ironhorse_iv
Honestly, is this really a movie? It's hardly seems like it was. I wouldn't call this a movie, in my opinion, because films to me, are quite literally "moving pictures". There is nothing in the film to look at, besides a single shot of saturated blue color filling the screen for 1 hour & 17 minutes. This isn't a movie. It's an art-house experimental art project! While, it's not a movie, in my terms; Blue does have a way to move its message along the film's run time. It does this, by using audio clips of director Derek Jarman's testimony about his life, assisted by voice actors & actors; John Quentin, Nigel Terry and Tilda Swinton. This is interwoven with beautiful sound effects, and amazing music by Simon Fisher-Turner & Brian Eno, throughout the film. While, the audio-piece does have some unstructured thoughts, coming in, far left and distant right with no clear path in narrative. The majority of it, does tell a somewhat clear story. It tells the story about coming to terms with death. Very heavy stuff. Before the film was even made, Derek Jarman lose his vision due to AIDS-related complications and was near death. In many ways, the single shot of saturated blue color is a metaphor for sightlessness; the blindness before death. In a way, Jarman wanted his final film to mirror his own sight about dying. For the most part, the gimmick kinda works. This experimental film does make the audience, somewhat think. The movie has sound effects of both the wind and the ocean waves, which symbolism, both life (water) and the afterlife (heaven). It gives the viewer, a sense of vision, without the use of the eyes. The talk toward the end of the life about crossing the body of water is so haunting. It remind us as if he's travelling down the River Styx, seeing those friends and lovers that did not make it. The chiming of a gong heard occasionally throughout the film as Jarman reads out the victims of AIDS is very moving. The ticking of the clocks and the tolling of a bell, gives a sense of how much time, he still has left. The film covers all the fear, self-loathing, and even thoughts of suicide that Jarman is going through. The story of the film moves like radio show program or an early version of a video podcast, but since the movie is so melancholy. It's hard for people to get through this film. Some people might find the movie, a bit too depressing to watch. There is little humor in it and much of it, isn't that entertaining. Another problem with the film is the odd mix of emotions. Jarman's out there signature style of lyrical combination of classic theory, anecdote and poetry might, conflict with the realistic tone of the rest of the film as Jarman takes the audience through, the day to day struggles of living with the disease. The reading by Tilda Swinton from the book, Chroma: A Book of Color does not match well, with the rest of the film, in my opinion. Another pet peeve, that I didn't like, about the film is how often, they use the word 'blue' or use the color, as symbolism. Come on! Couldn't Derek Jarman be a little smarter, and use some other symbol as a metaphor of death for once. Hearing the word, 'blue' for the first 30 minutes was alright, but hearing the word, throughout the film was a bit repetitive. Still, that isn't the worst problem with this film. The biggest problem with the film has to be the blue visual. I know that the filmmakers wanted to use the blue screen as a Ganzfeld effect AKA perceptual deprivation effect to get closer to God, but I don't think, it's healthy. Having the brain amplifying neural transmitted electrical signal AKA noise in order to look for the missing visual signals is not a good thing. The noise is interpreted in the higher visual cortex, has gave rise to hallucinations. Not only that, it make the audience get dizzying, nauseating or hypnotic -- depending on your sensory makeup or your attitude to visual deprivation. Overstimulation has been known as a torture device. While, it's good as an allegory to death, it's not good as long term visual. It will cause the loss of one's on vision, especially when it means everything to you. The film remind me of Russian Abstract artist, Kazimir Malevich's Black, White & Red Square paintings from the Turn of the Century. The movie is pretty much, just a big example of Suprematism art. Suprematism is an art movement that focused on basic geometric forms, such as circles, squares, lines, and rectangles, painted in a limited range of colors. In many ways, the movie might be blue print copy of Blue Monochorme by artist, Yves Klein. The movie seem to also very similar to the short-lived ambient sketch-comedy radio program Blue Jam that had a parallel concept. The title of the movie has a habit of getting people, very confused. First off, while, the movie does describe homosexual sex, the movie isn't adult film or amateur pornography. It's not that kind of a blue film. Second off, it's not part of the Three Colors trilogy. Blue, a French drama film by Krzysztof Kieślowski is a different film. The DVD picture quality isn't that good. The old transfer seem to be made from a used cinema copy. It's full of dirt, dust, and reel change mark's every 20 minute. The film also is missing subtitles for hearing impaired. It sucks, particular for a film like this. Overall: While, the monochrome movie might seem pretentious, trendy, self-indulgent. It's also brilliant. Watch this film with an open mind. It might be stressful to watch, but it will empower you with a new level of perspective about life.
Dr Jacques COULARDEAU
The film is not a film. It is a radio show. Derek Jarman is dying of AIDS and he tells us how he sees his disease and his coming death. For him the color is blue, because blue is the sky, it is absolute limitless space and it is the perfect color for going to the other side of the gate or door or portal you have to cross on your last breath. After that point you do not need to breathe any more.The story, if it is a story, is poignant but told on a rather desultory tone and with as much poetry as possible. He explains what this disease means for him and probably for many others in his case. He repeats the names of the men he has loved and who may have infected him or who he may have infected. Sad and tragic that love led to death. I say love and I follow Derek Jarman on that term, but in fact it was not love. It was sexual intercourse and most of the time nothing much more in those post 68 years when everything was possible and everyone was doing it. Well everyone, not, really, but many considered promiscuity as a norm and bisexuality as a must. As Derek Jarman says he has to resign himself to the disease and the coming death. The drugs used in those years were very experimental, had tremendous side effects and were nothing but tinkering about with what doctors had under their hands and fingers and research went very slowly, when it was funded, which was not the case everywhere in the world.And then Derek Jarman has to come to terms with his life, what he had done, what he would have done, what he did not do, and he has to build a balance sheet of his work: has he achieved enough for his films to survive his own death? Probably, though some of these films are aging rather fast. And then he has to push suicide aside and he has to cope with the pain and try to find some peace of mind to move on and pass to the other side in serendipity. And his telling his last moments of consciousness on this planet must have helped him to find some catharsis with death.Apart from that the radio show that is behind this constant blue screen is a testimony of a social and human situation and it is nothing else. The testimony is done with great talent but it is being carried away by the wind of time. The situation does not have any duration in itself. It is already in the past for the countries where safe sex is a real objective and the present treatment is available. It will not cure you but it will give you a more or less normal life for quite a good number of years. But it remains necessary to revisit what it was in the past not to slacken our efforts to find a real cure."Glitterbug," that generally accompanies this "Blue," is only a montage and collage of tit bits from Derek Jarman's personal super eight and video documents he left behind after his death. This film is a testimony about him and his work and life in order to pay our respects to the departed filmmaker.Apart from that dimension the film does not really bring anything new about the man or his films. And since it was not professional camera work, it is not even comparable to his work. So this documentary gives us an intimate vision of the man and the people around him and this is a good thing to give some human depth to a man who went away too fast.Dr Jacques COULARDEAU
shes_dead
Blue. Hmmm. Blue, in case you aren't aware by now is a film with no visuals whatsoever, it is simply a blue screen.It amuses me no end that reviewers are stating that blue was a better colour to choose over others. As if it's really clever to use the colour blue as opposed to red, or green, or anything. What on earth are they talking about? It's a blank screen. And besides, how do they know blue is better? Have they sat for 79 minutes in front of screens all the colours of the rainbow and afterwards thought "you know, watching a yellow screen just isn't as satisfying as watching a blue one, I'm giving this film a 10"I noticed a review on IMDb that has stated this film does not even need visuals. What is a film without visuals I ask you? It's a radio play, surely. The fact that this is released as a film but is nothing but a blue screen is just a joke on the audience. However, as with all 'art' there are always people who will take it really seriously and credit such things as innovative, original, new and refreshing.Film is a visual medium. To stare at a blank screen for 79 minutes while listening to narration is entirely pointless. Your eyes need visuals and if nothing is happening in front of them they naturally look somewhere else. To have to force yourself to stare at a blue screen is insanity. Unfortunately I am unable to comprehend why other reviewers state the blue screen is to be appreciated. I would be willing to bet that had an unknown film maker done such a thing it would not get the respect it is getting. Likewise I do not believe said reviewers would stare at a blue wall and wax lyrical about how stunning it is, but should Derek Jarman (were he still alive) come and frame the wall I can imagine they would never be able to stop talking about it.And that is where this film would appear to get its audience - people who would never normally appreciate such things until a respected artist comes along and tells them how wonderful it is.
