User Reviews

I've seen this movie several times now, and every time with enjoyment and great appreciation.

The acting by Douglas and Quinn is truly first rate. It's a shame Douglas didn't get the best actor Oscar for which he was so deservedly nominated, but competition that year in that category was fierce. He truly makes you feel van Gogh's frightened agony, both at not being able to achieve what he wanted in his art and his fear of approaching insanity. (It ran in van Gogh's family; he knew what was coming.)

But I also enjoy the great efforts made to reproduce the scenes van Gogh painted, whether in Holland, Arles, or outside Paris. That couldn't have been easy, but if you know van Gogh's work, it really adds to the effect the movie makes.

There are times when the characters speak like an art history textbook - though those painters did love to discuss their theories on art, as you see in their letters.

Still, I consider this to be one fine movie. Whether it gives an accurate depiction of van Gogh or Gauguin is beside the point. It's based on a novel by Irving Stone, who didn't hesitate to change facts to make for a book that would sell; it's not a BBC documentary, and shouldn't be judged as such. It does a great job of showing us the torments of a great painter, and gives us some idea of what van Gogh was up to. That's more than enough for me.

Irving Stone wrote his book 'Lust for Life' in 1934 and MGM obtained the film rights to it in 1946, long before there was any intention to create this film. Biographical films about the lives of artists were not regarded as likely to be financially viable, and at the time Van Gogh, who had only sold one painting in his lifetime, was not really well known to the public or regarded as the most promising subject for such a film. This changed following a very successful exhibition of his works in 1955 and MGM decided to commission Minnelli to direct the film for them, but they had little time left to create it as their film rights to the book expired at the end of 1955. This greatly complicated the production. For example, rights to create still reproductions of almost 200 of Van Gogh's works for this film had to be negotiated with all the museums, galleries and private collectors world-wide who owned them, the pictures then had to be copied by special still cameras requiring only low illumination levels, and printed as large transparencies that could be back-lit for filming in any scenes where they were visible. Minnelli was a good choice as Director - previously a stage designer he was known for artistic sensibilities and an eye for colour. In his memoirs Minnelli reports two major battles with the studio moguls, one he won - the other he lost. Minnelli knew the Metrocolor process used at MGM generated saturated colours which would be too garish for this film. He had recently finished filming Brigadoon using Anscocolor stock and insisted this was what was needed, but Anscocolor cine stock had just been discontinued. MGM eventually agreed to buy up the last 300,000 feet of unused Anscocolor stock available, and to set up a laboratory in which it could be processed. Minnelli also bitterly opposed working in CinemaScope format, claiming the large aspect ratio was incompatible with most paintings, and would also spoil the intimacy of many of the scenes to be filmed; but he was over-ruled on this.

Half a century later we are in a position to appreciate how right he was over both these issues. Like most viewers my first reactions to a film I am watching usually relate to the quality of the film-script, the direction and the acting. If these are acceptable I know I am likely to feel that I have seen a very good film. But film stock remains very important - as a still photographer myself I am well aware of the need to evaluate whether a particular shot should be made on, for example, Fuji's Sensia, Astia or Velvia emulsions - the wrong choice usually destroys the effect the photographer is striving for. It is the same with movies - I can recall just four films ('The Riddle of the Sands',' Laura, les Ombres de l'Ete', 'Black Narcissus' and 'Lust for Life') where one of my first reactions has been admiration for the atmospheric qualities and colour rendering of the photography. There may have been others but such films are certainly not very numerous. Although the opening credits of L4L still attribute the colour to Metrocolor, this film could not have succeeded as it did if MGM had been unable to obtain the Ansco stock that was actually used. As for aspect ratio, we have only to compare the VHS version with the new widescreen DVD to confirm that Minnelli's vision was correct (and this is of course after he did everything possible to utilise sequences which take maximum advantage of the widescreen presentation that he was forced to adopt.)

The film-script has been criticised for inaccuracies in Van Gogh's life as shown (unfairly as it is based on Irving Stone's book, which is normally classed as a novel rather than a biography. MGM might have done better to write an independent film-script and present their film as a biography- not as a film of a novel. What probably prevented this was recognition that they would then be responsible for any errors.) As written it is a very powerful depiction of the gradually increasing intensity of Van Gogh's commitment to his art, which increasingly became the only significant driving force in everything he did. The two hour overall running time is just about right - the emotional impact of watching the gradual disintegration of Van Gogh's personality might have become quite distressing for some viewers if the film has been a great deal longer.

The acting is exceptional. Kirk Douglas, a remarkable look-alike to extant pictures of Van Gogh, put everything into his effort to create a believable picture of a man with an increasingly fanatical drive which eventually overwhelmed him. It earned him an Oscar nomination, but not an award. This, I feel, was not his fault - Van Gogh was too insecure to interact normally with others and this would have showed in his whole bearing, something an individual as secure and stable as Kirk could not easily emulate. An actor is by nature an extreme extrovert and trying to take the part of an introvert is very difficult - when the introvert is both fanatical and unbalanced it probably becomes impossible. This makes it hard to become involved with Kirk's portrayal of the role in the same way that one would have done with Van Gogh himself. Anthony Quinn's Best Supporting Actor Oscar award for his role as Paul Gauguin was well deserved. There were also memorable performances by James Donald as Theo and Pamela Brown as Christine. Theo's anguish in the deathbed sequence came over very effectively. The direction and camera work, although not faultless, were both of an extremely high standard. All in all, anyone interested either in modern painting or in the lives of modern painters will find this a most rewarding film to watch.

This awesome and vivid picture concerns life of brilliant but tortured artist Vincent van Gogh . He was a Post-Impressionist painter of Dutch origin whose work—notable for its rough beauty , emotional honesty, and bold color—had a far-reaching influence on 20th-century art. The picture has an opening credits prologue: Without museums help and that of private collectors the world over, this motion picture about a great painter could not have been made . Van Gogh life is a disaster , he fails at being a preacher to coal miners , he fails in his relationships with parents (Henry Daniell as Theodorus Van Gogh and wife Madge Kennedy) and women (Pamela Brown) . At the same time the movie deals with other Impressionist painters who appear across footage such as Gauguin (Anthony Quinn won well-deserved Academy Award as painter/friend) , Camille Pissarro (David Leonard) , George Seurat , Millet , Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec ; furthermore, his relationships to known characters such as his brother Theo Van Gogh (James Donald) and Dr. Gachet (Everett Sloane). After years of painful anxiety and frequent bouts of mental illness he commits himself suicide .

Magnificent rendition of Irving Stone's biography of known painter , being finely portrayed , especially his anguishes , unrewarding friendships , poorness , pains and many other things . This splendid film packs emotion , top-drawer interpretation , adequate production design , enjoyable soundtrack and exquisite color in CinemaScope . Interesting and thought-provoking screenplay by Norman Corwin . Terrific acting by the great Kirk Douglas who even had his hair cut specially in the style of the artist and had it dyed to a similar reddish tint . Over-the-top performance by Anthony Quinn as Gauguin but he does not get along with Van Gogh , his playing actually lasts 22 minutes and 40 seconds , he won his Best Supporting Actor Oscar . Evocative as well as sensitive musical score by classical composer Miklos Rozsa . Rousing and glittering cinematography by Russell Harlan and Freddie Young . The color process used for the film -Ansco color, but labeled in the credits as Metrocolor- is supposedly unsuitable for long term color preservation . As a result, many prints have lost the extraordinary brightness of the movie's images . Being shot on location , as many of the locations used for filming were the actual locations Vincent van Gogh visited in his life ; parts of the film were shot in Auvers-sur-Oise, where Vincent van Gogh lived and died . This motion picture perfectly produced by actor/producer John Houseman was stunningly directed by Vincente Minnelli who even had a portion of a field spray-painted yellow to closer resemble Vincent van Gogh's painting.

The flick is well based on actual events , these are the followings : Van Gogh spent his early adulthood working for a firm of art dealers, traveling between The Hague, London, and Paris, after which he taught for a time in England at Isleworth and Ramsgate. One of his early aspirations was to become a pastor, and from 1879 he worked as a missionary in a mining region in Belgium, where he began to sketch people from the local community. In 1885, he painted his first major work, entitled The Potato Eaters. His palette at the time consisted mainly of somber earth tones and showed no sign of the vivid coloration that distinguished his later work. In March 1886, he moved to Paris and discovered the French Impressionists. Later, he moved to the south of France and was influenced by the strong sunlight he found there. His work grew brighter in color, and he developed the unique and highly recognizable style that became fully realized during his stay in Arles in 1888. The extent to which his mental health affected his painting has been a subject of speculation since his death. Despite a widespread tendency to romanticize his ill health, modern critics see an artist deeply frustrated by the inactivity and incoherence brought about by his bouts of illness. Van Gogh's late works show an artist at the height of his ability, completely in control and "longing for concision and grace". He died aged 37 from a gunshot wound, generally accepted to be self-inflicted although no gun was ever found .

This film is a rarity, a biopic which is more accurate than the book it's based on. Irving Stone's book was a major best-seller which did much to make Vincent Van Gogh one of the ten most famous artists in history but it did have its inaccuracies, particularly when it depicted its protagonist in Paris with other great painters of the time. In the book, Gauguin, Lautrec, Cezanne and Rousseau come off as typical bohemians while Vincent was made much more of a leader than he was. Minelli doesn't give us a detailed look at any of the artists except Gauguin but he is more accurate about who influenced Van Gogh and he does include his best friend, the now-forgotten Emile Bernard, if only as an extra in Tanguy's shop.

When Lust for Life came out, several critics dismissed it as too lurid and melodramatic, but those adjectives are accurate in describing Van Gogh's life. Note that Kirk Douglas does not play his usual cool, fun-loving tough guy and actually uses his whole body in his acting. For once Hollywood outdid itself.

Not only does KIRK DOUGLAS bear a remarkable resemblance to the real Vincent Van Gogh, but he gives a deeply felt, bigger than life performance in the role of a lifetime, fully deserving his Academy Award nomination.

The letterbox version on TCM doesn't do justice to the film's brilliant color photography, deliberately muted for the early coal mining scenes but crisp and clear when it comes to Van Gogh's now famous paintings. I haven't seen the DVD version, but I hope it's considerably better than the print showing on cable.

At any rate, it's tremendously well done--the entire look of the production creating the sense of time and authentic atmosphere and actually filmed on the actual location sites with an impressive cast of villagers and supporting actors. PAMELA BROWN, NIALL MacGINNIS (as The Postman), and most of all, JAMES DONALD as brother Theo, who nurtures his brother and supports him financially but is unable to sell any of his paintings--except one.

It's a fine recreation of the Irving Stone novel and Douglas immerses himself in the character of Van Gogh, much the way ANTHONY QUINN does as Gauguin. Quinn's stormy, tempestuous relationship with Douglas provides some electric moments of conflict.

The score by Miklos Rozsa accents the drama at every turn, slashing at the drama the way Van Gogh slashed at his canvas with thick brush strokes. It's starkly dramatic without ever being overbearing.

Vincent Minnelli's direction is above reproach. A finer tribute to the tormented artist could not be imagined with so many of his canvases shown on screen in impressive close-ups.

Kirk Douglas is Vincent Van Gogh in "Lust for Life," directed by Vincent Minnelli and also starring Anthony Quinn as Gaugin (Oscar winner for his performance), and James Donal as Van Gogh's brother Theo.

This film is actually based on the Irving Stone novel and while it leaves out parts of Van Gogh's life, it does seem to hit the high points. A sensitive man with a spiritual sense of life, Van Gogh seeks from the beginning to express God in some way and to give something to the world. He is unsuccessful as a minister and eventually takes up painting, supported by his loving brother Theo. Basically he lives somewhere until whomever he's living with gets sick of him and throws him out. He is a terribly lonely man, but he has an intensity that is almost frightening to people. At one point, he takes up with a sometime prostitute with a baby - she eventually leaves. In actual fact, when Van Gogh met this woman, named Sien, she was pregnant with a second child, who grew up believing Van Gogh was his father. Sien some 20+ years later commits suicide.

Van Gogh establishes a friendship with Gaugin and has dreams of an artist colony, but his relationship with Gaugin, as with everyone but his brother, ends terribly when he stalks Gaugin with an open straight razor, later cutting off part of his own ear. It is evident from the film that whatever Van Gogh's mental problem was (and there are many theories, from bipolar, to epilepsy, to schizophrenia), it worsened as time went on, as did his physical condition. He would often buy paints rather than eat and would work ceaselessly.

Van Gogh only sold one painting in his lifetime - however, what the film does not show is that, had he chosen to live, he was on the brink of being recognized for his work. His paintings had started being exhibited and appreciated and began to sell shortly after his death. What also isn't in the film is that his brother died shortly after Van Gogh did. It was Theo's widow who carried on the work that would be involved with Van Gogh's vast collection.

The film reduced me to tears - indeed, the song that says "they should have told you, Vincent, the world was never meant for one as beautiful as you" was certainly true. The only person who ever "got" Vincent was his brother.

As for the performances, Kirk Douglas makes a brilliant Van Gogh. Michael Douglas once said his father isn't considered a great actor because the style back then in the types of roles he played has changed. It's true - seen today, Douglas' work seems too intense at times, too big, too over the top in these times of acting so naturally as to almost be boring. However, I believe that Van Gogh must have been like the Douglas characterization. He obviously drove people away in large masses, and Douglas captured that passion, drive, and overeagerness perfectly. As Theo, James Donal is perfect as the calm one in the family. Anthony Quinn has a short but memorable role as the flamboyant Gaugin. He's wonderful - arrogant, opinionated, temperamental, with a bad temper, and Quinn plays him as an artist without the soul of Van Gogh. But who, after all, had the soul of Van Gogh? Vincent Minnelli lovingly directed this film and it definitely has his wonderful attention to detail, flow, and artistic touch. And the paintings are breathtaking. A beautiful film that will stay with you for a long time, and you'll never see "Starry Night" in the same way again.

Initially the thought of Kirk Douglas playing Vincent van Gogh seems as unlikely as Al Pacino playing Arthur Scargill! And yet with a bravura performance of total immersion and commitment Douglas wins you over. Of course he seems too physical for the part and even the mandatory red hair and beard fails to convince the viewer of passable physical resemblance, unlike Anthony Quinn as Gaughin, but in a sustained start-to-finish portrayal of the downs and downs (there were very few ups) of the artist's life, you are quickly caught up in this tragic story of unrecognised tormented and ultimately doomed genius. It's almost as hard to believe that the suave purveyor of classic Hollywood musicals, Vincente Minelli, could pull off the directorial task with such aplomb, but with obvious love of the source material, countless opportunities to recreate the artist's masterpieces and most of all sympathy with the tortured artist, result in an accomplished end product filmed in glorious colour. Is it too obvious to draw a parallel between Van Gogh and Minelli's own flawed genius of a wife Judy Garland, similarly destined to die tragically young? Whether yes or no, this is serious Hollywood film - making at its grandest. The playing is very good, despite the jarring of Anglo-American accents - it's not long into the movie before Douglas exhorts Almatty Gahd - but the narrative stays true to the artist's life-story, quoting from Van Gogh's own letters, relayed in the third person by his devoted brother Theo, until his ultimate unhappy ending at his own hand. The sparks really fly too in the Quinn / Douglas scenes where Gaughin and Van Gogh attempt their short-lived joint home-making exercise where the artistic arguments between two temperamental individuals are convincingly and sensitively laid before the laymen viewers. Interesting to note the likes of actors Max Jaffe and Edward G Robinson in the list of donors of original works at the movie's conclusion.

"Lust for Life", Vincente Minnelli's rich interpretation of Irving Stone's Vincent Van Gogh bio-novel, is a film both compelling and repelling; in delving into the psyche of the artist (unforgettably portrayed by Kirk Douglas), one can see an untrained, unbridled genius smashing convention to open viewers' eyes to a world defined by passion; yet in doing so, we share in the growing nightmares and agony of his creative mind, teetering toward the madness that would destroy him, and it is an unsettling experience, to be sure!

This is a film so rich in visual imagery (with a Technicolor 'palette' that attempts to recreate Van Gogh's view of his world), that it demands repeated viewings, just to savor the details. From wheat fields 'aflame' in color, to night skies that nearly writhe in waves of darkness, the elemental nature of the artist's vision is spectacularly captured. And in experiencing the world through his eyes, the loving, yet uncomprehending concern of his brother (James Donald), and more hedonistic, shallow patronizing, and gradual disgust of fellow artist Paul Gauguin (Anthony Quinn, in his Oscar-winning performance), become elemental 'barriers', as well. Van Gogh wants to 'speak', but no one can understand his 'language', not even the artist, himself!

Kirk Douglas never plunged as deeply into a portrayal as he did, in "Lust for Life", and the experience nearly crushed him, as he related in his autobiography, "Ragman's Son". His total immersion in the role SHOULD have won him an Oscar (Yul Brynner won, instead, for "The King and I"), and his bitterness and disappointment at the snub would haunt him, to this day. With the passage of time, his performance has only increased in luster and stature, and it certainly shows an actor at the top of his form!

"Lust for Life" is an unforgettable experience, not to be missed!

The best part of this film was to see so many of Vincent Van Gogh's paintings. There must have been at least a hundred of them shown in this movie.

It's a biography of a tragic life, one of the most famous artists of all time, and a tortured soul, but the film isn't as interesting as one would hope for such a figure.

It just doesn't have the emotion and the charisma of "Moulin Rouge" (1952) in which we see the bio of another famous French painter of that era: Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec.

Kirk Douglas is okay as Van Gogh, perhaps not up to Jose Frerrer's high standards with Toulouse-Lautrec, but still convincing in showing the artist's desperate fight against loneliness and his passion for his artwork.

I am probably being too harsh constantly comparing this to Moulin Rouge but I also noticed a big difference in the cinematography, too. This just wasn't as visually striking as it should be, especially since Van Gogh loved to paint in the beautiful French countryside.

The film still has its merits and thankfully didn't get depressing dwelling on Van Gogh's mental problems. It also had good supporting roles turned in by James Donald and Anthony Quinn.

I was still anxious to see this on a widescreen DVD when it was issued in recent months but every report I read said the DVD transfer was poor, a big disappointment.

Kurt Douglas as Vincent Van Gogh is absolutely amazing. He captures the frenetic passion with which Van Gogh painted. The movie has all the main influencing factors of his life and all of the master's difficulties, trials and illnesses.

The film shows Van Gogh's love of painting. He once wrote to his brother that it was impossible to see the world and not want to paint it. He saw the goodness of the simple people and showed his sympathy for them. Van Gogh's style showed the energy of nature and the toil of the poor. Van Gogh comes through as a man desperately trying to paint enough of the beauty he saw, at one moment bristling with positive energy and at the next unsure of himself and afraid of being always alone.

I was touched by Lust for Life and could not help finding sympathy with Van Gogh despite hs arguing with other painters and and falling in love with an ill prostitute and his societal awkwardness and so on. He came through not as a misfit really, but as one who was not meant for society, and a man to whom society wore upon.

The movie is excellent and moving and the end is truly beautiful in its tragedy. It is impossible to mention all the aspects of the movie I liked but this movie can be seen based on Douglas's performance alone.

Minelli's movie about Van Gogh is generally regarded as one of the best of all biopics, mainly because he plays it straight and 'psychologically' it's deeper than most movies of it's kind. But for that very reason it's also duller. Minelli has taken the excitement out of the material and if we wince when Van Gogh mutilates himself, it's only because we know what's coming.

Kirk Douglas plays Van Gogh in that tortured, melodramatic style he employed in "The Bad and the Beautiful" and Anthony Quinn won an Oscar for his memorably short performance as Gauguin. Visually, if you see it in a good widescreen print, it can be remarkable with Minelli employing his usual fidelity and good taste to recording the period. The paintings are the real McCoy.

I wonder if IMDb users are watching the same film as me, or is their judgment being clouded over by nostalgia for the old studio system with actors like Kirk Douglas and directors like Vincent Minnelli.

First off, Douglas was waaaaaaay too old for the role of Van Gogh. In the opening scenes, Van Gogh is a young man of 25; Douglas was around 40, and it shows (Van Gogh was only 37 when he died). Secondly, where's the accent? Van Gogh was born in the Netherlands, and yet Douglas plays him all-American. Lastly and most importantly, this is the most terrible acting I have ever seen!!! Douglas chews the scenery frantically, playing the character like a 19th century James Dean. Call it "Earless Without a Cause." Kirk Douglas' voice and mannerisms make me cringe, his puppy-dog eagerness and submissive personality ringing untrue.

The next-worst performance belongs to Anthony Quinn, as an over-the-top Gauguin. I just wished he'd go to Tahaiti already.

The whole picture reeks of Hollywood romanticism rather than a more realistic European squalor. The script is overly melodramatic and obvious; every time it's mentioned, the word "crazy" jumps out, like a not-too-subtle foreshadowing.

This is a white-washed, sanitized version of Van Gogh's life -- though I'm surprised they included scenes where the artist lived with a prostitute (here called Christine) and her young child (in "Vincent and Theo" the prostitute is Sien, and the child considerably older, and a girl. Makes me wonder which version is correct. I'm guessing V&T). All the other stuff -- trips to the brothel, Theo's syphilis, the ear-cutting, and the suicide -- is either not mentioned, or occurs off-screen. Not surprising for a movie made in 1956.

Only worth seeing if you want to howl with laughter.

Lust For Life may look, at first glance, to be a typical Hollywood biopic, which is usually not much more than a star vehicle about a famous, real-life but vacuously recreated character, denuded of any real personality. Minelli certainly makes his biopic of Vincent Van Gogh with his trademark lavishness. But, importantly, he does not glamorise his subject. Instead, he makes a visually rich but earthy film, which exalts Van Gogh's achievement and seeks to portray the realities of his creative life and the dark side of his personality.

Lust For Life focuses on the extremely troubled man Van Gogh was, at turns listless, priggish, childish, needy, manic and quick-tempered; but also sensitive, caring, thoughtful, romantic and altruistic. Kirk Douglas is superb as Van Gogh, holistically exhibiting his various and contradictory aspects: obsessive though circumspect artist, diffident but passionate friend, forlorn romantic and dangerous maniac. It is all the more of an accomplishment as he is such a muscular, good-looking leading actor (nor should Anthony Quinn's key supporting performance as Gauguin, a macho with hidden sensibilities, be neglected).

However, at the same time, what the film never forgets is Van Gogh's considerable achievement. Minelli's iridescence complements Van Gogh's colourful, vivacious visual style, and many of his paintings are shown throughout the film.

Critics have pointed to the over-use of melodrama in the film. Yet Lust For Life is rare in that the film is consummated by its melodrama, along with Miklós Rózsa's grand, sweeping music. In other words, its melodrama succeeds, making the viewer identify more with Douglas' Van Gogh, giving him a greater, but also justified, pathos and sense of tragedy.

Lust For Life is the best Hollywood Biopic

Kirk Douglas gives one of his finest, most sympathetic performances as tortured artist Vincent Van Gogh in this glossy, occasionally lumbering biographical drama. Director Vincente Minnelli (never a filmmaker known to delve too deeply into either lust or obsessions) manages to slip in shots of the real Vincent Van Gogh's paintings throughout, but the on-screen relationship between Van Gogh and Paul Gauguin is sadly under-developed (despite Anthony Quinn winning a Supporting Actor Oscar). Handsomely-produced package is worth-seeing mainly for Douglas' sterling work, but the weak final act fails to leave behind good will for the film, despite its obvious merits. **1/2 from ****

Lust for Life, Irving Stone's biographical novel about the life of Vincent Van Gogh, stands as the centerpiece of Kirk Douglas's acting career. After growing that beard which makes Douglas look hauntingly like the troubled Van Gogh, Douglas crafts a brilliant portrayal of this way too sensitive man.

Vincent Van Gogh was a man who felt things more than most of the world's population. When we're introduced to him in the film, he's been rejected as an evangelical preacher. Van Gogh's father was a minister and Vincent feels the calling, but doesn't have the talent for preaching. He's given a backwater assignment in a forgotten coal mining area basically just to get rid of him.

He tackles it in earnest, even going down into the mines and working along side the miners who are his parishioners. That doesn't please the hoity toity church officials who rebuke him. A more tactful man might have sold the officials on a social gospel idea which was what Van Gogh was trying to articulate. But instead he explodes on them and the church gets rid of him.

It's the same with personal relationships. His intensity frightens off everyone of the opposite sex. And most of the male species as well. Only his patient and loving brother Theo, played here by James Donald, can deal with him for any length of time.

But somewhere in the vast universal scheme of things, Van Gogh was given a talent to paint. It's only on the canvas that he can articulate what he feels around him. And of course when he died he was as obscure as one can get. Now the value of his paintings could retire the American national debt.

Director Vincente Minnelli had previously directed Kirk Douglas to his second Oscar nomination in The Bad and the Beautiful in 1952. Sad to say that Douglas lost again in this third and final outing in the Oscar Derby. Personally I think he should have taken home the big prize for this one. The winner that year was Yul Brynner for The King and I. No actor better expresses rage on the screen than Kirk Douglas and this was a rage accompanying a descent to madness.

But Minnelli did get Anthony Quinn his second Oscar in the Supporting Actor category as fellow painter Paul Gauguin. They become housemates for a while and it seems as though Van Gogh has developed a decent relationship with another human being. But they came from different backgrounds and Gauguin brought an entirely different perspective to his art than Van Gogh did. What in 98% of relationships would have been a friendly disagreement becomes a bitter quarrel and Gauguin's leaving Van Gogh helps spiral him further into a breakdown.

Kirk Douglas, Anthony Quinn, and the ever dependable, but seldom given enough credit James Donald cop all the acting honors here. Like John Huston's Moulin Rouge about Toulouse-Lautrec, Lust for a Life is a film that is so articulate that one can be art idiot and still appreciate the performances of the players.

Today Vincent Van Gogh probably would be on some psychiatric medicines like lithium and be a normal individual when on them. But would the world have the fruits of his artistic genius. An interesting question to ponder while watching this wonderful film.

(*Favourite movie quote*) - "The pictures come to me as in a dream."

The agony of one man's life.... Vincent Van Gogh painted the way other men breathe.

After Rembrandt, Van Gogh is considered to be the greatest of all the Dutch painters. His obsession with painting, combined with serious mental illness, propelled him through a life full of failures and unrewarding relationships.

Throughout his life, Van Gogh managed to earn some respect from his fellow painters, especially that of Paul Gauguin, but he never, ever got along with any of these men. Surprisingly enough, in his entire lifetime Van Gogh only managed to sell just one of his paintings.

Released in 1956 - "Lust For Life" is a really fine movie-production. Many of the locations used for filming were actual places that Van Gogh had visited during his short life. Actor, Kirk Douglas puts in a dynamite performance as the archetypical tortured artist-genius.

Movie this is extremely good. But when that becomes Biopic - which in real life had two major characters - Vincent and Theo, and also up to quite some extent (in real life), sister Willemein and of course Gauguin, there are things missing - from actual.

It isn't really failure in the plot, except with Willemein , whose behavior and the parting, to Vincent won't explain their bonding, which remained, though not as strong as with Theo.

Certain modifications weren't called for, e.g. "Kee" made "Kay" or Clasina Maria made Christine - may be to make the names a bit more familiar to the anglicised audience, but they won't take the essence out. Nor will some other changes (e.g. Clasina's children - after moving in, both the children stayed with them, but here the daughter is missing). The first break - reconciliation and then the final one sequence had been avoided. Probably to cut the length, but that was quite necessary, to understand the troubled mind.

What really mattered here was the inability of Douglas to really portray the Psychological disorder of VVG. The movie was a bit too sympathetic to VVG, blaming the circumstances. But the circumstances - even rejection by Kee, were themselves due to the Bipolar Disorder of VVG (in addition with the significant age difference). This particular feature had been missed. That won't be in the letters of course, which had been the base of the movie, but it exist in expert psychologists' analysis.

The movie, broadly brings out the life from his failure in the seminary exam to the very end. But there had been circumstances earlier - which too contributed to the exacerbation of the disorder. Probably could have been put in passing comments. In addition there was a slightly wrong depiction of Gauguin's life, or rather his claim of deprivation/ hardship, of course it was his 'claim' and not out of character, considering his militant mind-set, but there VVG wasn't in a weak ground either - having suffered himself in his sojourns, especially in the mines.

Anyway, the movie is relatively better biographic than most of the ones I had seen, where the Protagonist is placed in far higher pedestal and would have been much better, if Douglas was able to portray the trouble more.

And to end, I sincerely wish some one makes a movie about the real superstars of VVG's life - those who really made what he is now - one of the very top artists ever - their life had been of no less trouble than VVG's and one of them, the main architect, got only some passing shots - Theo at least got his due - and Donald did his job extremely well, far better than anyone else - but the one who gets even more credit than Theo, Johanna remained unsung.

The story of Johanna and Theo won't be any less relevant and gripping than the life of VVG - and Johanna definitely deserved every bit of credit, she never got.

Biopics are tricky things to get right. That is one of the reasons why so many classic Hollywood versions of true stories are so liberal with the facts – storifying history in order to bring out the spirit or the legend of the subject. There have also been more recent productions which, in their devotion to historical accuracy, suck all the life out of the picture. It is a rare thing indeed then to find a biopic that sticks to the truth but also really brings us a vivid character in an engaging story.

Lust for Life begins with Vincent's journey in mid-flow, with a brief episode in which he worked as a preacher in a dirty mining town. It is as if we are observing the man from a distance, and indeed director Vincente Minnelli actually keeps his camera well back from the subject for the first fifteen minutes or so. Van Gogh's talent for painting is not referenced verbally, but sketches gradually begin to appear in the background. It's a very tentative introduction to the man, but it gives us his character and background through example rather than direct statement, and rather than highlighting his turning to art shows it as an almost incidental extension of his way of life. Screenwriter Norman Corwin (who normally worked in radio) draws from Vincent's letters to his brother Theo for a gentle and unobtrusive narrative, and the production makes extensive use of actual locations and colour prints of van Gogh's paintings, all the better for his work to speak for itself.

Director Vincente Minnelli was himself a painter, albeit one of a rather different style to van Gogh, but his painterly instinct for space and colour helps very much in creating the harmonious look of Lust of Life. He was one of the few directors from this early stage of widescreen who knew what to do with the Cinemascope aspect ratio. His technique is to soften the width by composing in depth. Take set-ups like Mauve's studio or the little flat Vincent shares with Christine, in which the furniture and canvasses create many layers in depth, giving real definition to the space and making the wide shape of the screen seem more natural. Often the screen seems loosely divided into two parts, with foreground business on one side and a distant vanishing point on the other, and Minnelli uses this to create smaller frames for different actors on the screen or to highlight one person or another. This in turn minimises the need for cuts to opposing angles or close-ups, which tend to look awkward in Cinemascope.

In the lead role, Kirk Douglas not only bears a passable resemblance to van Gogh, he really immerses himself in the character to the extent that you forget the familiarity of the actor and see only the painter. Vincent may be the archetypal tortured artist but Douglas resists the temptation to become wild or hysterical, more often showing emotional turmoil in tense body language and silent screams. In lighter moments he displays a kind of boyish enthusiasm which really helps to make a likable character out of van Gogh. In contrast Anthony Quinn's supporting role as Paul Gauguin is exaggerated and theatrical where Douglas is subtle and realistic, but it highlights the difference between the two men and helps to make Quinn's short but crucial part in the story lively and memorable.

Above I feel what really makes Lust for Life work is that it understands it subject matter. There is a clear respect for van Gogh's work from writer, director and star, and an intention to allow the audience to share in this appreciation. The effort that has gone into comparing real scenes to finished paintings, and the dialogue that touches upon art theory show how his approach to painting dovetails into his highly emotional and philanthropic character. It is this that lends a sense of meaning and poignancy to the depiction of his tragic life.

1st watched 5/11/2009 - 6 out of 10 (Dir-Vincente Minnelli): Good movie about the life of artist Vincent Van Gogh portrayed well by Kirk Douglas as his character wanders in and out of madness throughout the movie. His madness is really portrayed more like a man who doesn't know how to handle situations when he loves someone and they don't return back to him the same measure of love that he gives. His painting life is portrayed as an emotional outlet that keeps him sane as long as he can do it the way he wants to and in the right setting. He's a man that is portrayed as not being very likable and unsettled in his nature, which is typical of many artists. The movie starts with him following after his father's footsteps and trying to make it as a missionary but this doesn't work out because he cares too much for the people and doesn't represent the church well in their eyes. After this, he travels from place to place living off his brother's money as he sponsors him hoping one of his paintings will sell. Very few do, and later in life he admits himself into a mental institution before trying to kill himself. Despite the negativity of the character and his circumstances, the movie portrays the man and his paintings beautifully. His quest to control himself is not conquered but what we get is a bunch of beautiful artistry and this artistry is displayed in plenty as many museums donated various pieces to be portrayed in the movie. Vincente Minnelli gives us a unique portrayal for it's time and does pretty good job of displaying the artist's passion.

Directors Vincent Minnelli and George Cukor really helmed a great production in "Lust for Life."

The art direction, costume design, set decoration and cinematography are all first rate in executing this enactment of the life of Vincent Van Gogh.

Norman Corwin's script beautifully utilizes the spirit of Irving Stone's novel, and Miklos Rozsa's score is among his most memorable.

The breathtaking element, though, are the original paintings assembled for this production. Experiencing them in brilliant close up as the camera moves into the canvases, is downright thrilling.

While the small tv screen cannot fully capture the impact of the original movie house presentation, the vividness of these original masterworks cannot be diminished. It also is a strong showcase for the Metrocolor process, and one of the great productional trophies of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer.

The acting is uniformly strong, and the total impression of this film is a moving and memorable experience.

Kirk Douglas is well-cast in this mid-50's color drama about V. Van Gogh directed by Vincente Minelli. He looks remarkably like Vincent and has the temperament to match. Anthony Quinn is right on the money as Paul Gaugin and the film has a nice flow to it with excellent soundtrack and cinematography.

A 7 out of 10. Best performance = Kirk Douglas. Unfortunately, Kirk would never be nominated again for Oscar (Honorary Oscar in the 90's), although he was great in LONELY ARE THE BRAVE and others after this one including PATHS OF GLORY and SPARTACUS. Most Bio-Pics are pretty shmaltzy, but this plays out with heart and passion.

Well...I watched this movie yesterday because I was interested in the subject and I like Kirk Douglas very much. First, the acting is really disappointing, Douglas seems to act that like Spartacus having a knack for painting, and Quinn does not really fit in the shoes of Gauguin unless you expect him to behave like Zorba the Greek...but it may be mostly because of the direction, Second, the direction is awful, terrible soundtrack, absolutely out of fashion and inappropriate (very Hollywood like. It does simply not catch a single breath of the era! Chamber music of Ravel or anything else from the period would have been better! The dialogs are pathetic and dull. In fact it could really be entitled "Van Gogh for the dummies". Third, the cinematography is poor. Supposedly filmed on location, it seems that some of the backgrounds have been painted, and not by Van Gogh if you know what I mean!

The only good thing is that you get some good shots of Van Gogh's paintings (but you should mute the volume of your TV as the ridiculous soundtrack could ruin it).

In 1991, Maurice Pialat made a movie entitled "Van Gogh", based on the end of his life in Provence (it is not a complete bio) and far from being flawless, mostly because of its editing (the dancing towards the end is way too long). BUT, Jacques Dutronc acted splendidly as Van Gogh, and the cinematography, the soundtrack, were much better to catch the atmosphere of Provence at that time. This one is more refined and I advise it to anybody interested in Van Gogh.