The films that we have been doing in this unit seem to fit fairly generally into groups. The city symphonies, Vertov, Ruttman et al are one; Rose Hobart and Sang D’un Poete seem to fit into another. My reactions to Cocteau’s film, however, were not at all the same as to Cornell’s.
In his essay about the film for Criterion, Cocteau claimed that:
The Blood of a Poet draws nothing from either dreams or symbols. As far as the former are concerned, it initiates their mechanism, and by letting the mind relax, as in sleep, it lets memories entwine, move and express themselves freely. As for the latter, it rejects them, and substitutes acts, or allegories of these acts, that the spectator can make symbols of if he wishes.
I think this is fundamental to its greater appeal. Cocteau’s film is more intelligent. Not necessarily because Cocteau was the better artist, but almost by necessity, because it is difficult to be intelligent if you are avoiding the presence of a conscious mind. Maybe that’s being blithe about it, but maybe not.
I think Cocteau’s characterisation of the film very accurate. It leads you through itself as in a dream, and yet it has purpose and rhythm to it. His other statement is harder to interpret- he offers ‘acts, or allegories of these acts, that the spectator can make symbols of if he wishes’? I think by this he refers to established cultural symbols; which is to say, he creates his own images and acts that may be read as symbols by his audience, but he does not utilise images like crosses and roses that can be read as ‘symbols’ in themselves. If that is the case, then I am confused.
The film is situated quite clearly with the Orphic myth. The poet with the lyre, the passing through mirrors into a sort of underworld, the title of the film itself all refer to it. But surely including an image like the poet with a lyre, or the lyre itself, contradicts the claim that the film ‘draws nothing from either dreams or symbols’. To me, the film reads as an expression of Cocteau’s subconscious, as evidenced by the numerous references to his childhood experiences and the presence of a ‘poet’ or artist as the subject. This expression is then consciously filtered through artistic construction; the use of the Orphic myth, the voice over, references to heraldry, and the poetry of images itself such as the snow/marble.
That conclusion would mean that the film draws much from symbols and dreams. Perhaps this is more of a definitional issue; I may mean something completely different by both of those terms. Perhaps my interpretation is not Cocteau’s. In either case, Blood of a Poet has something that Rose Hobart does not have. It is a beautiful film. Technically innovative, captivating and brilliant.
So, to continue with my thoroughly unprofessional value judgments, four stars. Ish. I wouldn’t care if Blood of Poet did not interest me intellectually at all, I would value it for its imagery.
