Rather think of it as a painted film, with one artist (Schnabel) trying to convey what it is to be another (Van Gogh). At Eternity's Gate is an immersion into the world of Van Gogh. Art conveys something about the world and the human condition words can never express. After watching the movie I came to realize other ways of trying to understand Van Gogh and his art fall short of this immersion. If you were to take an audio tour of a Van Gogh exhibit you would not finish the tour with the same feeling or understanding as you might get from watching the movie. Everything about the movie is spare, whittled down to an essential nub. The dialogue doesn't matter. What does matter are the long, silent scenes of Van Gogh in Nature and at home, and the times where he speaks directly to the audience, informing it of what it is to be Van Gogh. The occasionally jumpy camera shots and the overlapping dialogue may not have been completely necessary (and obviously a major turn-off for various other viewers), but they do help to establish what it may have been like to be Van Gogh. Madness? Sure, if that label works for you. Clearly, Van Gogh was different. Mad or not, he had his difficulties fitting in to society, any society. The last 20 minutes or so are the most painterly. After absorbing an hour of background material, all the film and Van Gogh have told you allows you to understand his world. When he talks about light, the screen is flooded with light, but even when the screen turns to gloom, you see the world as Van Gogh did. The walls are painted as they were in the background of a Van Gogh painting. And you the viewer? You sit back and drink it all in.

This film tackles the story of an artist creating masterpieces for later generations but not for his own. All the techniques that bothered other reviewers--the handheld camera, loud piano soundtrack, looped dialog--all emphasized a life of loneliness and ridicule that made the audience experience those emotions.

Clearly the story lacked a typical plot, not so much because it wasn't there as much as that Van Gogh's story is so well known and portrayed. I sensed that my companions may have been wishing they had chosen a different movie but for me this film further added to the tapestry of Van Gogh's unique story. Plus the film addresses the two biggest points of contention about him ... his ear and his death ... and suggests that Van Gogh's character traits have turned those into unsolvable mysteries.

This film succeeds in various ways: Dafoe delivers a marvelous portrayal of van Gogh, and Rupert Friend offers a dignified performance as Theo, his brother. The production design, costuming, and lush landscapes are all outstanding. As someone who has seen most of the films directed by Schnabel, I find him an insightful, astute director, yet I wish he would have introduced more nuance into certain scenes.

The invigorating piano score suffers from an overblown volume at various times. At the pre-release screening, more than a handful of people walked out of the film, midway. I think they were overwhelmed by a dizzy combination of loud music and jumpy, blurred camera techniques. As for me, the approach worked, adding a visceral punch.

Some of the dialogue was culled from Vincent's letters to his brother, and Dafoe rendered the text with a vulnerable immediacy. Several roles were aptly cast, but could have benefited from additional screen time: Isaac (as Gauguin), Almaric (Dr. Gachet), and Seigner (Madame Ginoux).

Vincent Van Gogh's last days in the south of France are depicted in this heartfelt drama by Julian Schnabel. Willem Dafoe gives a powerful performance as the destitute, troubled painter who was not understood by those in his own time. As Van Gogh seeks to express his extraordinary eye for nature and portraits, those around him are either put off, wary or sometimes intrigued. His brother is his only real comfort.

A deliberately paced film with a mournful soundtrack, this will leave you in a contemplative state. It does not tell you everything about Van Gogh or when his self-isolation began but it does seek to offer insight into his profoundly troubled mental state. His demons are quite evident throughout the film- everything from his intolerant response to the curiosity of schoolchildren to his difficulty explaining his world to whatever doctor is examining him, Van Gogh is exemplified in Dafoe's anguished face. Schnabel, himself a painter, brings his own perspective in piecing this film together, especially in showing how Van Gogh paints and goes about his craft.

The film is not without drawbacks. Oscar Isaac is miscast as Paul Gauguin, the French painter whom Van Gogh couldn't bear losing company with. And Mads Mikkelsen gets minimal screen time in a very thoughtful performance as an inquisitive priest who recognizes Van Gogh's uniqueness. But this film is Schnabel's interpretation of Van Gogh and Dafoe's exemplary portrayal of him and in that regard it works quite well. Recommended.

Although offering an interesting perspective of seeing life from through Van Gogh's eyes, this film suffers from slow pacing and a disjointed narrative that never really gains any momentum. The acting was solid from Willem Dafoe in the lead role as well as from the supporting cast, but I don't see this film appealing to most casual film audiences. If you are however, interested in the story of this beloved artist, I'd recommend 2017's innovative (and much better) Loving Vincent.

If this movie is playing in your area, don't miss it. Beautiful, poignant, historically accurate, its dialogue is lifted directly from Van Gogh's correspondence with his contemporaries. Vincent, Theo, and Gauguin come alive as do the people in his portraiture. Willem Dafoe's performance as Vincent is jaw dropping. Dafoe's gaunt presentation as Van Gogh's self portrait after slicing off his ear, fur cap on his head, against that saffron yellow wall, radiates an intensity and humanity so often missing biopics of artists. Think you know yellow? Think again. Once you've seen this film, you'll think of Van Gogh with a tenderness usually reserved for your child. See it now if you can.

Loved the raw hand held camera work . The director shows the scene in such a that u can really enter into vincent's mind and can see his vision . Obviously the acting of Willem Dafoe was tremendous and he took the character to another level .

At Eternity's Gate

Schnabel's philosophical thinking on the life of an ingenious painter, paints an abstract art on the screen, if not bright enough to shine over all its viewers. Schnabel's work has always been for a selective audience, he breathes pure art in every frame and there is never any doubt about that, his rigidness on uncompromising tales is a double edge sword. His film is never able to perpetually win over you. He takes his time and asks for your patience, but personally I adore his ways of asking that, his methods are productive for me, primarily because his films are immensely personal to each individual.

His, is a film that you cannot share with anyone, he wouldn't let you, and you wouldn't want to. Now, this is a feeling that one rarely encounters while watching a film, often filmmakers in order to present a generic idea or speak to a larger audience, gets lost in their self created vagueness of the nature. But Schnabel has his own rhythm, he doesn't aspire to be metaphorical, his tones hits the apt note on those high pitches that will engulf you for that hour.

The camera work in here is eerily similar to Malick's theme, and just like it, Schnabel puts you into those characters' shoes, that are both warm and comfortable. Nature, being the primary motivation of both the artist Van Gogh and Schnabel in here, plays a vital role, but unlike other usual description of it, the nature is explored on both the sides of it. And balancing the film on that dark and inspiring note of nature, this riveting tale is a delight to watch, mesmerized in its own overwhelming world that it whirls around, it asks you to reach for it and be completely moved by this ride.

Spread across three acts, the first act sketches the methods and routines of the painters along with his body language and mannerism to tiny aspects- this is the strongest act, since it barely contains any words- and has nothing but majestic performance that drives it. On the second one, it deals with his equation with his beloved friend and his yearning for the art that he puts into words. The final harrowing act that leaves you shook in your seat is a bit dark but has an incredible conversation between a priest played Mikkelsen and Dafoe, himself. Despite of tremendous work and detail on cinematography and camera work of Schnabel, this film belongs to Dafoe.

He is completely lost on the figure that he plays, so devoured and so blatantly committing, that notwithstanding on an ideal line, you are drawn towards him. Aforementioned, the entire first act is conjured by him, he and his beautiful nature surrounding him, the wind that his hair floats in, the hard rock he sleeps on and the soil he is covered in, it is a testament of Dafoe's brilliant career. At Eternity's Gate you might not remember the amazing camera angles or a compelling screenplay, what you will take there proudly is Dafoe and his eyes that whispers bright yellow color.

Stealing many a technique from far better filmmakers, Julian Schnabel botches this obviously personal film about Van Gogh. It fails to deliver any insight into the artist and is surprisingly stupid in terms of its treatment of basic themes.

Schnabel begins by stealing the technique developed over 40 years ago by director Peter Watkins, best known for his "Edvard Munch" film that JS certainly has seen. It is the "You Are There" approach to presenting period material, ironically adapted from the 1950s CBS TV series of that name (CBS Films is releasing "At Eternity's Gate"). Watkins uses the conceit of a first-person camera documentary crew on the scene photographing and interviewing characters from previous centuries (before cinema had been invented), and Schnabel repeatedly uses hand-held & first-person camera that proves to be annoying and distracting from letting the viewer enter Van Gogh's 19th Century milieu.

For Vincent's immediate point-of-view we are subjected repetitively to camera mounted on (presumably) star Dafoe's chest aimed at his legs walking and the ground beneath, a technique Nic Roeg used memorably in the 1967 Hardy adaptation of "Far From the Madding Crowd". Completing a trifecta of self-defeating steals, many shots from Van Gogh's POV have the bottom half of the camera lens covered with vaseline to create a blurring effect, an artistic approach which was developed in the 1960s by the unsung masters of stylization (or over-stylization if one is not a fan of their work), the son/father team of Jean-Gabriel and Quinto Albicocco, famed for their classic adaptation of "Le Grand Meaulnes".

Another disastrous technique has several dialogue exchanges repeated on the soundtrack in mind-numbing fashion, as if our heavy-handed director was trying to underline their importance. Main themes covered in the movie revolve around Van Gogh and Gauguin's differing ideas about what drives the creative artist and how he should approach his art, but even though actors do a good job at their craft (acting), both Dafoe and Oscar Isaac, the dialog is blunt and unsubtle, like the rest of the movie.

Worse yet, Schnabel refuses to let the viewer do any independent viewing, forcing one to look at what the director wants, especially in the ill-advised shaky hand-held sections. In a film about art one should be permitted to rove arouund looking at what's in the frame independent of such artificial spoon-feeding, and even when a painting or the creation of one (by Schnabel or Dafoe's hand) is shown we are denied the chance to linger and absorb the content.

So we are left with a remote, unmoving portrait of the artist as a troubled individual, gleaning next to nothing about him or his art. Post-movie emphasis (in the end credits) on a notebook of drawings not discovered till 2016 is strictly a gimmicky anti-climax, worthy of a horror movie director rather than an artist turned director.

I'm a big Van Gogh fan and not only do I love Dafoe but his face is perfect for Van Gogh. Schnabel is a filmmaker I have come to trust. For extra credit, this was written by Bunuel's scenarist. On top of all this, it turns out an old friend of mine did the costumes.

What's not to like?

Well, long wordless walks through beautifully photographed landscapes with Elvira Madigan style piano providing the emotion (along with portentous close-ups of Dafoe's face). The type of story telling which provides episodic vignettes without either explaining them (I know some of the backstory only because I know the painter's life) or crafting them into a sustained narrative. Spme over-clever cinematographic tricks. Producer John Kilik said Schnabel didn't want to make a "forensic" biopic. Fair enough, but story doesn't have to grow out of dry biographical details. This approach was just too scattered to build any momentum - as opposed to Van Gogh's own letters, which start wandering and formless but develop intensity and momentum as he builds towards both success and self-destruction.

Years ago, Schnabel had thought of directing the novel "Perfume", which he would have done wonderfully. Unfortunately those who got there first produced a bloodless, precious piece which gave no taste of the novel's vigorous forward movement. Ironically, he has done something similar with Van Gogh's life.

I look forward to seeing work from everyone involved (including one surprise from Van Gogh.). But this was a wrong turn.

Otherwise, you might consider that David O. Russell - no slouch himself - was at the screening and LOVED the film. So there's that.

The visuals were stunning...this movie gives a glimpse of Van Gogh from his point of view, which the other many movies on Van Gogh have not done. Read any critic's review and they will describe it.

However, I have some issues: 1) The hand held camera is used to show his troubled mind...but it was so shaky at points I had to close my eyes

2) Dafoe's dialogue is in Contemporary American English. The producer said that it was conceivable that Van Gogh spoke English. But the movie did not give Van Gogh a dutch accent nor did he speak in 1880's English.

3) The dialog seemed like it was from a text book...actually more like a sophomore college essay about Van Gogh. The dialog was based on letters by Van Gogh...but it was distracting because it did not sound of the period or the time.

4) this movie dragged onnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

The movie is visually stunning however the dialogue and plot is confusing and jumbled. It is not entirely historically accurate either and bites off much more than it can chew in terms of storytelling. Additionally, the camerawork is purposefully shaky for the entirety of the movie but does not add much to the actual plot. If you get motion sickness, beware.

"At Eternity's Gate" (2018 release; 110 min.) is a bio-pic about painter Van Gogh's last years. As the movie opens, we hear a monologue (on a black screen), where Van Gogh muses "I'd like to be just like the others", but of course he is not. In a subsequent scene, we see Van Gogh in discussion wit fellow painter Paul Gauguin, who advises Van Gogh to look for new light (literally) in the South. We are then in "Arles, South of France", and Van Gogh makes a painting of his worn out shoes... At this point we are 10 min. into the movie, but to tell you more of the plot would spoil your viewing experience, you'll just have to see for yourself how it all plays out.

Couple of comments: this is the latest film from director (and co-writer) Julian Schnabel, whose "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly" (has it been really already over a decade ago?) was simply outstanding. Hence it was with high expectations that I walked into the theater to see "At Eternity's Gate". Oh boy, what a mistake that was. Almost from the get-go, the movie is filmed in hand-held cameras that hop, shake, skip and jump to no end, and with a good dose of extreme close-ups on top of that for good measure. Frankly, this movie is unwatchable. I gave it a good try but got a headache a while in, and simply couldn't carry on to the end, so I walked out after an hour. For the hour that I did see, I found it an incomprehensible mess, with long scenes of just watching Van Gogh at work, or walking in the fields. There is no character development whatsoever, and hence at no time did I feel any emotional connection or involvement with any of the characters, and certainly not with Van Gogh. Much has been made about Willem Defoe's lead performance as Van Gogh, and he certainly does a commendable job. But it was impossible to really enjoy his performance, for all the reasons I've mentioned. I'm sorry I can't be more positive about this movie, which for me is arguably the worst movie of the year (and I see more than 150 movies in the theaters each year).

"At Eternity's Gate" opened this weekend at my local art-house theater here in Cincinnati, and as mentioned, I couldn't wait to see it. Alas, it was not to be. The Saturday early evening where I saw this at was attended okay (about 10-12 people), As it stands, I cannot in good conscience recommend this movie to anyone, but of course I encourage you to check it out, be it in the theater, on VOD, or eventually on DVD/Blu-ray, and draw your own conclusion.

The film was at times visually compelling with it's colors and composition, however the purposefully jarring camera movement is sickening and unforgivable. It was artistic attempt seemingly to portray the insanity of Van Gogh, although it fell extremely far short of the mark. The dialogue was horrendous. The casting was the only thing that was good about this film and even that was forgettable. One star for Willem Dafoe, one for Oscar Isaac (who plays a character twice his age, very confusing) and one for Mads Mikkelsen.

A completely cinematically self-indulgent film by Schnabel that, despite Dafoe always-great acting, is boring, disjointed, pretensious, redundant, and pointless.

Whilst Julian Schnabel's film won't have a major audience who appreciate the majesty and glory of the film, he has a found a lover in me.

This film was beautifully shot, scored and performed. Willem Dafoe was simply magnetic as the misunderstood, brilliant and ultimately tragic Vincent. His performance forced you to look inside the man himself and understand him when others couldn't.

A strong supporting cast of Oscar Isaac in a role and genre I'd love to see him more in. Mads Mikkelsen gives a strong nuanced performance whilst Emmanuelle Seigner, Mathieu Amalric and Rupert Friend gave dedicated performances even with the lack of screentime.

The cinematography is just wonderful but will definitely not be for all, this is certainly an acquired taste but luckily my palette was craving for a taste of this kind of cinema.

The score was suitably composed and the editing was brave. That's what this film was, brave. Schnabel's superb direction knew his picture wasn't going to be for everyone but he didn't hold back with strong directorial decisions, making sure he represented Van Gogh in a terrific and tragic way.

The unconventional and appropriately controversial choices all worked in my favour, the pretentiousness was applauded in my eyes, the artistry commended which gave this film a visceral, haunting and beautiful artistic touch to a already great story.

This is not a film for everybody, but in my eyes its a superbly directed, sharply performed and brilliantly (if not a little mad) constructed piece of cinema.

Vincent Van Gogh is an artist seemingly tailor made for the movies - the brilliance, the madness, the short tragic life unappreciated in his time and....the ear! (the first I ever heard of Van Gogh was in elementary school. An artist so intense he cut his own ear off!? Cool!). Coming off last year's brilliantly animated LOVING VINCENT, comes the latest entry in the Van Gogh filmography, AT ETERNITY'S GATE. Played by Willem Dafoe, this Van Gogh isn't given the traditional bio-pic treatment. It focuses on the last few months of the painter's life. The main details are there (including, yes, the ear incident), as are the characters such as Paul Gaugin (Oscar Isaac), Dr. Gachet (Mathieu Almaric) and, of course, his beloved brother Theo (Rupert Friend). Director Julian Schnabel (DIVING BELL AND THE BUTTERFLY, BEFORE NIGHT FALLS) and his co-writers including the esteemed Jean-Claude Carriere (who's worked with the likes of Bunuel, Schlondorff, Godard and Wadja) give us more an impressionist* treatment. Abetted by Cinematographer Benoit Delhomme, we get a kaleidoscope of images, sounds and visions. Delhomme's hand-held camera-work takes some getting used to, and, quite frankly, can be a bit distracting at times (the demands supposedly forced the camera operator to give up on the opening shot and Delhomme had to operate himself!). Tatiana Livoskaia's minimalist score adds to the disjointed perspective. Schnabel's fragmented style doesn't give the actors much room to breathe, but Dafoe et al. acquit themselves capably. The cumulative effect will certainly not be to everyone's taste (particularly those desiring a traditional biography), but, GATE is a vivid impression of what those final months may have been like. One artist's vision of another's.

* In the movie, Van Gogh and Gaugin discuss how they are more modernist than the classic school of Impressionism. They are often termed Post-Impressionist painters.

Normally, not a reviewer. But we were so disgusted with the shaky filming technique, repetitious, one repeating piano note, sound track, and ponderous plot movement of this movie that we felt compelled to post a warning. And that's not to mention the first 10 minutes or so being subtitled due to foreign language sound track. We would have walked out if we weren't in center of our row. It was torture and we had to look away much of the time due to shaky filming. That technique is not quaint, cute or mood setting. It is just stupid in this day and age. No complaint about the actors.

We're an elderly couple who have been going to movies every date (Friday) night for 40 years.

Willem Dafoe looks the part and delivers solid acting throughout the lengthy running time of the film. Minimal dialogue and story prevents viewers from really diving into the mind and personality of Vincent Van Gogh. What could have been some really beautiful cinematography was clouded by awful and distracting direction. Perhaps the director was trying to mimic the abstract vision of the subject himself and unfortunately this was the ultimate flaw of the film. The audience is left alienated from such a well-known artist.

"Today I learned that there are times when even people who enjoy 'art' films (what sometimes used to be called 'indie') can find them too much and At Eternity's Gate is unfortunately a perfect example. While it's a very worthwhile story and a pretty straightforward biopic on paper, it seems to have been made by someone who drank a bottle of absinthe and wants to fight people while vomiting.

It's not often I would absolutely say that a film was poorly directed, but this one is - at times maddeningly so. The film feels like it was made by a pretentious first year art school film student and the direction seemingly makes every attempt to get in the way of the brilliant costumes, locations, direction and acting. In attempting to make a very arty film about a master painter Vincent Van Gogh, director Julian Schnabel has really treated his audience in the same way Van Gogh's contemporary common people treated him - few understood his work. Unlike Van Gogh, I see little prospect of a posthumous celebration of art that was misunderstood in its time.

The techniques used to illustrate Vincent's growing mania and unique worldview constantly get in the way of the story, the acting and really, any real enjoyment of the film. The cinematography is especially frustrating, VERY handheld, picking angles that don't help the storytelling or characters and constantly distracting the audience's immersion in the story. Editing is brutal and the music and sound FX editing feel like the film is not actually finished.

Which is a pity, as there's a very worthwhile, quite well written story here, and there are moments of brilliance. The main draw is absolutely the performances - they're all top notch. Willem Dafoe is really brilliant here, inhabiting the role completely as Vincent van Gogh, while Rupert Friend is strong as Vincent's brother Theo Van Gogh, Oscar Isaac brings his brooding intensity as Vincent's good friend (and fellow artist) Paul Gauguin & Mads Mikkelsen is seen in an all to brief role as a man of the cloth. They are easily the best part of the film, it's a real pity that so much of the filmmaking gets in the way of their performances.

In some ways, it feels like a filmed stage play, or a film made by a theatre director who's only ever seen moving images at a modern art museum - in no way does this portrait of Vincent's late life in any way get close to really celebrating the great artist in a way that provokes emotion, wonder and opens him up to new audiences and fans. There's a great story here, but it's not in this film."

• Ben

@WatchItWombat

One of the worst movies I've ever seen. The way it was filmed gives you nausea and headache. Moreover, it's so boring and ''empty''. An Artist like Vincent Van Gogh deserved an Academy Award-winning film, not an egopatic crap like this. What a pity....such a waste.

(sorry for my bad english...i'm italian)

Probably one of the worst movies I've every seen. That camera work looks like a toddler was doing it. Almost made me dizzy.

Lord, deliver me from director's who think they are the second coming of van Gogh and try to make a movie about van Gogh. So awful in presentation and filming technique that I walked out of the theater in under an hour. And, that was before he cut off his ear.

Who better to tell the story of a famous painter than an artist himself? At Eternity's Gate filmmaker Julian Schnabel was a well known artist and painter himself and still has exhibits and public showings of his work as well as dabbling in the world of filmmaking. His first feature back in the 90's was a portrait of the 80's street artist Jean-Michel Basquiat and he's experimented with other genres of film including biographies such as Before Night Falls and The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, as well as a filming of Lou Reed's conceptual album, Berlin. Schnabel takes upon himself and his crew a bit of a different angle on how to tell about Vincent Van Gogh, and in many ways it is not a strictly by the books account, but is often more abstract than that and also helps us to get as best we can into the troubled and conflicted mind of Van Gogh, in what would be the last months of his life where he was battling with poverty as well as mental health issues that many today would diagnose as schizophrenia, or perhaps other ailments as well. The film is shot with a hand held camera in many instances which does occasionally feature some frames that seem out of focus, or like the cinematographer is in bad need of a tripod in order to keep the camera steady, but much to my surprise, I found that I really liked this look and approach and to me it is truly one of the most visually stunning films to look at this year, or in any number of years. Scenes showing Van Gogh frolicking, or sometimes wandering aimlessly throughout fields and pastures to other shots showcasing the poverty and squalor in which he is living in is all vividly captured by colours both bright and grim and the attention to details are what really enhance and get the mood and feelings across. Much of the film can be given the classification of being a very meditative film that is often peaceful and could easily fall into the filmmaking style of minimalism, but then at other times the filmmaking takes a bit of a different leap and approach and throughout the course of the film we truly do have to marvel at the way the camera techniques and the filmmakers are getting this story across to us. How much of the conversations and actual events depicted in the film actually happened, I personally are unaware of, but much still rings true from the little I do know about Van Gogh from art documentaries and even films such as Robert Altman's Vince and Theo. Willem Dafoe, who not only portrays Van Gogh in the film, but also does his own painting for the role (as does Schnabel), gives another amazing performance in what is already a legendary and much honoured career. Here in this film we see how tormented Van Gogh is from his auditory and visual hallucinations to causing himself and sometimes those around him to be in harm's way to the simple fact that he in a lot of ways is not safe nor sufficient on his own to care for himself. The miraculous thing is though that through all of this, Van Gogh painted very many works and was quite prolific within a very short period of time and while he never, or hardly ever sold a painting while he was alive, he has gone down in infamy with his works and is now considered one of the world's best painters. Dafoe's performance is one that is always fascinating to watch from his mumbling and talking to himself to his scenes of crying out and truly wandering around amidst the nature and confused bystanders around him, this is also clearly a film about his mental health issues which is often not covered, or talked about in as much details in some of the other accounts of his life. It's a very convincing performance from Dafoe from his gaunt and starved looking face to his often ratty clothes and dirty appearance. It is truly one of the best performances of this year and I hope it doesn't go unnoticed from awards voters. The film is just as artistic as it's subject himself and at times it may take a little patience for it's rather unconventional means of getting this story and vision across, but for more adventurous and patient filmgoers, you will discover that this was truly a labour of love from all involved in what is one of this year's truly great achievements and also one of the best films of the last decade or so. Amazing and worth any and all acclaim and awards it picks up and be sure to see this if it is playing anywhere nearby and certainly do not wait for rental or streaming because the theatre is the best place to see a film of this scope and quality.

Julian Schnabel's new film AT ETERNITY'S GATE is indelibly moving from the moment we hear murmuring voices in the first darkened frame - portending the interior struggle, and psychic agitation of the painter, Vincent Van Gogh, a haunted artist who tames the turbulence of his mind by the act of painting, assuaging "nature" into patterned marks of tactile, luminous beauty merging his whole being physically and piously with the subject. Since Schnabel is an artist himself, this "portrait" of Van Gogh is different from previous depictions, particularly in the singular way the film is shot, and the understanding of his character. We "see" Vincent as a man who is sanely insane; a man who has the clarity to organize and penetrate the world around him, and a man who is suffering from an undiagnosed mental illness - one which he achingly endures. The movie instills in the viewer a profound empathy and recognition of his persistence in creating exquisite paintings despite a life of bleakness and despair; making art was digesting and breathing in life.

Willem Dafoe's performance as Vincent Van Gogh is heart-wrenchingly melancholy as we literally step into his shoes - (the camera often attached to him) as he rushes wildly through the reeds, blinded by the mistral winds howling, the dry, dying sunflowers with bent heads streak and fly around in front of our eyes as we sense the brutality of the elements and the dank coldness of desolation. Often the camera lens is foggy as if the artist's tears obscure and humanize his vision.

We first meet Vincent in Paris as he dreams of a community of artists that live and work together, a yearning that is totally unrealistic given his idiosyncratic temperament. Except for the deeply felt relationship with his devoted patron/businessman brother Theo, only Paul Gauguin is responsive to his artwork which seems "ugly" and "unrealistic" to other onlookers. Gauguin played by Oscar Isaac, (regrettably did not seem well cast - lacking the charisma and heft of a Gauguin) recommends that he leave Paris and go south to Arles. He listens to his advice and is flung into the most passionate period of his short artistic life.

Schnabel conveys Vincent's love of southern France as the camera pauses, lingers and then meanders through the countryside - the blinding light is contrasted with the "yellow" room that Van Gogh rents, monastically furnished with finished wet paintings, hung on the wall. Like an animal that has found his natural habitat, Vincent spends most days outdoors and we observe him sensuously outstretched flat on his back, intoxicatedly dribbling moist soil over his face and body - an animate internment. Being productive and frenetically heady as the sun beat down on him, Van Gogh's periods of lapses of memory, and whatever incidents occurred during those spells become more prevalent. After several episodes which are never depicted or explained - a mystery to Vincent and to us - he is sent to Saint-Rémy de Provence an asylum for the mentally ill where he spends one year feverishly painting.

Throughout AT ETERNITY'S GATE, I delightedly watched Dafoe's slender long fingers, his skull-like face encasing dark, vivid eyes working - the brush touching the canvas with a "lightness of being." Julian Schnabel has unearthed some new information as to how Vincent Van Gogh died so the end is perhaps a revelation, perhaps fiction, but I sensed the truth of it - in light of Van Gogh's steamy affair with art. Whatever demons he desperately fought, Van Gogh was able to paint the surrounding world with a directness and lucidity of a man in control of his destiny. I left the theater thinking this was no romanticized/mythologized bio-pic but a person that I, as a fellow artist could relate to - could understand and could (dare I say) love.