Comments on: THE BLOOD OF A POET d: Jean Cocteau

By: victory furniture

victory furniture — Sun, 31 May 2009 22:57:01 +0000

Luckily Cocteau will live on forever and Dan Schneider will be quickly forgotten. BoP is a film novice's investigation into his own psyche and the struggles with his muse. Too bad Schneider is too limited to see past his own short comings as BoP has influenced many of the great film masters of today. It has been cited as a major influence on many of the films of Terry Gilliam, Peter Greenaway, George Lucas, Francis Ford Coppola, and many others.

By: Aidan Anstey

Aidan Anstey — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 20:42:55 +0000

I agree with you regarding many of the lines in his films, which tend to fall flat. "I wish I could drink" would clearly be better than his line ending in 'vivons'. Cocteau tended to forget that film characters are still persons even when symbolic, and should be allowed to speak as people rather than pontificate like statues. He tended to focus on the poetry of visual images when making films and regarded the texts as mere scaffolding. At the same time, it is a stretch to conclude from this that he was a bad poet. His writing was admired by a number of literary greats, including Rilke and Proust for his early works, Auden and Mauriac for the later, and the critic Edmund Wilson throughout. His collection "Plain-Chant" (c. 1923), in particular, is considered to be excellent erotic poetry in a somewhat classical style. Perhaps the best way of summing up his overall work is "versatile, though uneven." Nevertheless, his supreme creation was undoubtedly his life, as one writer noted. A. Anstey

By: Grant

Grant — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 06:33:42 +0000

Mr Schneider's "review" of Cocteau's Blood Of A Poet is my first encounter with the Alternative Film Guide website, but his unwarranted vitriol and complete misunderstanding of Cocteau's aesthetic may well mean it could be my last. Monty Python? Saturday Night Live? Please, website moderators, ensure you publish contributions from responsible and informed critics.

By: Casper

Casper — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 01:41:31 +0000

It seems to me that anyone who would write so much (and yet so little of worth) about a film they disliked is saying more about themselves and their prejudices than the actual film.

By: Dan Schneider

Dan Schneider — Fri, 15 Jun 2007 21:31:09 +0000

AC- I object to Cocteau's claim of being an artist- period, when his art is more wan that flowery Romantics.

Anon- No, art need not fully explain a thing, but the explanation is immanent within. The artist merely has to make the audience want to dig. JC was one of these types who'd say, 'It's art cuz I say so,' while pointing at a piece of shit.

As for mass appeal. No, it does not, but art should have meaning for more than the artist alone. Hermeticism is not good in communication; which art is the highest sort of.

As for its being dated- it's called video- VHS & DVD. I am a fan of the silents, and the visual composition of this film is amateurish. Buster Keaton did all and more this film did, and better, a few years earlier.

By: Anonymous Coward

Anonymous Coward — Fri, 15 Jun 2007 13:57:27 +0000

Some food for thought:

"Cocteau was content to take the lazy way out, tossing meaningless faux symbolisms at the screen so the viewer has to do all the work."
- Can art only be good if it fully explains itself? Are you sure you are not confusing art with entertainment?

"Even so, that still does not justify this film's place in cinema for the masses"
- Does all of cinema have to have mass appeal?

"The Blood of a Poet has no visual power — it looks just as cheap and dated today as it did over three quarters of a century ago."
- I agree it certainly looks dated today. But how do you know it already looked dated in the 30s? Were you alive back then?

By: A.C.

A.C. — Sat, 17 Feb 2007 06:44:13 +0000

We live about a century after the surrealist movement began, and yet it is funny to me that some people can't seem to let go of petty jealousies within this influential clique. Yes, Cocteau did not consider himself a filmmaker, got on Breton's (as well as Dali's and Bunuel's) nerves, and wrote less than beautiful verse; that said, the imagery in 'Blood of a Poet' is faaaaaaaar more perfect, more ethereal, and less outlandishly provocative than anything Bunuel ever committed to film (not that Bunuel isn't as fantastic as Cocteau, but he simply is not as POETIC, and poetry is pretty much what this film is about). Mr. Schneider seems to have an objection to Cocteau as a person rather than an artist, labeling as some kind of poseur who wasn't fully committed to the "surrealist" cause or idea. If you want to restrict art to socio-political lines (yes, he was bourgeosie), or look for people clearly heralding an anti-religious, anti-authoritarian message, then Cocteau is not for you; however, he is a million times more subtle and thoughtful than those young, romantic surrealists that so many headstrong critics fall in love with. I beg any prospective viewers of this movie who read this silly "in depth" review to give it a chance - judge it for its art, not for the petty one-upmanship that the artists a century ago might have had toward each other.