Although I am a fan of surreal movies, and enjoyed many of the notorious classics of the same era, I do believe this one is really a gem only 'pour les connaisseurs'. Surrealism as a trend of the time appealed to many film producers, especially European ones. And at that time every aspect or manifestation of the surreal and abstract was highly appreciated and popular. But, after this "fashion' faded away, not much of it remained as popular and as highly appreciated.
I think this is the case with Blood of a Poet. I must confess, just as some of other viewers commenting below, that I did not really understand where this film was going or what was it trying to communicate. The plot (the suffering of an artist in the process of creations) seems to me too easy for such a revered director and movie. I can understand this is an artistic movie, but not more than a collection of artistic images. My honest opinion is that this film is overrated, due to it's popularity among surrealism fans in it's time. After the dadaist era has past, this was no longer a monumental, milestone movie, worthy of classic status. One can consider it pure artistic manifestation in accordance with the period trends.
Other than that, if all the images, allegories, fantasies and artistic endeavors appeal to the viewer, or if they can transmit a certain feeling, I think it will achieve it's purpose. Cocteau's only intention I believe was to be on the surrealistic market and to be recognized as a surreal creative artist in it's way. The result it's not bad at all, but not as good as to be considered a classic. Anyone who's not a fan, or familiar with surrealism, should first see other titles or they might be in for a confusing surprise.
I think this is the case with Blood of a Poet. I must confess, just as some of other viewers commenting below, that I did not really understand where this film was going or what was it trying to communicate. The plot (the suffering of an artist in the process of creations) seems to me too easy for such a revered director and movie. I can understand this is an artistic movie, but not more than a collection of artistic images. My honest opinion is that this film is overrated, due to it's popularity among surrealism fans in it's time. After the dadaist era has past, this was no longer a monumental, milestone movie, worthy of classic status. One can consider it pure artistic manifestation in accordance with the period trends.
Other than that, if all the images, allegories, fantasies and artistic endeavors appeal to the viewer, or if they can transmit a certain feeling, I think it will achieve it's purpose. Cocteau's only intention I believe was to be on the surrealistic market and to be recognized as a surreal creative artist in it's way. The result it's not bad at all, but not as good as to be considered a classic. Anyone who's not a fan, or familiar with surrealism, should first see other titles or they might be in for a confusing surprise.