently the French language. With a gentle and warm posture, he shows his love for music and talks about his youth. But above all he talks constantly of the greatness of both countries, France and Germany, and the need for a closer relationship. This is the way he justifies the war, affirming that both the nations will gain tremendously with the new alliance. This vision is shattered though, in a scene where von Ebrennac meet with his fellow officers in Paris. Here he discovers that the rest of the army does not share his ideas of union between the two nations, but the total annihilation of the French spirit. He decides then to leave France and volunteers to the feared Eastern front to fight the soviet forces. It feels like he abandons all its hope described by his words through the film and embarks on a suicide mission, disenchanted by the ideals on his uniform and to the deserved punishment.

“Then he knocked on our door/ Was it to spare us from the sight of an enemy’s uniform, or to make us forget and get used to him?”

The setting of the film is mainly the small living room of the house occupied by the young German officer. Except for a flashback to von Ebrennec’s nostalgic youth and the trip to Paris near the end of the film, all the scenes take place in the old Frenchman’s house. But it doesn’t feel claustrophobic at all, but rather cosy. It’s an austere film marked by minimalistic camera work and very few outside shots. Despite this, the viewer can’t help but feel but sympathetic to the German officer. In his “monologues” transpires a feeling of hope that almost grabs the other two occupants of the house, shattered by the fall of France and the enormous shame of defeat to Germany, its old rival. We get the perception that the old uncle, sitting on his chair silently smoking his pipe, has almost a inner urge to try and answer to von Ebrennec. His niece sits stoically knitting and completely evades the gaze of the intruder in her own house. Only at the last moment with his departure to the East we see this close up of the niece’s eyes glowing with light, as in final approval of the officer, giving him a kind of redemption and exceptionality against his German peers.

“Do you think we’re so stupid as to allow France ever to rise again?”

The character of the german officer has its similarities with the captain von Rauffenstein (Erich von Stroheim) in Jean Renoir’s La grande illusion (1937). Both carry a deep sympathy for the enemy’s culture and feel the war is needed for the greater good of both nations. The difference lies primarily on age and grades of naivety. Von Rauffenstein is an old officer living with chivalric notions displaced from a period like World War I, marked by the mechanization of war and massification of the killings. On the other hand, the star of this film is completely fooled by the Nazi party real intentions for invading France. The conception of this heroic and chivalrous nineteenth-century times (where the dispute between the German Empire and France mainly started) is long gone, replaced by vindictiveness and the total annihilation of the enemy. The film starts with this homage to the bravery of the people who smuggled prohibited books. A man carrying a briefcase with books by authors like Camus or the above mentioned Bruller. A message after this scene transmits that this the wounds are too fresh, and the intention is not to solve the problem between the two nations.

Melville, like most of France is still in shock resulting from the German aggression and this film results as the possible answer at the time. He would return to similar themes in his movies, specifically Léon Morin, Priest (1961) or L’armée des ombres (1969). But these were movies made on the sixties, where much of the wounds were healed. It feels strange that Mellville, even more being jewish himself, decides to make a film where a German officer is portrayed in a civil and flattering way, a couple of years after the war ended. Perhaps it’s his way of showing, like the officer in the film, his admiration for the other side, and that a sense of reprisal must be refrained.

At Eternity’s Gate (2019)

Directed by Julian Schnabel

MV5BOTRmZGJiZjUtMGJjYi00MzZhLTkzYjUtODE1Yjk5ZDRiODhlXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyODAzODU1NDQ@._V1_SY1000_SX675_AL_.jpg

“Maybe God made me a painter for people who aren’t born yet”

On At Eternity’s Gate Julian Schnabel, director of the critically acclaimed Le scaphandre et le papillon (2007) turns again to the art world for inspiration. 23 years after Basquiat (1996), inspired by the troubled life of street artist Jean Michel Basquiat, it’s now time for an exploration of the later days of Vincent van Gogh. Despite the many decades that separate the life and death of the two artists, both were misinterpreted visionaries whose works came to be known as revolutionary after their deaths.

Biopics and homages of van Gogh are too many to describe in this review. From Vincent Minelli´s Lust for Life (1956), to the Akira Kurosawa´s marvellous tribute in Dreams (1990) where the painting Wheatfield with Crows (1890) is referenced in one of the shots. In 2017 came out Loving Vincent, an animation film using 65,000 frames of oil painting on canvas, inspired by the painting technique of van Gogh.

This film focuses approximately on the last 2 and half years of the Dutch artist. It begins with van Gogh (William Dafoe) meeting the also acclaimed French painter Paul Gauguin (Oscar Isaac) and their stay in the French small town of Arles. All the known episodes about the artists life, from the breaking apart with Gauguin, the cutting of his own ear as well his stay in a mental asylum and controversial death are represented in this film.

One of the great things about At Eternity’s Gate is the great performance of William Dafoe in this picture. Although having almost twice the age of van Gogh at the time of his death, Dafoe establishes a believable portrayal of the anguish and pure joy the painter experienced during this period of his life. The director focused with great care at the expressions in the faces of the actors, with the constant use of close-ups. Like Dreyer in The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928), the close-up on someone’s face does an astonishing job of making the spectator feel the pain as well the joy the character must be feeling at the time. The scenes where van Gogh paints, the switch between the focus on the quick brushstrokes and the emotions manifested by his face truly transports the viewer to the pure bliss of painting. These few scenes are when the film really outshines itself, together with a warm but at the same time gloomy solo piano soundtrack.

Schnabel experiments a lot with the camera work. Besides the above-mentioned close ups, which work quite well and give texture to the film experience, the overemphasis on a half-blurred lens in some scenes starts to get a little bit tiring after a while. The sound experimentation works better. In the church scene, where Gauguin announces his departure to Paris, leaving van Gogh completely shattered inside is a great example of this. The lines spoken by Gauguin repeat in van Gogh’s head at the same time he is hearing more information from the French painter. It helps to represent better the pure exasperation that van Gogh was surely feeling at the time.

The echoes of Gauguin’s voice inside van Gogh’s head

Van Gogh is represented as a fragile man where the only person who appears to comprehend him is his own brother. A powerful bond which is well represented in this film, especially in a scene where the two lie down in an hospital bed, after one of van Gogh’s breakdowns. He feels that the world doesn’t comprehend him, and laments when he says, “I have a menacing spirit around me.” The connection between mental illness and acts of pure genius is sometimes hailed as logic and unavoidable. As if madness is the only way of achieving greatness and that every genius has a little bit of a madman inside him. This image of a deranged gift is unjust, and a lot of times given to artists like van Gogh. In one of his many marvellous letters to his brother Theo he refers that a “grain of madness that is the best of art”. He knows his limitations and how deeply they affect him. The film tries to explain, with all its flaws, that the mental problems were an issue that incapacitated him to do even more, and not the source of all his brilliance.

The painting where the title was drawn from represents a figure of an old man with his elbows on his knees and his head in his hands, in a clear sense of despair. In a way, Schnabel tries to make van Gogh a martyr of his own geniality. The last scenes of the film almost try to glue the image of saint-like to the painter. The forgiveness of his alleged killers (his suicide it’s still an unsolved mystery to this day) give him a Christ in the cross kind of aura.

Sorrowing Old Man (At Eternity’s Gate) (1890) by Vincent Van Gogh; oil in canvas; Kröller-Müller Museum,Otterlo

At Eternity’s Gate tries to transport the viewer closer to the experience of the Dutch painter using every tool possible. It’s not a perfect film but tries to give a fair representation of van Gogh away from the mad genius stereotype. It shows all his brilliance as a painter and his difficulties as a man. The experience of painting on cinema at its best.

7 out of 10