FILM 10: VAN GOGH / SCHAMA

In this film, Schama did not employ some techniques that he used in his films about David and Caravaggio, but there were some similarities. First off, Schama did not use history to provide background like he did in David’s story where he used the French Revolution as the backdrop. Also, reenactments were not used like they were in Caravaggio and David’s stories. The reenactments in the Van Gogh film were only of Van Gogh himself. They were almost like interviews rather than scenes of Van Gogh’s life. One similarity that the three films have is the use of dramatic lighting. The actor who played Van Gogh was filmed in a dimly lit, dingy room. This was probably to go along with Van Gogh’s dark personality and insanity. Overall, Schama’s films all have similarities, but portray each artist in vastly different ways.

I like Van Gogh the most because he is by far the most interesting of the artists that Schama talks about.  His insanity is intriguing and I felt bad for him at certain points. He wasn’t crazy like Caravaggio was, but he was a lot more interesting than David. I might be biased because Van Gogh was already one of my favorite artists before watching this, but I only knew a little about him. Now I am extremely interested in learning more about him because of this film.

It is really difficult for me to chose a favorite painting by Van Gogh, but one of my new favorites after looking at a long list of his works is Van Gogh’s “Skull with a Burning Cigarette”.  This work was done in 1886 and is oil on canvas. I had seen this painting on a book cover but never realized that it was Van Gogh’s work. I always loved how strange it is and always found this painting very interesting. It is so simple but could mean many things. This could easily be used for a campaign against smoking. It also makes me think because Van Gogh sometimes painted himself with a pipe in his mouth. This could be like a self portrait, but it most likely is not. It is still fun to try and think of what Van Gogh is trying to say with this painting. When I look at it, my eye is drawn to the skull of the skeleton because of the brush strokes. Then I notice the cigarette and finally the ribcage and other bones of the skeleton’s chest. It controls your eye because of the brush strokes and the pure fact that it is an unusual painting.

I don’t think painting every day necessarily made his painting better or worse. Some of his work is well known and some of it isn’t, it just happens that way. They are all unique and equally as interesting. Van Gogh’s work was evolving each day and I think that he needed to paint to cope with whatever insanity he was suffering from. There was no harm in him painting a new picture each day.


If I were to paint each day I feel like I would go insane, just as Van Gogh did. I can’t consistently do something that intense each day.  I am not really a person who likes extreme repetition. It can be so time consuming and tiring to have to think artistically that often. It may just be that I am not an artistic person, but I don’t think it would be that beneficial. I know that “practice makes perfect” but perfection is not always the best quality of art. The imperfections make things interesting as well. Van Gogh’s art was imperfect, though, and it might have just been an outlet for him instead of a practice type thing. I think this strategy works for him, but would not work for me.


Question: What do you find most interesting about the style in which Van Gogh paints?