Mostly Van Gogh
Dec. 16th, 2023 04:31 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
annavereI may have just turned the corner into becoming truly fannish about Roswell (90s edition). It's got time travel! Nothing I read about the show indicated it would have time travel, so I suspect this might be a one and done plotline, but it opens up a LOT of interesting questions (especially since I already know the big spoilers regarding some of the secondary characters). Alternate timelines and bad original outcomes really level up the consequences at play, even if Future!Max regrettably sports a Conan the Barbarian look. This is a weird little show.
By total happenstance, I watched Julian Schnabel's Vincent Van Gogh film At Eternity's Gate and the Doctor Who episode 'Vincent and the Doctor' within days of each other, which meant I noticed how the latter made swiss cheese of the order in which Van Gogh's paintings were produced, but I was also impressed by how much the two portrayals (Willem Dafoe and Tony Curran) actually matched in spirit. The gulf was nowhere near as huge as I feared it would be. I got choked up at all the right points, and the theory that Van Gogh didn't kill himself adds a level of texture to the Doctor's failure to save his life that I'm sure wasn't intended, but works very well as an alternate interpretation of the plot. I have no opinion one way or the other, but if I ever see a book on the topic, I might give it a whirl.
At Eternity's Gate was a strong film, although it was somewhat harmed by a reliance on shaky cam, as though in mimicry of a documentary style - which I found distracting at points and not in keeping with Van Gogh's style, which would have been better served by intense saturation, I feel. Dafoe carried it, which was good, because it wasn't striving to be comprehensive about Van Gogh's life and times. It stayed focused on his creative outlook throughout.
Between the two, I think I've had my fill of tragic artistry for a while.
By total happenstance, I watched Julian Schnabel's Vincent Van Gogh film At Eternity's Gate and the Doctor Who episode 'Vincent and the Doctor' within days of each other, which meant I noticed how the latter made swiss cheese of the order in which Van Gogh's paintings were produced, but I was also impressed by how much the two portrayals (Willem Dafoe and Tony Curran) actually matched in spirit. The gulf was nowhere near as huge as I feared it would be. I got choked up at all the right points, and the theory that Van Gogh didn't kill himself adds a level of texture to the Doctor's failure to save his life that I'm sure wasn't intended, but works very well as an alternate interpretation of the plot. I have no opinion one way or the other, but if I ever see a book on the topic, I might give it a whirl.
At Eternity's Gate was a strong film, although it was somewhat harmed by a reliance on shaky cam, as though in mimicry of a documentary style - which I found distracting at points and not in keeping with Van Gogh's style, which would have been better served by intense saturation, I feel. Dafoe carried it, which was good, because it wasn't striving to be comprehensive about Van Gogh's life and times. It stayed focused on his creative outlook throughout.
Between the two, I think I've had my fill of tragic artistry for a while.
