Agrega una trama en tu idiomaSemi-fictionalized documentary biopic of British artist David Hockney. After a difficult break-up, Hockney is left unable to paint, much to the concern of his friends. Titled after Hockney's... Leer todoSemi-fictionalized documentary biopic of British artist David Hockney. After a difficult break-up, Hockney is left unable to paint, much to the concern of his friends. Titled after Hockney's pop-art painting 'A Bigger Splash'.Semi-fictionalized documentary biopic of British artist David Hockney. After a difficult break-up, Hockney is left unable to paint, much to the concern of his friends. Titled after Hockney's pop-art painting 'A Bigger Splash'.
- Dirección
- Guionistas
- Elenco
- Premios
- 1 premio ganado y 1 nominación en total
Edward Kalinski
- Self
- (as Eddie Kalinski)
- Dirección
- Guionistas
- Todo el elenco y el equipo
- Producción, taquilla y más en IMDbPro
Opiniones destacadas
More than a few minutes into this film, I thought " this must be a documentary" and it might have helped to know that beforehand. After watching it and fast forwarding through at least 1/3 of it, I now say it would have made no difference.
Perhaps knowing about David Hockney or the fact that the movie is 33 years old has something to do with it, but it made very little sense to me.
I have no idea why the film bothered with years and places (Geneva, 1972) it made absolutely not one iota of difference. Why did we watch a female fashion show for 15 minutes? OK, 10 but all of that. Why? Why was the naked swimmer pressed up to the "window" while two others ate dinner, obvlious? Sometimes I think just because the "critics" or "art aficionadoes" can't understand art or film, they think it is "deep". That is what I think of David Hockney (the art was mostly one dimensional like grade school children's) and the same for this film.
Perhaps knowing about David Hockney or the fact that the movie is 33 years old has something to do with it, but it made very little sense to me.
I have no idea why the film bothered with years and places (Geneva, 1972) it made absolutely not one iota of difference. Why did we watch a female fashion show for 15 minutes? OK, 10 but all of that. Why? Why was the naked swimmer pressed up to the "window" while two others ate dinner, obvlious? Sometimes I think just because the "critics" or "art aficionadoes" can't understand art or film, they think it is "deep". That is what I think of David Hockney (the art was mostly one dimensional like grade school children's) and the same for this film.
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 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.
Artist David Hockney is such a lively colorful figure that one might expect a film about his life and art to be a bubbly romp. But Jack Hazan takes quite a different route. He followed Hockney and his circle of friends around for quite a considerable amount of time -- shooting in 35mm, rather than 16mm as was popular for documentary films at this time. Moreover, rather than aim for a "cinema verite" styled "truth," Hazan deals in fantasy and melodrama. The action covers a period in which Hockney and his lover and model, Peter Schlesinger, are breaking up. Hockney is having what appears to be a somewhat difficult time finishing a large canvas for which Schlesinger was the subject, and Hazan suggests that the end of the relationship played a part in this difficulty. But he only suggests. He doesn't offer a set conclusion. What he does do is utilize film as means of entering Hockney's visual world. Many of his close friends and associates, including Ozzie Clark, Celia Birtwell, Patrick Procktor and Henry Geldzahler make appearances conversing with Hockney -- whose verbal wit is everywhere apparent. Most daring of all is scene in which Schlesinger and another young man make love.
When he finally saw the results Hockney was both surprised and slightly appalled. "Two hours of weeping music," he called it. No surprise as "A Bigger Splash" gets a lot closer to Hockney's inner and outer life than he probably imagined it would.
A very important film for art lovers, and a very important piece of gay cinema.
When he finally saw the results Hockney was both surprised and slightly appalled. "Two hours of weeping music," he called it. No surprise as "A Bigger Splash" gets a lot closer to Hockney's inner and outer life than he probably imagined it would.
A very important film for art lovers, and a very important piece of gay cinema.
Jack Hazan's quasi-documentary A BIGGER SPLASH is an unfocused examination about the creative life of David Hockney and supposedly about the effect of his past relationship with his pupil Peter Schlesinger (an artist, sculptor, and photographer who Hockney not only enjoyed as a lover but as a disciple). The précis appears to be that Hockney, in the throes of disappointment about the dissolution of his affair with Peter, decides to move to California where he has already been established as a painter of California people and places.
In London we meet his friends - Celia Birtwell, the elegantly stylishly beautiful model Hockney used repeatedly, dress designer Ossie Clark, confidant Mo McDermott, and patron Henry Geldzahler - each of whom Hockney painted and drew. We watch as Hockney visits the galleries and admires works of his friends, how he paints in his studio, how he relates to his gallerists (like Paul Kasmin), and how he perceives men and other artists.
Peter Schlesinger figures prominently in the film with many episodes of Peter's swimming in the pools of the people Hockney would eventually immortalize. He is a fine presence and carries his silent role well - almost appearing as a ghost muse that keeps Hockney focused on his now infamous swimming pool paintings.
The magic of this film, for those to whom Hockney is a well known and important painter, is the visual recreation of the paintings that have made him so famous: we are allowed to see Celia and her husband with white cat in context with the canvas, the view of Peter staring into the pool at an under water swimmer, the woman and her animal heads who appears in another of Hockney's famous paintings at poolside, etc. This kind of cinematic background is valuable now and will prove invaluable to the archives of David Hockney. For those people this is a must-see film, despite its meandering technique and choppy editing. For others, it may seem too self-indulgent.
In London we meet his friends - Celia Birtwell, the elegantly stylishly beautiful model Hockney used repeatedly, dress designer Ossie Clark, confidant Mo McDermott, and patron Henry Geldzahler - each of whom Hockney painted and drew. We watch as Hockney visits the galleries and admires works of his friends, how he paints in his studio, how he relates to his gallerists (like Paul Kasmin), and how he perceives men and other artists.
Peter Schlesinger figures prominently in the film with many episodes of Peter's swimming in the pools of the people Hockney would eventually immortalize. He is a fine presence and carries his silent role well - almost appearing as a ghost muse that keeps Hockney focused on his now infamous swimming pool paintings.
The magic of this film, for those to whom Hockney is a well known and important painter, is the visual recreation of the paintings that have made him so famous: we are allowed to see Celia and her husband with white cat in context with the canvas, the view of Peter staring into the pool at an under water swimmer, the woman and her animal heads who appears in another of Hockney's famous paintings at poolside, etc. This kind of cinematic background is valuable now and will prove invaluable to the archives of David Hockney. For those people this is a must-see film, despite its meandering technique and choppy editing. For others, it may seem too self-indulgent.
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.
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.
¿Sabías que…?
- ConexionesFeatured in Who Gets to Call It Art? (2006)
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
- How long is A Bigger Splash?Con tecnología de Alexa
Detalles
Taquilla
- Presupuesto
- GBP 20,000 (estimado)
- Total en EE. UU. y Canadá
- USD 95,826
- Fin de semana de estreno en EE. UU. y Canadá
- USD 18,000
- 23 jun 2019
- Total a nivel mundial
- USD 130,327
- Tiempo de ejecución1 hora 46 minutos
- Mezcla de sonido
- Relación de aspecto
- 1.66 : 1
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta
Principales brechas de datos
By what name was A Bigger Splash (1973) officially released in India in English?
Responda