PrincetonWilliams
If you like the color Blue then this movie is for you. Because that's the long and short of it. If you close your eyes you might get more out of it besides retinal strain. Meant to be a philosophical journey this film is not for the easily distracted and/or the intellectually impaired. This is a thinking person's movie and it definitely requires a thinking person's mind. If you like this movie let me recommend to you another movie made in 2004 called "What the Bleep Do We Know?". This movie will hit home with people who can relate to the director. I know a got more out of it then most because I can relate to his continuous hospital stays. The idea of waiting and waiting for something to come on the screen mirrors what the director is talking about when he is waiting and waiting to either lose his sight, or his imminent death from aids. A good movie, but definitely not for someone who is not intellectual.
Bob O'Link (Bobolink)
Blue is here emptiness, emptiness is blue; blue is no other than emptiness, emptiness is no other than blue; that which is blue is emptiness, that which is emptiness is blue. The same can be said of red, orange, yellow, green, indigo and violet.All things here are characterized with emptiness: they are not born, they are not annihilated; they are not tainted, they are not immaculate; they do not increase, they do not decrease. Therefore, in emptiness there is no blue, no red, no orange, no yellow, no green, no indigo, no violet; no eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind; no form; no film, sound, color, taste, touch, objects, no element of vision, till we come to no element of consciousness; there is no knowledge, no ignorance, till we come to there is no old age and death, no extinction of old age and death; there is no suffering, no accumulation, no annihilation, no path; there is no knowledge, no attainment, no realization, because there is no attainment.
brendanP
Jarman's "Blue," a feature consisting entirely of a blue screen with voice-overs, has succeeded in annoying viewers with its seemingly uninventive approach to the cinematic personal narative. As so much of what we have come to consider "good" filmaking relies primarily on our sense of sight and our ability to absorb and process hundreds of CGI critters flashing before our eyes, it is easy to forget that a "good film" relies as much if not more so on the story than it does on the visuals.Jarman's story is one that does not need visuals to support it. Reflecting upon his life in the face of his rapidly approaching death, Jarman's memories and meditations offer the viewer (listener, really) a window into the soul of a director who is losing the most important sense he could posses: his sight. Blue was the last color available to him before AIDS related complications robbed him of his sight. As he stands before death and stares it straight in the face, Jarman's writings put forth a suprising feeling of calmness, as he has accepted his own finitude and shares his meditations with us in this, his last masterpiece.
dfutato
Many people complained about the triteness or cliche nature of the device of using an all-blue screen for the seventy-some odd minutes of this film. I'd guess that most of these people never saw the film on the big screen.If you did see this on a big screen, however, you were sure to notice the tricks your eyes played on you. Jarman, directing this film as he lost his eyesight (and what could be worse for a director?), last saw the color blue. As you watch the film, your eyes become saturated with the color blue, and begin to try and compensate for the overstimulation, shifting to oranges, showing illusionary shapes in the blank field of the screen, and ultimately betraying you. What better allegory for the loss of one's vision, especially when it means everything to you?
AD
