MovieChat Forums > Vincent & Theo (1990) Discussion > So what does the film say about art?

So what does the film say about art?


What do you think is the message?

That one can not put a price on art?

That the ideological money man is just as important as the ideological artist? That they complete each other, just like Vincent and Theo did?

Any theories?


- This comment is most likely authentic and fairly close to what I intended to say -

reply

There is an interesting discussion in the film about the fall of Adam and Eve.

Vincent and the doctor's daughter believe that they might not have lost paradise if they had just slept outside, under the stars, in stead of in a cottage. The doctor how ever believes that they might have staid in paradise if they had had a proper house to live in.

The doctor comes of as a hypocrite in the film. He pretends to like artists and art and says that he helps artists but he forbids his daughter to talk to them and does not hang any of his painting up on the walls, like a true art lover would do. He is in fact just a money man. It resonances with the beginning, where the sunflower painting is sold for a ridicules amount of money. It has become a currency, in stead of art.

I think the film is in a way saying that Vincent was like Adam in Paradise. He was one with nature. The world around him was however fallen. Society in a way drove Vincent mad and out of Eden, by not appreciating his art and recognizing it's beauty, by choosing the house in stead of the open sky, by only valuing art for it's financial value, in stead of it's aesthetic value.

I think the film is in a way about the fall of man/art.


- This comment is most likely authentic and fairly close to what I intended to say -

reply

[deleted]

A very good point TheCLovur. I totally agree with you.


- This comment is most likely authentic and fairly close to what I intended to say -

reply

[deleted]

Altman was coming off a streak of bombs for most of the 80s and probably felt connected to the material as a 'misunderstood' artist.

Robert Altman isn't so egotistic a director to say that he's like Van Gogh just because his recent films are box-office flops. After all just because you have a few flops as a director doesn't mean a director can understand the tragedy and the intensity of Van Gogh(but even then I don't know how many can and to what extent you can understand Van Gogh's drive).

I think it just truthfully exposes the absurdity in art co-existing with business and how, for lack of a better term, stupid life is, while art nobly tries to raise us above the animals ... and for what?

Except art doesn't nobly raise Vincent Van Gogh above "the animals", he's just as human as everyone else. And the film's point is not "cynical" either, the real cynics of the film are Theo's clients who just buy paintings just because it's a commodity and not caring at all about art. Altman, if he were a cyncic would be rooting for the customers and showing Van Gogh as a loser rather than the tragic figure that he is.

...case in point the first scene with the Van Gogh painting going for twelve million dollars juxtaposed with Vincent's poverty, his brother even laughing at the concept of him becoming an artist.

It's not cynical, it's ironic. And his brother laughs more because Van Gogh had been an idle youth going from working with an art dealer in London, to being a priest, his religious quest having driven him to the extremes of actually living in poverty amongst poor coal miner and trying to help them. That's what Theo means, "First you decided to follow all ten commandments".

And Robert Altman is not at all a cynical director. Never has been. Truthful, honest and certainly not interested in comforting the audience yes but never cynical.




"Ça va by me, madame...Ça va by me!" - The Red Shoes

reply

[deleted]

"Writing a book, poem, movie, song, those are never fully realized in a 1:1 ration, artist/ viewer, as the author's vision, they are dependant on the book, poem being seen through the readers past which will never be the same as the author. The movie must be acted into a vision, and then the audience bases the feeling of it on their own past. A song is felt through an old memory, and old vision."

But there's no more "purity" in paint than there is in song, film or poetry. With paint there may be just one artist, but the outcome, especially more abstract ones, will always be subject to different interpretations, feelings and phenomenologies.

Also, to the guy several posts above, this film isn't cynical. The example you gave isn't even cynisism. It's an ironic juxtaposition between the paintings value in the present and Vincent's poverty in the past. That's an ironic contrast not a cynical jab and money men.

To the OP, the film says everything about art.



"Rape is no laughing matter. Unless you're raping a clown."

reply

I think the film almost made a mockery of the "creative person" by inundating the story with one cliche after another. There was so much more to Van Gogh's life than the end, and they misinterpreted some very well known facts, or twisted them around. The movie doesn't say much, other than Vincent was very nearly a raving madman, and his brother a syphilatic one. There are a lot of holes left in the story, as well...everyone knows that when he cut off his earlobe, he went down into a nearby brothel and handed it to a prostitute and told her to "keep this item carefully." Why leave that part out, when so many other instances are magnified under microscopic scrutiny? Also, he shot himself in the chest, not the side, and when he went back to his home, no one actually noticed at first that he was even wounded. It said nothing of his art, only studying the final days of his madness, and not even truly accurately. The movie doesn't let you get to know any of the characters much at all, and when they do some very rash things, it's suddenly out of nowhere, with no explanations suggested.

¸,«¤º°°º¤»,¸»«ëÕ|{¥(V)¸,«¤º°°º¤»,¸

reply

Art will make you mad. And if it doesn't, your family will.

reply

[deleted]

To me, this film says that you should never buy art created by someone who isn't living anymore, that if you choose to spend money on art, you should buy paintings for sale by artists who are still working, or have them commission works for you. This is the only manner in which I consider the old time kings to be morally superior to the rest of us. We are simply fascinated by Van Goghs and such, but would have ignored him back then. The kings would find an artist, dig his work and say, "Come work for me!"

reply

Good point!


- No animal was hurt during the making of this burger -

reply

It's hard for me comprehend the movie's ideas on art. For me it was much more an examination of a symbiotic relationship between two brothers, one an artist, the other an art lover. As you mentioned, they complete each other, but in different ways. I don't think Altman was trying to make a vote for Theo's importance, I think he was simply examining two lives he found interesting. Here's how I see it:

Vincent needs Theo, not only for his money, but because Theo believes in his art when no one else will. This theme sits front and center throughout the film. We are constantly being made aware of Vincent's money needs and Theo's deep appreciation of Vincent's art. The second theme, the second layer, only made clear during the film's final minutes, is that Theo needs Vincent. Why? Vincent is the stronger of the two. He embodies the spirit they both believe in, but only he is capable of living out their dreams. In contrast, Theo easily succeeds in society, but his success doesn't fulfill him. He lacks Vincent's willpower. In my opinion, Theo needs Vincent more than Vincent needs Theo. You can see Theo's desire to live a life of his own in his various romantic relationships, but these attempts fail because Vincent is his true life and blood. Without Vincent, Theo dies.

Also, I believe you can see Vincent's suicide as an attempt to help set Theo free. He realizes his presence is wrecking Theo's marriage, and so he kills himself. Sadly, Theo isn't able to take up the torch.

My rating: 10

reply

Very good points!


- No animal was hurt during the making of this burger -

reply