From 9aecfe4fa1970987b93b11bceedc7327bf921e62 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Matěj Cepl Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2023 11:33:49 +0200 Subject: New category: "literature" --- literature/loving-vincent.rst | 63 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 63 insertions(+) create mode 100644 literature/loving-vincent.rst (limited to 'literature/loving-vincent.rst') diff --git a/literature/loving-vincent.rst b/literature/loving-vincent.rst new file mode 100644 index 0000000..79700d2 --- /dev/null +++ b/literature/loving-vincent.rst @@ -0,0 +1,63 @@ +Loving Vincent +############## + +:date: 2018-03-22T08:03:28 +:category: literature +:tags: review, film + +Movie_ “Loving Vincent” is certainly an experience worthy of the +tickets to go to the cinema. The main idea of it is to make +“animated” film by painting endless number of quality oil +paintings in the style of Vincent van Gogh about the painter +himself. I have been warned_ that this idea is actually by far +the strongest part of the film, and that the story of the film +itself is by far the weakest part of it. I won’t do the spoilers +here, but yes the end comes rather flat. + +The visual side has been however troubling as well. It is truly +beautiful, there is no question about that, but this film showed +me the great difference between pictures (especially ones in the +tradition of post-van Gogh painting, what a irony!) and films. +The great pictures (in all traditions, it applies +perfectly well even to Rembrandt’s “Return of the prodigal son”) +are best when they don’t tell the whole story, but when they are +more a catalyst to make a viewer sit down and think her own +story. From this point of view, van Gogh was (with a bit of +artistic license) the first painter who stressed this role of +pictures even more by omitting a lot of realism and leaving just +those catalyst parts of the image. + +On the other hand, the biggest beauty of every film is *a story*. +Some films are beautiful, have pretty pictures, but what makes or +kills it is how the story is made. There is endless list of +beautiful pictures which lack a good story (the review of this +film points as an example to “`What Dreams May Come`_”). I don’t +want to deal now with quality (or lack of thereof) of the story +of this film, but I want to emphasize that perception of a film +is quite different from the perception of a picture. This +difference in perception made me torn to two sides by two +different both unpleasant feelings. While beautiful pictures made +me feel constantly “Wait! This was a beautiful picture, I would +like to watch it properly!” I had also constantly that feeling +that I forgot my glasses at home (no, I don’t need glasses for +watching films yet). Images in films are not supposed to be +abstract, thought-inducing experience, they are suppose to reveal +and deliver a story. I had that constant feeling “I would love to +see how this girl looks *in reality*.” + +So, my conclusion is that it was a great idea. I don’t care that +much for the quality (or not) of the film as a film, or +a detective story. It was a great experience, I came to new +appreciation of Vincent van Gogh’s paintings, but do I welcome +the inevitable avalanche of imitations of this film which are to +be expected? No, I think once was enough. + + +.. _Movie: + https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_Vincent + +.. _warned: + https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/loving-vincent-2017 + +.. _`What Dreams May Come`: + https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/what-dreams-may-come-1998 -- cgit