Just saw Loving Vincent. Have a lot of mixed feelings. I guess a point in the film’s favor is that they were strong feelings. I’m sure someone who’s more knowledgeable about Van Gough’s life and work has more to say on the story than I do. What I do want to comment on the animation style because that’s probably the aspect I feel the most confident to comment on. For those not in the know, it’s basically a rotoscope animated film using oil paintings, flashbacks using a more literal, black and white style, the ‘present’ taking heavy stylistic inspiration from Van Gough’s paintings. Every frame in the film proper was, at one point, a physical painting.
I... think that was a good call? I think the film is richer for going for it.
To say the my issue lies in its execution feels like it downplays it being executed in the first place, and it might be the only film to do so. Where I find myself instinctively backseat directing is the often literal interpretation of the rotoscope footage. It’s not as annoying in the flashbacks, because they’re going for photorealistic, but the impressionist nature of the mock Van Gough style feels like it calls for more impressionist movement. Sometimes they get away with it, other times the camera is handheld and instead of feeling more immersed, all you see is the actors moving on a set, it breaks the authenticity of the look. Sometimes you can tell the actors are just standing in front of a green screen (or other still backdrop).
I think my favorite part of the film visually is the intro. No real footage, no uncanny camera movement, just the painting in motion. It gave me one of the most visceral reactions I had to the film, it’s that beautiful (or it at least skyrocketed my expectations). I wish the film leaned more into the formlessness of the medium like that.
