Blue. Hmmm. Blue, in case you aren't aware by now is a film with no visuals whatsoever, it is simply a blue screen.
It amuses me no end that reviewers are stating that blue was a better colour to choose over others. As if it's really clever to use the colour blue as opposed to red, or green, or anything. What on earth are they talking about? It's a blank screen. And besides, how do they know blue is better? Have they sat for 79 minutes in front of screens all the colours of the rainbow and afterwards thought "you know, watching a yellow screen just isn't as satisfying as watching a blue one, I'm giving this film a 10"
I noticed a review on IMDb that has stated this film does not even need visuals. What is a film without visuals I ask you? It's a radio play, surely. The fact that this is released as a film but is nothing but a blue screen is just a joke on the audience. However, as with all 'art' there are always people who will take it really seriously and credit such things as innovative, original, new and refreshing.
Film is a visual medium. To stare at a blank screen for 79 minutes while listening to narration is entirely pointless.
Your eyes need visuals and if nothing is happening in front of them they naturally look somewhere else. To have to force yourself to stare at a blue screen is insanity.
Unfortunately I am unable to comprehend why other reviewers state the blue screen is to be appreciated. I would be willing to bet that had an unknown film maker done such a thing it would not get the respect it is getting. Likewise I do not believe said reviewers would stare at a blue wall and wax lyrical about how stunning it is, but should Derek Jarman (were he still alive) come and frame the wall I can imagine they would never be able to stop talking about it.
And that is where this film would appear to get its audience - people who would never normally appreciate such things until a respected artist comes along and tells them how wonderful it is.
It amuses me no end that reviewers are stating that blue was a better colour to choose over others. As if it's really clever to use the colour blue as opposed to red, or green, or anything. What on earth are they talking about? It's a blank screen. And besides, how do they know blue is better? Have they sat for 79 minutes in front of screens all the colours of the rainbow and afterwards thought "you know, watching a yellow screen just isn't as satisfying as watching a blue one, I'm giving this film a 10"
I noticed a review on IMDb that has stated this film does not even need visuals. What is a film without visuals I ask you? It's a radio play, surely. The fact that this is released as a film but is nothing but a blue screen is just a joke on the audience. However, as with all 'art' there are always people who will take it really seriously and credit such things as innovative, original, new and refreshing.
Film is a visual medium. To stare at a blank screen for 79 minutes while listening to narration is entirely pointless.
Your eyes need visuals and if nothing is happening in front of them they naturally look somewhere else. To have to force yourself to stare at a blue screen is insanity.
Unfortunately I am unable to comprehend why other reviewers state the blue screen is to be appreciated. I would be willing to bet that had an unknown film maker done such a thing it would not get the respect it is getting. Likewise I do not believe said reviewers would stare at a blue wall and wax lyrical about how stunning it is, but should Derek Jarman (were he still alive) come and frame the wall I can imagine they would never be able to stop talking about it.
And that is where this film would appear to get its audience - people who would never normally appreciate such things until a respected artist comes along and tells them how wonderful it is.