Nonureva Really Surprised!

Intcatinfo A Masterpiece!

SeeQuant Blending excellent reporting and strong storytelling, this is a disturbing film truly stranger than fiction

Derry Herrera Not sure how, but this is easily one of the best movies all summer. Multiple levels of funny, never takes itself seriously, super colorful, and creative.

Red-Barracuda Surrealist cinema was at the height of its powers between the mid 1920's to the mid 1930's. For obvious reasons, the silent era had been particularly well suited to visually strong films. Like Luis Buñuel's L'âge d'or, The Blood of a Poet is one of the later films from this period. And both incorporate limited sound. In the case of this movie it is mainly music, with a little synchronised dialogue. It's a film that gives the impression of having an overall purpose and meaning but I have to admit, I really have no idea what it was. I found it baffling but interesting enough in a strange dream-like way. And at 50 minutes it hardly overstays its welcome. It's consistently well photographed and there are memorable sequences such as the hotel of strange rooms and the falling into a mirror moment. So, mainly, the film was of interest to me as an example of creative surrealism. But as to what it means? Ah, well, your own your own there I'm afraid

Michael_Elliott Blood of a Poet, The (1930) *** (out of 4) The first film in director Jean Cocteau's "Orphic" trilogy is clearly a very personal film, which means that the director knows what it's about while the viewer simply has to guess what it means. There's not any "plot" to speak of but instead we're treated to just over 50-minutes worth of images ranging from snow ball fights to a man shooting himself to countless other images, which are supposed to be taking part during the time it takes for a chimney to fall to the ground. There's no question that this film is full of surreal images and many people are going to watch this film and see nothing more than a lot of images thrown together without any rhyme or reason as to why they're being shown. I'm sure some people would like to unlock the mysteries behind the stories and will rack their brains trying to figure out what the director meant by each frame in the picture. I personally never put too much into a film like this where it's clear the director doesn't want to viewer to know what's going on. I'm sure Cocteau could explain each second of this film in full detail but as a viewer I really wasn't trying to figure out what was going on but instead just sit back and enjoy what I was seeing. I thought the first forty-minutes of this movie was extremely entertaining with many of the images really jumping out of me. My favorite sequence was the one where a man is ordered to put a gun to his temple and pull the trigger. What happens next is something I won't spoil in detail but the aftermath of the gunshot was quite creative. Another nice scene is when an artist goes "into" a mirror only to splash into some water instead. Many of these early images are shown in a wide range of ways and this really adds to the surreal nature of the picture. The final ten-minutes or so is where I started to get bored as the final act didn't strike me as being nearly as well-made or interesting. I wouldn't rank this film as a masterpiece and I wouldn't rank it up against the work of Luis Bunuel but on its own it's still a rather impressive little film but, again, I wouldn't try figuring it out.

Polaris_DiB Jean Cocteau's "Blood of a Poet" is, on the surface, something of a free-association creation of connected vignettes that embrace surreality and art. Stylistically, it's an exploration into the two-dimensionality of screen space and how the camera tricks the eye. Cocteau uses line drawings, perpendicular angles, and makeup effects to constantly trick and bend the eye between perceptions of depth, gender, and narrative.But oh, that's not all! "Blood of a Poet", while not a dream-logic by technical considerations, is a pastiche of commentaries on, of course, society. The bourgeois are criticized for their spectatorship of each other, sexual curiosity leads to the promise of death, suicide dreams are simultaneously fulfilled and frustrated, and the public both enjoys and ignores the sadism of school-children: all in just 55 short minutes! Apparently this was the first sound film in France, and like most first sound films, the sound doesn't sync quite the way modern audiences think it should. Luckily for it, the effect is somewhat more surreal from a modern standpoint because it goes against expectations. That said, the use of sound is very cogent and experimental as well, as Cocteau includes a very flamboyant voice-over narration and ambiguous uses of noise and music to effectively change the result of the images.Finally, Cocteau is not above admitting the personal nature of the film by literally including inter-titles that explain how he cannot avoid getting trapped into the film himself. That, mixed with the film's embrace of dualities such as "this is a real documentary of unreal things" shows why this film isn't necessarily created to be understood, it's created to be experienced.--PolarisDiB

rooprect Let me preface this by saying Jean Cocteau was one of the greatest artists of the 20th century. Let me also say that his 1950 film ORPHEE is probably the best French movie I've ever seen. Furthermore, let me say that Surrealism is my favourite genre of cinema.Now let's get to the nasty part. The 20s and 30s--the beginning of the modern Surrealism movement--were just that: the beginning. The artistic style was in its infancy, much like a 15-year-old kid playing with her first super 8 camera. There was a lot of experimentation, a lot of self-indulgence and a lot of "wow, what does this button do?" Films made during this period (such as Sang d'un poète, l'Age d'or, etc) are best enjoyed as historical documents. Cocteau would go on to create more lucid masterpieces like ORPHEE and BELLE ET LA BETE. Buñuel would also refine his art and give us TRISATANA, etc. But the early stuff? wtf.A lot of you may be fuming at my irreverent perspective, but let me remind you that in the 1970s Buñuel himself said he wished he could burn all of his old works. I'm not sure if Cocteau took such a harsh stance, but I'm sure that even he felt that SANG was just a frolic compared to his later achievements.With Cocteau (as with Buñuel), I advise you to start from the end of their careers and then work your way back in time. I'd hate for this to be anyone's first Cocteau film, because it might end up being the last! So what can you expect in this film? First the good stuff: You'll see a lot of highly innovative techniques. In particular, you'll see Cocteau playing with magnificent illusions such as "walking on the walls" which he would perfect 20 years later (see ORPHEE). You'll see his obsession with mirrors and the symbolism they conjure (again, see ORPHEE). And finally you'll see some nice reverse-filming techniques which would become the trademark of his masterpiece (take a guess... ORPHEE). In fact, this film is almost like a reel of outtakes from ORPHEE.Aside from that, you won't get much of literary value, which is ironic because Cocteau was such a great writer. What I mean is that you won't get any plot, any coherence, any cohesiveness, or anything you can say to someone who asks you "what was the film about?" This is the kind of film you might see playing in the background of some uber hip nightclub, because it certainly has a lot of mood. But as far as sitting on the couch and watching it... I dunno. I kinda wish I had the last 50 minutes of my life back.