SYNOPSICS
The Eyes of Van Gogh (2005) is a English movie. Alexander Barnett has directed this movie. Diana Agostini,John Alexander,Alexander Barnett,Dean Curtis are the starring of this movie. It was released in 2005. The Eyes of Van Gogh (2005) is considered one of the best Biography,Drama movie in India and around the world.
As the director, the goal I set for myself in transferring the film script to the screen was never to present but rather to uncover. I employ a subjective camera throughout the entire film. The idea is to get inside Vincent's head. Everything seen and felt is from his point of view. In order to achieve this, the camera, rather than viewing the action, will always be within it. We strove to give objective expression to inner experience, i.e., to show what Vincent was thinking and feeling; to show how a memory, dream or hallucination registers in his mind: texture, sound, color, shape, tempo. The purpose is not for the audience merely to be a witness, but rather for them to live within the image and to participate psychologically in the action. Vincent's mind, from beginning to end, is always engaged. His confusion, struggle, bewilderment and desperation grow and grow. He is never totally in one place. When he is in the past he still retains some of the present and vice versa. Many ...
The Eyes of Van Gogh (2005) Trailers
Same Actors
Same Director
The Eyes of Van Gogh (2005) Reviews
An engaging portrayal of Van Gogh from his own perspective
History tells us that Van Gogh, like many artists, was a very intense and troubled personality. Barnett takes us into the heart and mind of the man in a way that causes us to empathize afresh with his feelings and struggles. Barnett the film-maker deliberately refrains from any cutting from one camera to another, enhancing the viewer's being drawn into the world as viewed from Van Gogh's perspective. The score is also effective in painting an aural picture of what is going on inside the artist's mind. In this film we see Van Gogh, not just as a troubled soul, but as a sensitive and caring person who never quite found the way to break free of the demons from his past that haunted him up to the end of his life. Barnett's portrayal of Van Gogh is both believable and engaging. Despite the film's length of almost two hours, it holds the viewer's attention and moves the heart.
The essence of van Gogh
The viewer who has not encountered Mr. Barnett's work before may at first feel some disorientation, even shock, at the style and emotional intensity of this award-winning movie. The realization may grow, moving into it minute by minute, that what Barnett has done in his own artistic venue is in many ways comparable to what Vincent did in his -- transforming the artist's own clear perception of reality and life (in this case, Vincent's) into forms strikingly different from any seen in that venue before. This is not the kind of commercialized, mundanely Hollywood-slick film making that we are used to, which I find so often boring, in the end. I'd say to those who would be disappointed by that: look elsewhere. Having had the pleasure of seeing some of Barnett's early work in NY on stage -- Miller and Shakespeare at their best, in my book -- I did not require a period of readjustment of expectation and perception. (At age 33, he did the best King Lear I have ever seen.) What challenged me, in a very positive way, was the complexity and nuance of compressing Vincent's life story, spirit, and values into the remarkably short format of a 111-minute run time. Having known Vincent's story as of decades ago, but not having read the letters of Vincent and Theo, I found it difficult to approach this work with a pristine eye or ear. Would the naive viewer quite understand the context of this or that event (say, the Borinage time), etc? And would the unavoidable constraints of a low budget production detract from the essential experience and value of the work? Impossible for me to know, and anyway, I'm no film critic. I can say that I have it on good authority that the script remains true to the van Gogh letters, and the portrayal certainly remains uniquely true to Vincent's spirit and work. As film making (his first feature work), it uses the full palette, visually and emotionally. My advice: do not view it casually. That would be a waste. Nota Bene: Roy Thinnes is so very Peyron. (I really enjoyed his role in X Files, too.) All said and done -- 9 stars. It will sadden me if we don't see more of Barnett on film, as it does that we don't have some earlier work on film.
Intense and enlightening
Some movies are entertaining. Others are an experience. Alexander Barnett's Van Gogh biopic definitely falls into the latter category. Far from "guilty pleasure" fare, "The Eyes of Van Gogh" is a skillful and passionate portrayal of a talented yet tortured artist. This movie will educate you about the world of this struggling genius, even as it compels you to feel compassion for Van Gogh in his sad state. Competition, debt, insanity, rejection--all of these themes swirl Vincent's reality much like the colors in his paintings...you'll be relieved to view reality for yourself again at the end. But if you let it, the movie may remind you of all you have to be grateful for, and even challenge you to look at your own life through slightly different eyes.
A haunting and emotionally draining experience, but a must see.
Having seen some of Barnett's earlier work on stage in N.Y., I was more than familiar with the depth and breadth of his ability as an actor and director; how seemingly effortlessly he brings each of his characters to life. I was fully prepared to be equally moved by his interpretation and portrayal of Vincent van Gogh. I knew that Barnett could be electrifying on stage and I was curious to see how his energy would translate on film. Nothing, however, prepared me for the emotional shock I experienced by his haunting rendering of the most tortured months in the life of van Gogh. The intensity that Barnett brought to this role can only be described as "insane." One can but imagine the years of research and total immersion into the life of van Gogh it must have required to be able to portray with such shocking clarity what was in van Gogh's heart and mind during this brief period of time. Another commenter describes Barnett's performance as, "as close to insanity as you will ever get." I agree. The film is not highly polished in the typical sense. The lighting is poor at times, the sets and scenery drab, and while I know nothing about film editing, I found some of the flashbacks unnecessarily confusing. These perceived flaws could be due to budget constraints, but knowing something of Barnett's work, I tend to think there is some intention on his part. The overall effect is that the viewer experiences the bleakness that is Vincent's life at the time. At times in the film, what is reality and what is only in van Gogh's tortured and clouded mind is as indistinguishable to the viewer as it is to Vincent, making the viewing experience all the more haunting and disquieting. An amazing feat, whether intentional or not.
As close to insanity as you'll ever want to get
The legend of Van Gogh haunts the ages. What, we wonder, was behind those images. What did Vincent SEE??? The Eyes of Van Gogh will take you there - if you can learn to "paint the air". Van Gogh wanted to push art beyond visual reality. He wanted to paint the air that we could sense but not see. He wanted to paint emotion. But his insanity stole reality from him. He couldn't tell what was real and what was a distortion of real. He fought the distortion with all his strength. He tried to capture reality by surrounding it with color. The distortions fought back, stealing his art equipment, surrounding him with darkness. Alexander Barnett will take you into this fight - I said, take YOU INTO this fight. It's as close to insanity as you'll ever want to get. AR