Movie Biographies: Lust for Life

1956 Biography
From Metro Goldwyn Mayer
Based on novel by Irving Stone
Screenplay adapted by Norman Corwin
Directed by Vincente Minnelli

Starring
Kirk Douglas
Anthony Quinn
James Donald
Pamela Brown
Everett Sloane
Jill Bennett
Jeanette Sterke
Toni Gerry

Both Kirk Douglas and Vincente Minnelli regarded Lust for Life, about the tormented life of Dutch painter Vincent Van Gogh, the toughest challenge of their careers.  As much as Douglas enjoyed the process, he said as he left the lot after the film finished that it would take him a while to recover from the experience.  
Minnelli could not remember being more passionate about directing a movie.

Irving Stone wrote the novel in 1934; it is considered a fictionalized biography.  It was purchased by MGM in 1946 with a codicil attached that stated the movie had to be made within 10 years or the rights returned to the author.  (It was released in November, 1956).  MGM, oddly enough, never considered that it would amount to much on the screen until United Artists had a big hit with a similar project, Moulin Rouge in 1952 and Jose Ferrer won the best actor Oscar. 

By 1955 Minnelli and producer John Houseman thought it was time to dust off the novel and finally MGM stopped resisting.  At the same time, Douglas had seen a picture of himself next to one of Van Gogh's and he couldn't believe the similarities in their looks.  He decided that he would make a film of the artist to launch his newly-formed Bryna Productions.  As excited as he'd been about a project in sometime, the air went out of his balloon when MGM called and told him he's wasting his time because they owned the property and were about to start production.

The funny thing is that Minnelli not only thought Douglas was practically a twin to Van Gogh but the actor was the director's favorite of all the actors with whom he'd worked.  The pair had worked together once before and would again after Lust for Life.  Minnelli said he never considered anyone other than Douglas.

Minnelli realized he had any number of directions he could go with the story.  He also knew he didn't want a formulaic MGM biography and this from a man who had never directed one nor would he again.  As much as I enjoy the film, I think he made a mistake on the direction he took.  He says he concentrated on the turbulent relationship Van Gogh had with his younger brother Theo (wonderfully played here by James Donald).  The funny thing is that although their relationship apparently did have serious ups and down, I've never felt that was portrayed here.  Sure they had their moments in the film but they mainly connected and were loving.

Secondly and more seriously Minnelli never thoroughly delved into Van Gogh's mental state, certainly not as much as he could have and perhaps should have.  Obviously Minnelli didn't adapt the screenplay (more on that later) but he certainly okayed it.  He and his writer poured over letters Van Gogh wrote to Theo which added more depth to Stone's original work.  Minnelli wanted to show Van Gogh's sensitivity and the torment he suffered from rejection of his work.  (Depending upon your pov, he either sold none of his work or he sold one.  Since he painted over 2100 artworks, his rejection seems warranted.)  Minnelli was determined also to show the abuse he seems to have suffered in all his relationships, romantic and otherwise.  Van Gogh apparently spent most of the rest of his life in the company of prostitutes.

Minnelli took his company to the places and cities where Van Gogh had lived... southern Belgium, the Hague, Paris and at Arles in the south of France, the area of those sunflowers and all that yellow.  Featured are some of Van Gogh's actual homes in addition to other places he frequented, especially rural locations. 

On set with Douglas and Minnelli

In Belgium we see Van Gogh trying to find himself in religion and although earnest, not finding what he wanted.  Detailed also is a sick relationship with a prostitute and perhaps sicker yet (definitely sadder) is his love for his cousin, Kay, who is horrified at his feelings and brutally rejects him.  

He suffered his entire life with loneliness.  Some of that was brought on by his devotion to his painting, some by distant locales, some by his mental illness... psychotic episodes and delusions.  After his death he was generally considered to be the quintessential misunderstood genius but he was certainly misunderstood while alive.

With his move to Arles his art changed to that for which he is most famous.  It was also the best part of the film, the most insightful and the saddest.  It's where it becomes apparent that he had an almost spiritual affinity for nature. He may have eschewed the bourgeois life but the ragtag existence he chose saw him experiencing uncontrollable emotions and urges.

It is in Arles that he reconnected with his friend, fellow artist Paul Gaugin (Quinn) who was every bit as temperamental, poor and still finding his way as a successful artist as Van Gogh.  Gaugin came to stay nine weeks or so where they would live and paint together.  But they end up having ferocious fights, mainly over their art or more specifically the lack of respect each showed for the other's accomplishments.  

Gaugin was clearly jealous of the fact that Theo, an art dealer, financed his brother's lifestyle.  No matter how poor and down and out Van Gogh could be at times, he knew he could turn to Theo.  The film makes clear that Theo thinks there's a better and more successful way for Van Gogh to live, but the advice went in one ear and out the other.

Oh yes, that ear.  We know he cuts off part of it in some frenzied moment of sheer madness which happens to come after Gaugin says he is going to move out.  Did he do that because he and Gaugin couldn't agree on what constitutes good art or was it something else?

I'm not saying that Van Gogh was into men.  I'm not sure that there's anything to support that he was but there's a number of things about the scenes with Gaugin that fired up my gaydar.  He is clearly enamored of Gaugin far more than the other way around.  Yes, Van Gogh was gaga over his loneliness ending when Gaugin arrives, but he then acts more like a loving wife than a roommate.  There was a need to touch Gaugin and do a lot of fussing.  Gaugin says stop slobbering over me.  The storyline might even suggest that this attentiveness is what drove Gaugin away.

I know there are Van Gogh scholars who would have a strong opinion that I'm nuts, maybe even hopeful given my own interests.  Yet I can hardly believe I'm the first one to suggest such a thing.  I think Van Gogh was simply the type to indulge in anything he could afford to indulge in.  Perhaps that lust for life didn't include men in general while he put Gaugin in a special category.  To be fair, Minnelli was gay and perhaps he just thought it'd be titillating to include just a hint of it in his story.  Ok, moving on.

The ending surprised me.  It seemed sudden but then, really, what was working in this man's life?  He's in the field at Arles painting Wheat Field with Crows when he appears to have had a small seizure.  He walks to a nearby tree, pulls out a revolver and shoots himself in the chest.  There were no witnesses.  He was able to walk back to town.  Theo was summoned and 30 hours later, Van Gogh died in a bed with his brother by his side.

Norman Corwin, an MGM screenwriter, was chosen by Minnelli to fashion a screenplay out of Stone's novel because the studio was under the gun to get this film made and Corwin was known as the fastest writer on the lot.  It seemed everyone at the studio and particularly the director were happy with the results.

Corwin died in 2011, two days after a 60 minutes segment called Running the War: The Life and Death of Vincent Van Gogh.  It  largely discredited the way the artist's death was depicted in Lust for Life.  It should be said that how it was written in the film aligns with a lot of the thinking in the world... but not all.

There is another scenario that goes like this:  he was in the field painting when two teens approached and started harassing him (a circumstance of which he was familiar) and they shot him.  He did make it back to town but told authorities that he shot himself. A third version alleges the run-in with the boys happened in town as he could not have walked all the way back from the field with such a serious wound. He apparently said this because he did not want to get the boys in trouble. 

This was such a personal film for Minnelli.  He saw himself as always being on the outside looking in and that's also how he saw Van Gogh.  Telling the painter's story was almost like telling his own.  Minnelli loved colors.  It didn't matter what object was involved.  He would use colors to express psychological issues.  He liked his films to be visually evocative and he saw this film as a chance to display all those things he loved.

Minnelli actually cared more about the look of a film than most anything else.  There was simply no doubt this would be the film to fulfill all his dreams.  He was dreading studio interference but was pleasantly surprised when he was left alone.  They even okayed extensive location work.  

Douglas was very good in most of his movies.  He had a canny ability, I suspect, for what roles were and weren't good for him.  There were rare misfires... I never thought comedies were his forte.  What I always, always saw in him, lurking just under the surface, was a violent nature.  He was always a little frightening.  I said as much in my earlier birthday salute to him but it bears repeating here for a simple reason.  I saw virtually none of that in this entire film.  Even the couple of times that he did get uptight, he didn't explode in the way we are accustomed to seeing.

It was one of his favorite roles.  Perhaps because he was portraying a real person, whom he resembled, he wasn't quite at liberty to dole out every Douglasism in his actor's bag of tricks.  Here he dances around, cowers, cries, exhibits little of the A-type personality that is his.  Here he is Vincent Van Gogh.  He dyed his hair red and grew a beard.  He effected a different walk.  I think it's his best work.  He thought it was, too.   

Quinn maintained all of his Quinnisms but I understand that Gaugin was every bit as blustery as the actor played him.  I am not complaining about the film's energy but when Quinn comes to stay with his friend, the screen is electric with his magnetism.  Playing Gaugin would secure Quinn his second supporting Oscar (he'd won just four years earlier for Viva Zapata).  Good as he is, I don't see him as being any different than he usually was.  Robert Stack, on the other hand, should have won for his fresh approach to the alcoholic, rich playboy in Written on the Wind. 

British actor James Donald was never particularly well-known to American audiences.  He was not a showy actor, always seemingly comfortable in the background.  You have likely seen him in The Vikings, The Bridge on the River Kwai and The Great Escape and not even known it.  He is a wonderful Theo.

I have read countless stories of a private showing to industry bigwigs before the film was released.  Douglas came across John Wayne as they were leaving.  The pair had not worked together yet and were never friends although they were friendly with one another.  (Their politics were worlds apart.)

Wayne, seemingly agitated, pulled Douglas aside and said Kirk, how can you play a part like that?  There's so g.d. few of us left.  We got to play strong, tough characters, not those weak queers. Douglas said, in essence, it's called acting.  He probably should have made a comment about Wayne's walk, which was manufactured and which compelled director John Ford to call it a sissy walk.

There is much this two-hour movie could not possibly include.  And there is so much that could be said about Van Gogh's life that  a longer format, such as a television miniseries, could bring justice to.  I hope it's done one day.

Douglas said in his autobiography that he offered to forgo his entire salary if the studio would purchase a Van Gogh painting for him.  When MGM declined, he said I can afford to play Van Gogh but I can't afford to own him.

Here's a look at some scenes with a most appropriate and familiar song to enjoy...

Next posting:
One more exciting Douglas
performance with Minnelli 
again at the helm