I really don’t understand the writer’s venom towards Cocteau. His influence on other filmmakers and artists has been well-established. I think good evidence of this is actually when Cocteau was running out of funds to finish ‘Testament,’ Francois Truffaut gave him some of the profits from ‘The 400 Blows.’

It is clear that the writer has strong doubts about Cocteau’s merit as either poet or filmmaker. However, the examples which he uses to support his critique seem vague at best.

Barring the fact that these films were all made after ‘Testament,’ I fail to see how ‘The Prisoner’, ‘8 1/2′, and ‘Slaughterhouse Five’ can be held up as superior examples of filmmaking technique or thematic maturity when the writer seems to merely compare plot points rather than form a cohesive argument about why they are.

I’m also somewhat confused about the writer’s consistant citing of 1950’s science fiction. What exactly does Ed Wood have to do with any of this? I’m sure that Cocteau, being an avid cinephile, would probably have liked ‘Plan 9 From Outer Space!’

The writer also criticizes ‘Testament’ for its leaden and overt symbolism as well as out-dated special-effects. I don’t think there is such a thing as inverted symbolism in film; every image contains many obvious symbols designed to point an audience in the right direction. The chess match between the Knight and Death in Bergman’s Seventh Seal is hardly a subtle image. As far as special effects are concerned, what constitutes an effect as out-dated? Reverse photography is the only ‘effect’ used extensively in the film and that’s been a device used throughout the history of cinema.

I have always thought ‘The Testament of Orpheus’ to be a vastly underrated film. Cocteau’s world is distinctly his own and the film has many startling cinematic moments. I think to say it is an artistic sin is equally presumptuous.

Ne me demandez pas pourquoi!