This is a love letter. I love Loving Vincent.
Loving Vincent is the world’s first fully oil painted
feature film. It is a masterwork, A gorgeous and gripping ensemble of painted visual art
cinematically woven together. Not cartoony, not animé, but its own uniquely
lush and painterly rendition of cinematic action. It's emotionally gripping,
even without the plotline, which adds a touch of detective drama and mystery to
the circumstances of Vincent's death.
It took five years to finish production of this film. No
wonder, after you see it. It's a triumph of love and technique. Written and
directed by Dorota Kobiela & Hugh Welchman, produced by Poland’s BreakThru
Films & UK’s Trademark Films, it was funded by the Polish
Film Institute. Kudos and appreciation to them for getting this huge ball of
creative effort rolling. It's a stellar tribute and triumph.
The film brings the paintings of
Vincent van Gogh to life and tells his remarkable story, with a twist of
mystery added to it. Every one of the 65,000 frames of the film is an
oil-painting, hand-painted by 125 professional oil-painters. Then there are the storyboard illustrators, animators, cinematographers, and all the crew it takes to
make a feature film.
Although Poland has a wonderful
tradition in both cinematic and graphic art, there reportedly were not enough
qualified artists in Poland, so that local talent was enhanced by artists from
across the world coming to studios in Poland and Greece to be a part of the
production. Even the actors used as models in the production look uncannily
like actual characters in van Gogh's paintings!
Watching this fascinating
film, I was stunned by how quickly and thoroughly it drew me in. The black and white scenes (like flash-backs in a
traditional movie) were intense, and at times so photographic I thought they were filming actors in black and white, rather than painting them.
from online trailer |
The colored scenes are just thrillingly gorgeous, with enough quirky stylistic changes to peak your interest as you travel through, not only van Gogh's paintings, but the whole painted storyline with its interesting, amusing, and dramatic personae and plot. You hardly think about how impossible a feat it is to be watching paintings move!
I read subsequently that it took
about 12 frames of individual oil paintings make up each second of Loving Vincent. That means a total of
65,000 paintings were used to produce the entire film. The batallion of
painters spent up to 10 days painting just one second of film.
The result is breathtaking.
If you haven't seen it, you must. And if you have seen it, you might like
knowing something more about its production. Here's a brief BBC video interview
by Sarah Wimperis that will give you a glimpse behind the scenes and into the
process: click
I'm glad that paintings
contributing to this film are available for sale. I very much enjoyed looking at the
online site showing them, along with 16 pages of photos and profiles of the artist/painters .
How wonderful and torturous their labors must have been. I do wonder, though,
to whom the paintings belong: the film producers, the painters, ...? What a
feat to be part of a masterwork in our own time!
Dreams
While thinking over my experience of Loving Vincent,
another film popped into mind. I recalled Dreams, a Japanese film by
Akira Kurosawa that I'd seen in the 1990s. He is one of my favorite
directors and a master visual stylist, creating beautifully epic tableaus.
A departure from his typical films, this one (the
only one written by Kurosawa himself) is composed of dream vignettes. In
particular, one episode, "Crows", deals with van Gogh (played by another fine
director, if less-than-convincing actor: Martin Scorcese).
The camera begins in gallery and moves across
several of van Gogh's brilliant paintings while a solitary art student gazes at
them. At one point, the student leans into a painting of a stone bridge with
women working below it. Suddenly, he is inside the painting, which now
has become the actual French countryside, and he is asks the women where he might find van Gogh.
from Crow segment of Dreams (click to see online video lnk) |
The student journeys onward through many
identifiable van Gogh scenes, some of them films of actual countryside, others
(like Loving Vincent) close-ups and
sets of van Gogh paintings. The student is always photographed as in a usual
film (not painted) and he remains so, even as the scenes he walks through change from photography to painting.
For me, a surprising pictorial moment occurs when the
student, walking in the actual countryside, finds it has turned into an ink painting:
online link |
He subsequently traverses more richly painted
backdrops. But, as an actual person, he's not fully integrated into the painted scene
(in contrast to in Loving Vincent). He remains a foreign body inserted into it. It's a different kind of statement, but seems to me a
trail-blazing precursor.
For example, having the student blunder into the thickness of the paint (see below)makes this a palpably different experience for us watching than the more unified Loving Vincent. The dialectic between the actual and the imaginative creation is visible and mediated by Kurosawa's film itself. He conveys the tension of engaging in creation in a way that is both highly sophisticated and joyously naive.
For example, having the student blunder into the thickness of the paint (see below)makes this a palpably different experience for us watching than the more unified Loving Vincent. The dialectic between the actual and the imaginative creation is visible and mediated by Kurosawa's film itself. He conveys the tension of engaging in creation in a way that is both highly sophisticated and joyously naive.
Kurosawa is one of the great directors of the 20thC, who made
stunningly beautiful movies -- even of mass carnage in combat. To learn that he
was also a painter, often spending time painting
pictures of every scene, makes the Crow segment of interwoven film and paint
media even more meaningful. In his own words, "My
purpose was not to paint well. I made free use of various materials that happened
to be at hand." But the actual shots framed in his films clearly represent
a realization of what he'd visualized (and often painted) beforehand.
A
personal footnote to the magic of the moving picture:
As
a very young child I was fascinated by a TV show that encouraged its tiny
viewers to draw on the TV screen (plastic overlay sheet required). Whatever you
drew would be incorporated into the plot in order to complete the scene for the
show's cartoon characters. For example, you would draw a bridge to help a funny
little guy get across a river, or crayon in a ladder for him to reach a window,
or give him wings so he could fly.
The idea was that if enough of us created the needed device, it appeared on screen and our little person would get out of a jam or get something desired. And of course, in the next few moments, a bridge, ladder, or wings appeared in the show, and the action was completed on screen.
For me, this show was enchantment itself. I was the
creator of a small bit of magic that worked. I saw it happen on TV! This
engagement in the process of art making reality has never left me, though I do
wish I could now be as effective in changing the world as I was then.
More Creative Life News
You can read and see more about creative life, travels, tips and creative adventures by this itinerant artist at Creative Life News at https://www.janetstrayer.com
Regards, Janet
dOne of the best. Could be a good lecture.
ReplyDeleteNice to have an audience of one,at least. Thank you.
Delete