Exactly is was about seeing the day to day life of Van Gogh, I loved the scenes of him exploring nature and appreciating the beauty of it all. I think the way it was shot, the shaky camera and then shots of his face made it seem like you were exploring the world with him. Also the dialogue of the film was very captivating, especially Van Gogh's conversation with the Pastor.
@@Max25670 Yes! It took me a minute (I'm a bit slow) to catch onto what Schnabel was doing, but then it hit me - we're seeing what Vincent sees. Marvelous film, and I agree on that particular scene you mention. :)
And for every learned person/group that claim it's pronounced one way, there is another learned person/group that will claim it's pronounced another. Then there is another and another.... It's a pretty much pointless point as no one has 100% proof of their claim, only evidence of what they believe is the correct way. Ultimately, you pronounce it the way you are taught or want to and leave it as that. You are just as likely to be correct as anyone else. Only elitists would claim otherwise (that's not aimed at you). :-)
I based my comment on how the Dutch pronounce his name. The man himself was Dutch. A Dutch friend here in the UK told me how to pronounce it, and the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam confirmed it when I visited a few years back. That’s good enough for me. And for Dr K as well, apparently. The British aren’t particularly good at pronouncing foreign names, and those in the US are even worse. So I wouldn’t base my pronunciation on either of those, ie Van Gough/Van Go.
As a Dutch person and native speaker I can confirm that Mark is correct about the pronounciation. In the same way that a name like John Smith can be pronounced 'differently' by a Scottish person compared to an American, it can differ between Dutch people depending on the region they live in and the accent they have, but it's still basically the same
@garyoldmanfan25 IF that is the correct pronunciation, then you have a valid point. As you say yourself, "someone who may know better," so you concede that they don't definitely know, which is my earlier point. It is what they consider correct, not what is definitely correct. With this line you are also refuting that there is a definitive way of saying it. Then, with this line "I would rather be humble, and be corrected in order to be right in future" you have assumed that it is correct the way. My whole comment was about that nobody really knows how it's pronounced, which is true, we don't. You have sided with the one you believe and that's fine, it's your choice, it doesn't make it correct (or incorrect) though. Same goes for myself and others. It would absolutely be arrogant and elitist to think that everyone else is wrong because you think you have correct way, when you don't know. It definitely does sound like intellectual security, from those who think they know better, yet the evidence doesn't support that. You say we should take the word of a Dutch person on how it's said. Okay, so how does that account for the other times in the past, when a Dutch person has come forward and said the equivalent of "This is how to pronounce the name." What makes the current Dutch people more reliable/relevant than the previous ones? As someone in the UK, I used to say Van Goff as a kid. Then, in my teens, I heard a Dutch person state that it should be Van Go (like the US say it). Then, later on it was Van Koch. Now it's this way so which is the correct way? As I'm sure you know, language changes and evolves. How the Dutch say it now may not have been how it was said in Van Gogh's time. Even then, personal pronunciation of names (and spelling) comes down to the individual with that name. It was Van Gogh's name and until we know (if we ever do) how he pronounced it there is no correct way. Which is why I also said it's a pointless discussion. Pick the way you like and use that, you're just as correct/incorrect as anyone else at the current time. :-)
@Marten Dekker You are being arrogant and entitled. Since when do YOU speak for every Dutch person ever throughout the history of the Dutch. Where you there during Van Gogh's time. Oh yeah, you don't and you weren't. The End.
The oil paint animation style alone doesnt make Loving Vincent a great film. It was good yes but think people get distracted by the style and focus less on the content. You cant really compare them either. They are two very different ways of telling van goghs story. And from what I remember they touch on mostly different events of his life. Not very similar at all.
In this film, van Gogh explains "you have to do it quickly", in regards to painting with as few swift brush strokes as possible. While my overall take on the film was leaning in the direction of positive certainly with regards to the acting and cinematography, I can't help but feel the filmmakers approached the script in a similar way.
People were pronouncing his name wrong when he was alive as as are many other names when spoken in a foreign tongue. And why would Ralph Fiennes learn Dutch? Van Gogh was living in France and speaking French to the local people.
I think they both worked. This one dealt much more with the isolation Van Gogh must have felt. The pain was palpable. Cause none of the other characters (apart from Gauguin and his brother who could get through to him in ways but always left him too soon) really related to him. In "Loving Vincent" there were more voices but only imagined through the paintings. A modern look at Van Gogh 's paintings and what they mean to us now - but not so much relating to the despair he must have felt when only alienation came across in his days.
In my experience of spending time in the Netherlands that's not how the Dutch pronounce his name! They pronounce it with a hard GH. But hey what does a nation know?
I Enjoyed the Scenes of the Film where Paul Gauguin and Vincent Van Gogh meet up in Arles and then one day Paul Gauguin tells Vincent that he is going away and that he couldn't stand the Country Town full of ignorant Stupid People said Gauguin
I noticed a glaring anachronism in the clip of the film shown in this review. When the model/subject asks why Van Gogh paints, Vincent replies that he paints in order to stop thinking at which the doctor asks so is it a kind of meditation? This idea that the goal of meditation would be to stop the discursive mind would have been both unknown and entirely alien to Westerners of the time. Christian mediation does not aim to stop thinking. Western philosophy was entirely devoted toward celebrating thinking. That goal of not-thinking may have been present in some Asian traditions, but contact with those traditions would have been years or decades in the future in 1888. Had they encountered the idea at all it would hardly have seemed the commonplace that fails even to raise Vincent's eyebrow, but a bizarre, even abhorrent, notion. Even to Asians familiar with various kinds of meditational practices in their own traditions the idea of painting as a kind of meditation would have been entirely unfamiliar. That particular notion was apparently invented out of whole cloth by D.T. Suzuki in an essay from about 1926, IRRC. It's a small, but disappointing failure since the whole value of historical drama is to attempt to imagine the mindsets of people who do not think the way we do. Of course, all such attempts will fail, but some failures are more honorable than others.
You are of course, correct that the word "meditation" is technically wrong in the context of the time, but when painting one tends to forget all external worries and cares and thought is entirely devoted to the problem in hand. This is perhaps what should have been emphasised, but "meditation" gives a close modern interpretation which as shorthand will be understandable to a modern audience not necessarily endowed with the understanding of the painting process. Van Gogh was certainly worried by his illness and may well have painted so prolifically in order to avoid his concerns.
Japan opened to the West in the 1860's and had a profound and rather immediate effect on the artistic milieu (Dresser, Godwin eg.) and Van Gogh would likely have had significant exposure to the works flooding in to England and the rest of Europe through his and his brother's art gallery work. That, coupled with his missionary work, means that the idea of painting as a means to achieve a more open mind is not, I argue, such an unlikely scenario in Van Gogh's case, though hardly a widespread phenomenon.
I haven't painted in quite a while but I find that it does stop me thinking,at least until I'm done,but that's because I'm problem solving as I make the image. It isn't a form of meditation,but deep contemplation,that could be mistaken for meditation, it is,after all, an intellectual activity. I get your point it differs considerably from Asian meditation, but I think it ultimately results in the same effect for the artist. Your point is lengthy, but quite informative btw. Great read
I'm sorry but the way he describes "Loving Vincent" is so bad, i feel like this man hasn't ventured into animation very much and has only absorbed mainstream animation. If he really gets into some other stuff he would see that Loving Vincent isn't anything new...
While some parts were interesting, this was the slowest movie I've ever seen. As to the musical score, it was by far the most insipid, boring and talent-less piece of music I've ever heard. Single notes repeated forever made it a chore to listen to. Maybe considered "Great" by those that like "artsy" movies, but I wouldn't spend good money on seeing this again.
Obviously don’t understand what the use of the music was🤦♂️ shows your just an average movie watcher and don’t watch them to appreciate the art but more be “entertained” to your critique. Go watch avengers kiddo
When you draw a stickman holding a sword
"You know, I'm something of a painter myself"
Dafoe is criminally underrated!
See him in the movie Basquiat
I loved this film and felt Dafoe gave an amazing performance. It wasn't so much a 'bio-pic' as it was van Gogh through van Gogh's eyes.
Exactly is was about seeing the day to day life of Van Gogh, I loved the scenes of him exploring nature and appreciating the beauty of it all. I think the way it was shot, the shaky camera and then shots of his face made it seem like you were exploring the world with him. Also the dialogue of the film was very captivating, especially Van Gogh's conversation with the Pastor.
@@Max25670 Yes! It took me a minute (I'm a bit slow) to catch onto what Schnabel was doing, but then it hit me - we're seeing what Vincent sees. Marvelous film, and I agree on that particular scene you mention. :)
Well done, Mark, for pronouncing Van Gogh correctly.
And for every learned person/group that claim it's pronounced one way, there is another learned person/group that will claim it's pronounced another. Then there is another and another....
It's a pretty much pointless point as no one has 100% proof of their claim, only evidence of what they believe is the correct way. Ultimately, you pronounce it the way you are taught or want to and leave it as that. You are just as likely to be correct as anyone else. Only elitists would claim otherwise (that's not aimed at you). :-)
I based my comment on how the Dutch pronounce his name. The man himself was Dutch. A Dutch friend here in the UK told me how to pronounce it, and the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam confirmed it when I visited a few years back. That’s good enough for me. And for Dr K as well, apparently. The British aren’t particularly good at pronouncing foreign names, and those in the US are even worse. So I wouldn’t base my pronunciation on either of those, ie Van Gough/Van Go.
As a Dutch person and native speaker I can confirm that Mark is correct about the pronounciation. In the same way that a name like John Smith can be pronounced 'differently' by a Scottish person compared to an American, it can differ between Dutch people depending on the region they live in and the accent they have, but it's still basically the same
@garyoldmanfan25 IF that is the correct pronunciation, then you have a valid point. As you say yourself, "someone who may know better," so you concede that they don't definitely know, which is my earlier point. It is what they consider correct, not what is definitely correct. With this line you are also refuting that there is a definitive way of saying it.
Then, with this line "I would rather be humble, and be corrected in order to be right in future" you have assumed that it is correct the way. My whole comment was about that nobody really knows how it's pronounced, which is true, we don't. You have sided with the one you believe and that's fine, it's your choice, it doesn't make it correct (or incorrect) though. Same goes for myself and others. It would absolutely be arrogant and elitist to think that everyone else is wrong because you think you have correct way, when you don't know. It definitely does sound like intellectual security, from those who think they know better, yet the evidence doesn't support that.
You say we should take the word of a Dutch person on how it's said. Okay, so how does that account for the other times in the past, when a Dutch person has come forward and said the equivalent of "This is how to pronounce the name." What makes the current Dutch people more reliable/relevant than the previous ones? As someone in the UK, I used to say Van Goff as a kid. Then, in my teens, I heard a Dutch person state that it should be Van Go (like the US say it). Then, later on it was Van Koch. Now it's this way so which is the correct way?
As I'm sure you know, language changes and evolves. How the Dutch say it now may not have been how it was said in Van Gogh's time. Even then, personal pronunciation of names (and spelling) comes down to the individual with that name. It was Van Gogh's name and until we know (if we ever do) how he pronounced it there is no correct way. Which is why I also said it's a pointless discussion. Pick the way you like and use that, you're just as correct/incorrect as anyone else at the current time. :-)
@Marten Dekker You are being arrogant and entitled. Since when do YOU speak for every Dutch person ever throughout the history of the Dutch. Where you there during Van Gogh's time. Oh yeah, you don't and you weren't. The End.
It's funny that you make mention of the mispronunciation of Van Gogh, then mispronounce Theo.
"very impressive cast" - Doesn't mention Mads Mikkelsen.
tssk tssk.
Even Scorsese played Van Gogh.
i have given myself fully to this art and gone mad in the proccess. van gogh
The oil paint animation style alone doesnt make Loving Vincent a great film. It was good yes but think people get distracted by the style and focus less on the content.
You cant really compare them either. They are two very different ways of telling van goghs story. And from what I remember they touch on mostly different events of his life. Not very similar at all.
I loved this film
In this film, van Gogh explains "you have to do it quickly", in regards to painting with as few swift brush strokes as possible.
While my overall take on the film was leaning in the direction of positive certainly with regards to the acting and cinematography, I can't help but feel the filmmakers approached the script in a similar way.
People were pronouncing his name wrong when he was alive as as are many other names when spoken in a foreign tongue. And why would Ralph Fiennes learn Dutch? Van Gogh was living in France and speaking French to the local people.
I really really want to see this.
It's free on you tube now
Wow Stop Thinking When i Paint, i wrote it down a thousand times.
I’ve read about nine books about Van Gogh, but I found this movie difficult to watch. Not sure why.
I thought some parts of the film didn’t really work.. still enjoyed watching it.. acting was great.. Loving Vincent is indeed way better
I think they both worked. This one dealt much more with the isolation Van Gogh must have felt. The pain was palpable. Cause none of the other characters (apart from Gauguin and his brother who could get through to him in ways but always left him too soon) really related to him. In "Loving Vincent" there were more voices but only imagined through the paintings. A modern look at Van Gogh 's paintings and what they mean to us now - but not so much relating to the despair he must have felt when only alienation came across in his days.
Some of the music and camera work got annoying after a while but was kinda cool too. IDK
In my experience of spending time in the Netherlands that's not how the Dutch pronounce his name! They pronounce it with a hard GH. But hey what does a nation know?
So glad they filmed what actually happened to him when he died. he was shot by. teenager, he wadis not kill himself.
Loved this movie ❤️🔥👌
Why does it seem likethat when he is pronouncing van Gogh he is about to spit?
Van OHCHOUHHF
Im going to say van go
I didn't think the movie worked
We all know the best Van Gogh is Martin Scorsese
Vhahhg
I Enjoyed the Scenes of the Film where Paul Gauguin and Vincent Van Gogh meet up in Arles and then one day Paul Gauguin tells Vincent that he is going away and that he couldn't stand the Country Town full of ignorant Stupid People said Gauguin
nice incomplete joke about the nose
I noticed a glaring anachronism in the clip of the film shown in this review. When the model/subject asks why Van Gogh paints, Vincent replies that he paints in order to stop thinking at which the doctor asks so is it a kind of meditation? This idea that the goal of meditation would be to stop the discursive mind would have been both unknown and entirely alien to Westerners of the time. Christian mediation does not aim to stop thinking. Western philosophy was entirely devoted toward celebrating thinking. That goal of not-thinking may have been present in some Asian traditions, but contact with those traditions would have been years or decades in the future in 1888. Had they encountered the idea at all it would hardly have seemed the commonplace that fails even to raise Vincent's eyebrow, but a bizarre, even abhorrent, notion.
Even to Asians familiar with various kinds of meditational practices in their own traditions the idea of painting as a kind of meditation would have been entirely unfamiliar. That particular notion was apparently invented out of whole cloth by D.T. Suzuki in an essay from about 1926, IRRC.
It's a small, but disappointing failure since the whole value of historical drama is to attempt to imagine the mindsets of people who do not think the way we do. Of course, all such attempts will fail, but some failures are more honorable than others.
You are of course, correct that the word "meditation" is technically wrong in the context of the time, but when painting one tends to forget all external worries and cares and thought is entirely devoted to the problem in hand. This is perhaps what should have been emphasised, but "meditation" gives a close modern interpretation which as shorthand will be understandable to a modern audience not necessarily endowed with the understanding of the painting process. Van Gogh was certainly worried by his illness and may well have painted so prolifically in order to avoid his concerns.
@@al13davis Congratulations on missing my point entirely.
@@haroldbridges515 No need to be such a dick, you know
Japan opened to the West in the 1860's and had a profound and rather immediate effect on the artistic milieu (Dresser, Godwin eg.) and Van Gogh would likely have had significant exposure to the works flooding in to England and the rest of Europe through his and his brother's art gallery work. That, coupled with his missionary work, means that the idea of painting as a means to achieve a more open mind is not, I argue, such an unlikely scenario in Van Gogh's case, though hardly a widespread phenomenon.
I haven't painted in quite a while but I find that it does stop me thinking,at least until I'm done,but that's because I'm problem solving as I make the image. It isn't a form of meditation,but deep contemplation,that could be mistaken for meditation, it is,after all, an intellectual activity. I get your point it differs considerably from Asian meditation, but I think it ultimately results in the same effect for the artist. Your point is lengthy, but quite informative btw. Great read
I'm sorry but the way he describes "Loving Vincent" is so bad, i feel like this man hasn't ventured into animation very much and has only absorbed mainstream animation. If he really gets into some other stuff he would see that Loving Vincent isn't anything new...
Can you give some recommendations of noteworthy animation pushing the boundaries in the genre? Genuinely curious to check some of it out.
First boi
While some parts were interesting, this was the slowest movie I've ever seen. As to the musical score, it was by far the most insipid, boring and talent-less piece of music I've ever heard. Single notes repeated forever made it a chore to listen to. Maybe considered "Great" by those that like "artsy" movies, but I wouldn't spend good money on seeing this again.
Obviously don’t understand what the use of the music was🤦♂️ shows your just an average movie watcher and don’t watch them to appreciate the art but more be “entertained” to your critique. Go watch avengers kiddo