As someone with a reverential admiration for van Gogh's art, I simply had to see this film for myself. Having read the collection of his letters to Theo many times, I found myself pinching myself to determine if this movie was actually about van Gogh at all. They got the fact right that van Gogh was an artist, but that's about it. The gentleman who played Dr. Gachet was absolutely perfect, but the actor who portrayed van Gogh apparently wandered onto the set stoned and indifferent. Passion? More like dispassion! When a director pedantically parades all the best shots, sets and costumes and yet crashes and burns, I smell self-indulgence and onanism. There is scarcely a shred of historical evidence (and the letters tell us so much) for the vulgar fiction this film portrays. Van Gogh's letters tell us more intimate details about his life than almost any other artist in history, why create pure fiction? Van Gogh himself was very awkward, shy and clumsy around women, though he did consort in brothels, where the staff usually knew how to break the ice. This van Gogh is so suave and unfeeling he's just a common ss hole, not the man who wanted to be remembered as "feeling tenderly and deeply". In short, mediocre directors should not tackle stories about people far greater than themselves, as the resulting contrast is self-humiliating. Without doubt, one of the most flawed projects I've ever viewed. As for the complaint from one reviewer that van Gogh's ear "wasn't missing"...please...he only cut off cut off the ear lobe, except in the movies. How long will these armchair experts rule art history or make useless films? Pialat is not really "controversial" at all, he's making it up as he goes along and simply should have played the village idiot. Henceforth I will spell and pronounce his name "Pialet", which in French means someone who goes to the bathroom too often... This is the glossiest garbage I've ever viewed! This film is a textbook lesson in artistic casuistry.
