Review of Lust for Life (1956) by Laurie T — 20 Aug 2015

Saw this after reading the fictionalized bio-novel by Irving Stone. It is even more fictional than the novel. Strong points: Kirk Douglas does look like Van Gogh, until he bares his teeth. Then he is literally chewing the scenery.

At one point he has zombie eyes. Anthony Quinn is the only actor in the film who can stand up to Douglas. However, the actor who plays Theo is a pleasantly restrained foil for Douglas, as Theo seems to have been in real life.

The female characters are screeching creatures fleeing Vincent who always comes on too strong, even with Gauguin. The character of Christine is the only one who seems to give him some love, and even she gets tired of his volatile temper and lack of money.

The colors of the paintings are curiously faded, perhaps because of the technology of the time. Was the film always like this? I feel sorry for not liking it because I loved it when it came out embracing the crazy artist figure while I developed into a crazy poet.

Now, at sixty-three, I suppose I see the limits of that way of life. Absinthe, schizophrenia and sunstroke! Most of us can't survive it. Van Gogh didn't.