Documentario biografico semi-romanzato dell'artista britannico David Hockney che dopo una difficile rottura non riesce a dipingere, con grande preoccupazione dei suoi amici. Intitolato dopo ... Leggi tuttoDocumentario biografico semi-romanzato dell'artista britannico David Hockney che dopo una difficile rottura non riesce a dipingere, con grande preoccupazione dei suoi amici. Intitolato dopo il dipinto pop-art di Hockney.Documentario biografico semi-romanzato dell'artista britannico David Hockney che dopo una difficile rottura non riesce a dipingere, con grande preoccupazione dei suoi amici. Intitolato dopo il dipinto pop-art di Hockney.
- Premi
- 1 vittoria e 1 candidatura in totale
Edward Kalinski
- Self
- (as Eddie Kalinski)
Recensioni in evidenza
This is an odd quasi-documentary ostensibly about Hockney's breakup with his protégé and lover (Peter Schlesinger) and, to some extent, its effect on his painting and on his relationships with his friends and colleagues.
Very unfortunately the result is a mish-mash: some glimpses into what passes for access into the worlds of art and fashion (one particularly long fashion show scene is almost painful to watch); musings on the relative merits of London, France, Italy, New York and California (early-70s New York comes off as truly wretched); contextless vignettes of Hockney's friends and colleagues, who could not possibly be as dull as they are presented here; some actually interesting looks at Hockney's techniques, including "joiner" collages he used to construct elements of his paintings; and all this punctuated with what is supposed to be an examination of the breakup between Hockney and his younger boyfriend. A good bit of gay sex and nudity are thrown in to spice things, and while it was assuredly arresting in 1973, very little of it feels very sensual, and certainly not erotic. Their relationship is left entirely unexamined, so at best one might conclude that Peter is more self-absorbed even than Hockney or that he simply prefers the company of men more his age. Ho-hum.
This might have been a lot more interesting at 45 minutes: you might not notice how inconsequential it all seems.
Very unfortunately the result is a mish-mash: some glimpses into what passes for access into the worlds of art and fashion (one particularly long fashion show scene is almost painful to watch); musings on the relative merits of London, France, Italy, New York and California (early-70s New York comes off as truly wretched); contextless vignettes of Hockney's friends and colleagues, who could not possibly be as dull as they are presented here; some actually interesting looks at Hockney's techniques, including "joiner" collages he used to construct elements of his paintings; and all this punctuated with what is supposed to be an examination of the breakup between Hockney and his younger boyfriend. A good bit of gay sex and nudity are thrown in to spice things, and while it was assuredly arresting in 1973, very little of it feels very sensual, and certainly not erotic. Their relationship is left entirely unexamined, so at best one might conclude that Peter is more self-absorbed even than Hockney or that he simply prefers the company of men more his age. Ho-hum.
This might have been a lot more interesting at 45 minutes: you might not notice how inconsequential it all seems.
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.
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.
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.
This film is a snapshot of Hockney's life in London in the early 70s.
It's often unintentionally funny. The talk is mostly so boring, but that's often the case as artists express themselves through images, not words. They're rarely fascinating to listen to. Read or listen to any Hockney interview today and it's just as unimpressive.
I guess the homosexual love making and the male nudity was quite avant-garde in its day and of course naked young men hanging around swimming pools in LA is what was on Hockney's mind and canvases back then.
I enjoyed the snapshot of the Portobello Road area of London at that time and the New York locations.
The dialogue is unintentionally hilarious....sort of: 'Are you going to New York, David?' 'I might go, I prefer L.A.'
'Why don't you invite,Celia (Birtwell)? to go to New York, David?' 'I might, but she doesn't like it there, she prefers stylish people. She likes nice clothes. I don't particularly notice them.'
& again, later... 'Will you stay in New York, David?' 'I might, but I don't think I will. I prefer L.A.'
But the film does capture what it sets out to capture. David Hockney's life and work and personality (if that's not too strong a word), circa 1972.
The fast forward button is definitely your friend during the particularly long and draggier sections.
It's often unintentionally funny. The talk is mostly so boring, but that's often the case as artists express themselves through images, not words. They're rarely fascinating to listen to. Read or listen to any Hockney interview today and it's just as unimpressive.
I guess the homosexual love making and the male nudity was quite avant-garde in its day and of course naked young men hanging around swimming pools in LA is what was on Hockney's mind and canvases back then.
I enjoyed the snapshot of the Portobello Road area of London at that time and the New York locations.
The dialogue is unintentionally hilarious....sort of: 'Are you going to New York, David?' 'I might go, I prefer L.A.'
'Why don't you invite,Celia (Birtwell)? to go to New York, David?' 'I might, but she doesn't like it there, she prefers stylish people. She likes nice clothes. I don't particularly notice them.'
& again, later... 'Will you stay in New York, David?' 'I might, but I don't think I will. I prefer L.A.'
But the film does capture what it sets out to capture. David Hockney's life and work and personality (if that's not too strong a word), circa 1972.
The fast forward button is definitely your friend during the particularly long and draggier sections.
Lo sapevi?
- ConnessioniFeatured in Who Gets to Call It Art? (2006)
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
- How long is A Bigger Splash?Powered by Alexa
Dettagli
Botteghino
- Budget
- 20.000 £ (previsto)
- Lordo Stati Uniti e Canada
- 95.826 USD
- Fine settimana di apertura Stati Uniti e Canada
- 18.000 USD
- 23 giu 2019
- Lordo in tutto il mondo
- 130.327 USD
- Tempo di esecuzione
- 1h 46min(106 min)
- Mix di suoni
- Proporzioni
- 1.66 : 1
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti