The troubled final years in the life of artist Vincent van Gogh are the subject of this intimate character study by Julian Schnabel.

Director: Julian Schnabel

Screenwriters: Jean-Claude Carrière, Julian Schnabel and Louise Kugelberg

Synopsis:

*Spoilers* In what would be the final years of his life, struggling Dutch painter Vincent van Gogh (1853 to 1890) exiles himself in Arles and Auvers-Sur-Oise. Financially supported by his loving brother, Theo, Vincent uses his time in the French countryside to develop his distinctive colourful painting style. He also develops a strong attachment to fellow painter Paul Gauguin, but suffers mentally, experiencing visions and violent erratic behaviour. When Gauguin leaves, Vincent spirals downward, ending up in an asylum. Finally released, he goes to live with a doctor (the subject of one of his most famous paintings, The Portrait of Doctor Gachet). He dies shortly thereafter of a mysterious gunshot wound.

Comments:

*Spoilers* At Eternity’s Gate (named for one of Vincent van Gogh’s more emotive works) succeeds on many levels, but falters elsewhere, leaving us with an intriguing companion piece to Lust for Life (1956), which covers similar ground.

While his paintings now sell for millions and are considered masterpieces, Vincent was a troubled man whose talents were largely unrecognised during his lifetime (he died at 37). At Eternity’s Gate focuses on his final years, highlighting the contrast between his positive development as the artist we know today and the negative metal decline he experienced, culminating in a sad and untimely demise.

It was during this time that when Gauguin (Oscar Issac), who was visiting from Paris, left Auvers-Sur-Oise, Vincent decided an appropriate response was to slice off an ear and send it to his friend, handing the severed body part to a waitress at a local café to post. It was this behaviour that landed Vincent in hospital and then in an asylum, where he continued to flourish as an artist. It is this balance between the man and his work that provides the central thread to the story.

As portrayed by the ever-compelling Willem Dafoe, Vincent is presented as brilliant, tormented, reflective and self-aware. The artist was far from a raging madman and the isolated ear-slicing incident that has become one of his defining biographical details is put into context here. The filmmakers are more interested in the ‘why’ than the ‘what’ and avoid showing us the gory details.

It is made clear that Vincent understood his mental state and was determined to show people through his paintings how he saw the world. He was also highly spiritual, believing his painting ability was the only gift God bestowed upon him. This is revealed through a forthright discussion with a priest (Mads Mikkelsen), who dismisses one of his paintings as ugly, even turning it to face a wall.

Vincent’s mental state fed his art, his commitment to which kept him isolated from a largely hostile world, further driving his mental decline. Throughout, the film channels Vincent’s point-of-view, showing us his perspective on the world, including scenes in which the other characters directly address the camera, speaking to him and us simultaneously. The result is a highly intimate portrait of the complexity of Vincent. Indeed, one of the more touching scenes comes when Theo (Rupert Friend) comes to visit his brother in hospital. The affection between the brothers is palpable, as is Vincent’s deep vulnerability.

A further strength of the film is how much time it devotes to showing us Vincent’s artistic process. We see just how he was captivated by light and how he embraced nature, mixing vibrant colours and obsessively trying to express on canvas what he saw. The finished works are on display throughout, showing us just how prolific this period of Vincent’s life was, including the iconic Sunflowers and some of his other more famous pieces.

Where the film falters is in some of the dramatic choices. In a 2019 article on the film for The Art Newspaper, van Gogh specialist Martin Bailey singles out two bones of contention. Firstly, in the film, it is suggested that van Gogh was shot by a young man, when it is widely assumed that Vincent died by his own hand. Secondly, the film references a blank ledger that Vincent fills with sketches, which was stuck on a shelf and forgotten until 2016. Bailey notes that the art world accepts the sketches in the ledger are not Vincent’s work. These choices seem strange, as they do not benefit the narrative or alter the outcome. It could be argued they even weaken the story.

However, factual discrepancies aside, what At Eternity’s Gate achieves is to give audiences a deeper understanding of Vincent, the man, as well as a deeper appreciation of van Gogh, the artist.

Notes on the adaptation:

Usually, screenwriters make changes to historical events in order to strengthen the screen narrative in some way or to present a certain point-of-view. However, in this case, the changes made seem to make little difference to the story, except to call its accuracy into question. Much of what actually occurred in Arles and Auvers-Sur-Oise when Vincent was alone simply can’t be known. However, there is enough interest in Vincent and his work to have drawn the attention of art experts and history scholars, so that his final years have been well documented.

Of course, this is a dramatization and not a documentary, as Bailey acknowledges. Indeed, he describes the story as an “imaginary two-hour journey”, with Schnabel “embroidering” the facts to present his own “slant on the artist’s life”.

As with any biographical drama, it is important viewers recognise the ‘drama’ aspect and to not assume all is fact. However, for the writer, it is equally important to be clear as to why you’re making changes to the historical narrative. In this case, the decisions seem to be driven simply by the filmmakers favouring certain minority theories about van Gogh, rather to enhance the screen narrative.

Go further:

‘Julian Schnabel’s Van Gogh film is moody and marvellous in spells—but gets two things crucially wrong’ by Martin Bailey (The Art Newspaper, 29 March 2019) https://www.theartnewspaper.com/review/julian-schnabel-s-van-gogh-film-at-eternity-s-gate

Take a look at the trailer: