“Loving Vincent” is a film made entirely of oil paintings. Every frame of the movie is a canvas, hand-painted by artists who studied Vincent van Gogh’s technique and his life, and then used rotoscoping to turn photographs into moving images. The result is a strange, beautiful, and sometimes exhausting piece of cinema that tries to answer a question that has puzzled art lovers for over a century: did Van Gogh kill himself, or was he murdered?
The film opens one year after the painter’s death, in 1891. Postman Joseph Roulin asks his son Armand to deliver Van Gogh’s final letter to his brother, Theo. Roulin suspects foul play, since Van Gogh had written only weeks before that his spirits were calm and normal. Armand, reluctant at first, travels to Auvers-sur-Oise to investigate.
Trailer, via Good Deed Entertainment.
The Painting Behind the Screen
The visual trick is simple to describe but hard to watch for long stretches. Each scene is composed of individual frames that dissolve into the next, creating a wobbly, breathing quality that feels almost like a fever dream. It is stunning to look at, especially in wide shots of fields and hills rendered in Van Gogh’s signature swirls and colors. Close-ups, particularly of faces, can be unsettling, as the paint strokes shift and smear across skin.
The technique demands patience. Some sequences, like the opening credits, which trace Van Gogh’s life through his own brushstrokes, are pure delight. Others, particularly the action scenes, feel like watching a slideshow at half-speed. The effect can be hypnotic, but it also flattens movement and removes the immediacy that live-action drama relies on.
Armand’s Investigation
Armand’s journey takes him through a web of characters who knew Van Gogh in his final months. Père Tanguy, an art supplier in Montmartre, tells him that Theo actually died six months after Vincent. That timeline is a crucial piece of information, since it means Theo was alive when his brother died. Tanguy sends Armand to Auvers-sur-Oise to find Dr. Paul Gachet, who cared for Van Gogh after his release from an asylum and attended his funeral.
In Auvers, Armand stays at the same inn where Van Gogh lodged. He meets Adeline Ravoux, the temporary proprietress, who speaks warmly of the painter and seems genuinely surprised by his death. She suggests visiting the local boatman, who reports that Van Gogh spent time with Dr. Gachet’s daughter, Marguerite. Armand then visits Marguerite, who denies any involvement in his death and grows angry when Armand suggests otherwise.
Suspicion Falls on René
As Armand digs deeper, suspicion falls on a local boy named René Secretan. He reportedly tormented Van Gogh, owned a gun, and often brandished it drunk in town. Dr. Mazery, who examined Van Gogh, claims the shot that killed him must have come from a few feet away, which rules out suicide. When Armand implicates René, Marguerite confesses that she was close to Van Gogh, though not romantically involved. She insists, however, that René was not capable of murder.
The film presents these clues without ever fully resolving them. The ambiguity is deliberate, and it mirrors the historical record, which offers no definitive answers about Van Gogh’s death. Whether the audience leaves believing suicide or murder is possible depends on which version of Armand’s story they choose to trust.
A Cast Worth Mentioning
The voice cast is strong, though the film rarely shows their faces. Douglas Booth plays Armand, Robert Gulaczyk plays Van Gogh, Eleanor Tomlinson plays Adeline Ravoux, and Saoirse Ronan plays Marguerite Gachet. Helen McCrory appears as Louise Chevalier, and Chris O’Dowd plays Postman Joseph Roulin. John Sessions is Père Tanguy, Jerome Flynn is Dr. Paul Gachet, Aidan Turner is the Boatman, Holly Earl is La Mousmé, Cezary Łukaszewicz is Theo van Gogh, and Martin Herdman is Gendarme Rigaumon.
McCrory’s performance stands out. Her final film role came before her death in April 2021, and her presence adds weight to a scene where Louise Chevalier, a former prostitute and friend of Van Gogh, reflects on his kindness and his loneliness. It is a small moment, but it lands hard because the actress is no longer with us.
Where the Film Falls Short
The problem with “Loving Vincent” is not its ambition. It is that ambition is not matched by narrative discipline. The film spends too much time wandering between locations and conversations, and the central mystery never quite coheres into a satisfying shape. Armand’s investigation feels episodic, with each new witness offering a fragment of information that never quite connects to the others.
The pacing suffers as a result. At 95 minutes, the film is short by modern standards, but the fragmented structure makes it feel longer than it is. Some scenes, particularly those involving the boatman and René, drag because the rotoscoping effect loses its novelty while the story stalls.
The Technical Achievement
The film is a technical marvel. It took years to complete, with a team of 125 artists from around the world painting each of the 65,000 frames. That is a staggering amount of labor, and it shows in the finished product. The colors are rich, the textures are thick, and the movement, while imperfect, captures something of the emotional intensity of Van Gogh’s work.
It is also a co-production between Poland and the United Kingdom, funded by the Polish Film Institute and partially through a Kickstarter campaign. The Kickstarter raised over $600,000, which helped finance the massive undertaking. The film premiered at the 2017 Annecy International Animated Film Festival, and it went on to win Best Animated Feature Film at the 30th European Film Awards in Berlin. It was also nominated for Best Animated Feature at the 90th Academy Awards.
Comparing the Techniques
| Technique | How It Works | What It Adds |
|---|---|---|
| Oil painting | Hand-painted frames by artists | Rich color, texture, authenticity |
| Rotoscoping | Photographs traced onto painted canvases | Motion, depth, realism |
| Digital effects | None described in the source | Not applicable |
The combination of painting and rotoscoping is the film’s core innovation. It is a genuine first in cinema history, and it deserves credit for that alone. But innovation is not the same as success.
Final Verdict
“Loving Vincent” is a film that is easier to admire than to love. Its technical achievement is undeniable, and its ambition to bring Van Gogh’s art to life is admirable. But the story it tells is thin, and the mystery it poses is left unresolved. The film asks the viewer to sit through a long, slow investigation for a payoff that never quite arrives.
It is worth seeing once, in a theater if possible, to experience the painting in motion. But it is not a film that rewards repeated viewing. The technique is the draw, and the technique is the limit.
Get the Notebook.
The day's best stories and every fresh verdict, in plain English, in your inbox by seven. One email a day, no more.
