User reviews

Jarman's masterpiece was always going to attract a lazy criticism from the mainstream mindset: pretentious, trendy, self-indulgent etc.

But to dismiss it out of hand as no better than a first year art student's project is to fail to appreciate the rich narrative.

The coldness of the blue focusses the mind on what Jarman has to tell us, perhaps far better than any other colour would've done. We cannot help but listen, and take in one very gifted man's grim yet positive perspective on gay life, and a slow death through AIDS.

Brian Eno's musical score is stark and haunting, with passages of female vocal harmony that are strongly influenced by contempory sacred music from Eastern Europe.

Watch this film with an open mind: Force yourself to keep staring into the blue yonder, and it will empower you with a new level of vision and perspective.

Not sure I could have made much of it without knowing at least a little backstory, and even then, it was somewhat hard to get a handle on at times. It is just 75 minutes of a blue screen, but the audio is surprisingly engaging, and there is some narrative to be found within it.

There's a good deal of spoken word, often poetic, and sometimes quite moving. Some of the snippets of music used here are also fantastic- not sure if they were sampled and if so where from, but they added a lot.

Despite the short length, had put off watching this for a while because I wasn't sure I was ever in the right mood for something this different and challenging. Even tonight, it wasn't the perfect movie for this very day, but at least now I'll know what to expect, and can maybe return to it on a day when I'm feeling like I could connect to it more.

But for the parts that did get to me, and the fact that it was an experiment that was mostly pulled off very well, a good deal of credit must be given.

Derek Jarman's final work is perhaps his most unusual. The visuals are nothing but a solid screen of bright blue. The soundtrack is a montage of sound effects, voice overs, and music. The dialogue is Derek Jarman's coming to terms with himself, and his terminal illness.

Some will find the whole affair a pretentious bore. Others will find it a moving farewell from a groundbreaking British film-maker who was completely blind by the time the film was completed. He broke the rules, especially with this film, and it's probably how he wanted to be remembered.

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?

There is nothing I can write here that hasn't been written before about this film. A masterpiece. A seemingly 'dull' film. A brave and courageous final farewell from a great man.

Art for Arts Sake? Ars Gratia Artis? No. Absolutely not. This is a film made by a dying man while practically on his deathbed. His sight robbed of him, what more could an experimental film-maker do?

A powerful script telling of his life ('I'm sitting in a cafe....'), the things around him (the cyclist who nearly knocks him over to then hurl abuse at him), his lifestyle (I am a cock sucking straight acting lesbian man, I am a not-gay).

Jarman's Voice Over is the most provocative text about one's own death I know of. Of course, he knew he was dying. His doctors told him he was dying. He goes into graphic details of his medications, his symptoms, his pains. Never again can a film maker describe their own death in such a way, Jarman has done it and done it brilliantly.

The Blueness also plays a part. After a few minutes I felt angry, annoyed at having to stare at a screen of blue. I tried looking at the floor, closing my eyes, anything to avoid the blue. But I kept looking back.

A Masterpiece. Simple as that.

An interesting and intimate avant garde account of Derek Jarman's life. Together with his closest collaborators, they'll tell the story of blue, a story of a man and a story of what he could have been. It was primarily inspired of the last color Jarman was able to see by this time. HIV has pretty much left him blind and a former shell of himself.

I only rated it as three out of five since I think while affecting it is not something I believe raises the bar of filmmaking. It will be forever memorialized for being one of cinema's greatest memento mori AND a monument of 90's HIV-LGBTQ+ Storytelling. It will be admired in circles AND I respect that. BUT I view films against others in terms of how it will affect the medium. I think its brute honesty is admirable, its concept unique BUT overall, it is just that A Statement.

Still Recommended.

Blue had the prestige to be the first film to be shown on television and broadcast on radio at the same time, something not likely to be challenged for a long time. Naturally this doesn't make it a good movie, and if you think the films blue screen is a gimmick then you'll probably feel the same about this, however, you'd be wrong.

Pretentious? Well, i think an hour and a half of blue screen by anyone who wasn't going blind at the time would be pretentious, with Blue he was operating within his capabilities, and at the same time giving the viewer an appreciation of what it is to be blind. You think an hour and a half of this is irritating, well I presume Jarman thought that too. Watching the blue screen isn't meant to be fun, but it certainly helps draw attention to what is being said, which is the most important part of all. There was no blue screen when aired on the radio, so you could even argue its superficiality on that point. Once you get over the fact that Jarman has robbed you of anything visual, then can you truly appreciate a very honest piece of work by a talented man

Anyone who's been to the Tate in London or MOMA in New York finds themselves facing an interesting dilemma: am I being ignorant or is this some joke I'm not getting? Do I not understand the importance of having a canvas all one color, or is someone getting paid for a much easier job than I have? Should I publicly deride this load of nonsense, or get rid of my briefcase, buy some square black glasses, and get short spiky hair? And so it is with this glorious practical joke of a movie that has Mr Jarman laughing to the bank, Tilda Swinton getting so surreal that at some point her body is going to evaporate from the implausibility of her entire career, and once more goodbye to another ten dollars wasted on a popcorn-less experience at some new weird Village cinema.

I'd really be interested to hear if anyone disagrees at me, but first please qualify your comments with a disclaimer guaranteeing that you've not taken Class A drugs recently, and don't have said square glasses and spiky hair. Gentlemen, the floor is yours.

Losing his eyesight, Derek Jarman made this remarkable short

feature in which his diaristic reminiscences, and commentary on

his current degeneration from AIDS symptoms, are set against a

placid musical score and a cool, empty blue background.

An obviously simple idea, but what an amazingly rich one: Jarman

has created the closest movie experience to a director talking to

the inside of your head. The concomitant feelings of control-losing

peace and terrifying hallucination (one obviously starts to project

images into the blue blankness) are...well, so obviously apt, aren't

they? For a film about spirit, and about the interiorness of

everyone's reactions, BLUE is remarkably controlled in its effects.

It provides an experience adult viewers haven't had much since

childhood--of letting go and getting lost.

How do u talk about this film. the only way is 2 go against the film maker and get the cd, or if you have the movie, close your eyes and be one with life.

Derek jarman is a god 2 me, but listen 2 blue, u will fall in love with the world.

at the 1994 Oscars, i waited when they showed the people who we lost, jarman was not there. unforgivable. but then chicago is a better movie than gangs of new york.

I love the IMDb, but who has listened 2 blue ?

Í place a delphinia, blue, upon ur grave.

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.

People still don't believe me when I tell them there's a feature length film made up entirely of a plain blue screen. A commentary about AIDS and loss, however real and moving, cannot possibly compensate for such a pretentious gimmick. In fact, whatever is being said is obscured, quite literally, as the poor viewer's boredom and frustration sets in.

As the title implies, during the whole film the screen is simply the color blue - with voice-overs. Exceedingly irritating and artificial idea.

The fact that this "BLUE" is the last film which Derek Jarman made is all about his life, I think. Bottomless anger and sorrow towards an absurdity in this world, an outpouring desire, lost affection. He faced these kind of reality entire his life but kept expressing the strength of living creatures through the films.

We can say his authentic pictures are pronoun of Derek Jarman, and he reached the far north of it when he made this film. Later years, he gradually lost his eyesights which captured the world sharply, however, he put this own vision into the medium called "film,"even though he was in such hard time. Why not can say this "BLUE" is one of the most precious film in the world? This film is like a blue flame. It's quiet but strong. "BLUE" is a gift from Derek Jarman, and we really have to appreciate it because we could touch such fragile but powerful beauty.

I'd have to agree with some of the other comments and say what a bad idea this was. Tedious to the extreme. For a start, cinema should be full of visuals however good or bad, that's the whole point of a visual/audiable medium. It just seems like a self indulgent piece of art. (Though I suppose all films/art is just that) I genuinely thinkthis would make an interesting radio play. But as a cinematic experience it is VERY poor. Watching a blue screen continually for 2 hours would make anyone shuffle in their seat. Can't imagine what the edit must have been like!!! Even the voice over seems a strained and boring though, like someone reading from a book for the first time. A lack of passion almost for the material.

For radio 6 out of 10. For Film 3... and that's at a push.

Derek Jarman was a British film maker who's films were an acquired taste for some,and reason to delight for others. He started out as an painter, and got into film from being a set designer for such films as Ken Russell's 'The Devils'. He started out making simple (but never simple minded) 8mm films,moving eventually to 35mm features. Along the way, he experimented,resulting in films such as 'The Garden'. In 'Blue' (a.k.a.Derek Jarman's Blue),he was nearly blind,as a result of AIDS, and wanted to film his final testament. The result is nearly 80 minutes of what appears to be blue light struck leader (generally used at the beginning of each reel of film,so as not to allow direct light on screen),augmented with spoken text,some of which by some of Jarman's favourite actors (Tilda Swinton),with various realms of music (classical,ambient,etc.). As with other experimental/expanded cinema, this film will leave some cold,and delight others. Not rated by the MPAA,but contains some naughty language

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.

" Blue . It`s a colour so cruel " sang The Fine Young Cannibals . BLUE by Derek Jarman can`t be described as being cruel in anyway , but that`s probably the kindest thing I can say about this movie , I can find a thousand adjectives none of them complimentary to describe BLUE . The idea of art for arts sake sickens me and the idea of watching a " movie " composed of a blue background with a narrator speaking from everything from Bosnian refugees to death doesn`t appeal to me even if it does contain ambient muzak and sound effects . I do confess that I watched BLUE when it recieved its TV premiere on channel 4 a few years ago but that was only down to the publicity surrounding it and you have to ask if it was made by a mainstream director who was dying from lung cancer would it have been given the same hype ?

Derek Jarman's "Blue" is amazing. the blue screen amplifies the sad and vivid sound-track. at times fast, at times slow. Jarman's dark sense of humor peaks out every now and then. very hard to watch the whole movie with out a break. a great sound-track for a long drive in the car.