David Hockney - A Bigger Splash

This is a fly-on-the-wall documentary, but the room with the wall and the fly on it isn't very interesting. I hoped to learn something about why Hockney paints what he does and as he does, and/or about who he is. If this film is to be believed, he is a boring, self-obsessed man.

Much of the footage adds nothing to our knowledge of him or his work. Even when he talked about other painters' work it was not informative, since the camera was on him, not on what he was talking about. Only once did the film give an insight into Hockney's painting, cutting from his representation of the refractions of waves on the bottom of a swimming pool as serpentine lines, to the refractions themselves in unpaintable motion.

Far too much (street scenes, people coming, going and standing about, a fashion show, idle chat) seems to have been included for no particular reason at all.

I suspect that the nudity and the gay ambiance, novelties in 1974, have given this film a cachet it never deserved.

Seems that IMdB reviewers either hate or appreciate this film. As for me, I savored particular portions of this somewhat disjointed, dreamlike take on the early 1970s when Hockney was already thriving, while revealing glimmers of increased fame in the following decades. The choice of classical music was quite interesting throughout, and included snippets of operas... the vibe felt a bit over wrought, but it actually worked. Over the years, I've come to find Hockney to be an insightful, gifted, and innovative artist. His outlook towards using new technological inventions is admirable, and he has educated others on old master techniques and tools.

The camera (whether still frame or cinematic) makes the wide majority of subjects self-conscious. Even when they try to "be on their best", the viewer can interpret this "cover up" according to their own filters. For me, one of the most effective scenes in this film was when the art dealer Kasmin was trying to persuade Hockney to speed up his output so that the lusty whims of art collectors could be satisfied. Hockey appears slightly bemused and his face teases while he endures his gallerist's guidance. This push-pull dilemma is an age old struggle whenever an artist engages others to commercially sell their work. The rhythms of a successful artist's life are no longer their own.

As enticing and lovely as the fashion show segment was, I found it extended and a bit deflated. There were segments of the main characters coming and going to Hockney's place or to Celia's flat which felt stale. For anyone interested in Hockney, his comrades, and gay life in London during the early 70s, I would recommend this movie. Be forewarned though, the pace of some scenes drag, and there are fawning long takes of several choice people which unfortunately decrease the potential for surprise.

Seems to be one of those 1970s "gay identity" films. British tastes in art never do much for me. Hockney just comes across as an Andy Warhol wannabe--the artificial yellow hair, the I am an artist" eccentric eyeglasses. The flat one-note swimming pool paintings derived from commercial art styles and techniques. Warhol did stylized art of Marylin, Liz Taylor and Elvis--but he did a lot of other things in his art as well. Warhol's 'factory' was open to other creative people. A whole community grew out of his activities. Hockney's world seems like a soap opera of people in a self-indulgent little coterie/clique. Yes there is a swimming pool scene of nude young men with camera angles looking up their butts, and a glamorized but documentary-style shot of two guys having sex. Maybe that was 'cutting edge' for film in the 1970s--but now--who cares? And Warhol's many films about gays and transvestites that same period in New York were a lot more honest, and a lot more weird, and curiously, had a lot more vitality.

So--Hockney is not a very interesting or appealing person on film--just annoying, or out of his depth maybe. And the world has moved way past the gay "statement" films of 50 years ago.

Ive saved this film to my watchlist for a long time, saving it for when i can appreciate watching it rather than background noise.

I rather liked the film. You have to know Hockney and his works to understand it. Yes it dragged in parts but i didnt mibd that, its artistic not a full on gangster shoot out.

It was nice seeing full male nudity on screen as this is very rare even these days, it makes a change to see instead of naked women all the time.

Great to see ossie and Celia in the film..sadly ossie passed away in the 90s and this is a rare bit of footage of him.

The premise of the film is simple enough, but done in hockneys own artistic way. I liked it as much as his art.

I wanted to like this movie but I ended up fast forwarding through a lot of it.

Hockney's paintings have always fascinated me. The quality of space and light and the combination of isolation and transcendence that fills the mysterious spaces in his paintings remind of Hopper--you know, the guy who painted that famous picture of the customers in the all-night diner--The Nighthawks.

When the camera is panning Hockney's fascinating and enigmatic canvases, the film works, because his canvases are so good. In those few moments when Hockney discusses his life or his work, the film works. I especially liked the brief scene where a gallery owner (Kasmin) is trying to convince Hockney to paint faster. It is reminiscent of that scene in Amadeus when the emperor (I think) complains to Mozart that there are "too many notes" in his music.

The film also works when it shows Hockney at work.

But that's about it. These moments, while they linger in the mind, only make up a small part of the film.

The rest of it *seems* to be about Hockney's breakup with his lover. However, there is virtually no exposition. Let me repeat. There is virtually no exposition. The director appears to suppose, wrongly so, that the audience will somehow already know or easily intuit the issues that separated Hockney and Schlessinger(?). Or maybe he assumes that they are just too obvious and commonly understood to bear repetition.

As for the lover, you *see* a great deal of him, but he mostly pouts and sulks and prances about. The film does not reveal whatever it was that drew Hockney to him or held them together or what drove them apart.

You hear virtually nothing about what these men were to each other, why they loved each other, why their relationship failed----nothing.

The problem, of course, is that the film and the bulk of the screen time is supposedly devoted to the failure of Hockney's relationship.

Nor do other people in the film have anything of an insightful or even informative nature to say about the relationship or anything else for that matter. They seem like a surprisingly bored and boring bunch of people.

One of the issues 'dealt with' in the film is whether or not Hockney will leave London for the US and not return. If this film accurately portrays Hockney's life in London, then it is blindingly obvious why he would want to leave London.

Oh, and there's a lot of walking around and, I think, some completely gratuitous frontal nudity, and some pretty boys splashing around naked in a pool. But what's the big deal about that? That sort of footage is widely available.

And the blooming' film goes on for two hours.

So I think this film richly deserves its very low rating. Watch something else.