Movie Reaction: At Eternity's Gate

Formula: The Last Temptation of Christ * Loving Vincent

Willem Dafoe just pulled an Oscar nomination for this little movie that no one has heard of even though it's been out for two months. There are a few reasons for this. One is the dreadfully light Lead Actor pool in 2018. There were a lot of fine performances, but it's not like Lead Actress where a half dozen locks were left out because there wasn't enough space. I think there's also some spill over love from The Florida Project. The lack of love that film received last year (only a Supporting Actor nomination for Dafoe - which he should've won) is a blemish that Oscar voters may be looking to make up for. Tied to that is Oscar nomination momentum. It's not a coincidence that actors often have chunks of nominations over a few years before going quiet for a while. Most of the cast of American Hustle benefited from this, for example. Probably (and thankfully) the biggest reason that Willem Dafoe just got an Oscar nomination for At Eternity's Gate is that he's really good in a movie that was all about his character.

At Eternity's Gate is a film about the latter years of Vincent Van Gogh's life, primarily his time spent in the south of France. It's not so much about what happened to Van Gogh in those years - it was mostly a lot of bad stuff. Instead, it's about why he was the way he was. What drove him? What did he hope to accomplish with his work? It's a meditation on why anyone makes art. The answer for Van Gogh shifts during the film. If I'm being reductive, the film begins with Van Gogh believing he paints to show people the truth, and by the end, he realizes he's offering his truth to the world and hoping that the world receives it.

I will say, I didn't care for the style of the movie. I get why it was made that way, but it didn't appeal to me. Director Julian Schnabel wants the audience to experience how Van Gogh experienced things. He does this in a lot of ways. There's a recurring POV shot that's a little blurry in the middle. He loves close ups: awkward ones that aren't always centered. The biggest stylistic flourish is the constantly moving camera. This isn't just "shaky cam". It's "manic cam". I've never minded a shaking camera. I love found footage movie, often for that. This was a bit too much though. Just because it's intentionally done, doesn't mean I have to like it. If someone kicks me in the groin, it's not OK just because someone did it to explain to me that it hurt. Unpleasant is sometimes just unpleasant.

Dafoe is really good in the movie. Occasionally he gets to bounce off people like Oscar Isaac and Mads Mikkelsen (who has a weirdly funny role), but the focus is always on Dafoe's committed portrayal of an artist who is as desperate to understand what's going on in his head as he is to have others understand what's in his mind. I was confused about how old Dafoe was supposed to be in the movie. He and Isaac's Paul Gauguin act like contemporaries despite there being an obvious 20 year age difference between the actors. Dafoe's van Gogh has the uncertainly of someone who felt much younger than Dafoe, who is 63. Afterwards, I looked up that van Gogh was 37 when he died, which makes more sense. So, I've accepted that it's best not to think about anyone's age and just go with it.

I like that the film doesn't hold the audience's hand, although it made me regret not coming into the film with more knowledge of Van Gogh. Context was hard to come by in the movie, and I suspect I missed a lot of detail work just from a lack of familiarity. Despite the hectic camera work, the film occasionally finds some gorgeous shots; often the kind of landscape shots that make you see why Van Gogh was so taken by the beauty of nature. The production and costume design were very good. It all looked like a real place and not a movie set.

Verdict (?): Weakly Don't Recommend