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.

“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?

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.