More than a few minutes into this film, I thought " this must be a documentary" and it might have helped to know that beforehand. After watching it and fast forwarding through at least 1/3 of it, I now say it would have made no difference.
Perhaps knowing about David Hockney or the fact that the movie is 33 years old has something to do with it, but it made very little sense to me.
I have no idea why the film bothered with years and places (Geneva, 1972) it made absolutely not one iota of difference. Why did we watch a female fashion show for 15 minutes? OK, 10 but all of that. Why? Why was the naked swimmer pressed up to the "window" while two others ate dinner, obvlious? Sometimes I think just because the "critics" or "art aficionadoes" can't understand art or film, they think it is "deep". That is what I think of David Hockney (the art was mostly one dimensional like grade school children's) and the same for this film.
Perhaps knowing about David Hockney or the fact that the movie is 33 years old has something to do with it, but it made very little sense to me.
I have no idea why the film bothered with years and places (Geneva, 1972) it made absolutely not one iota of difference. Why did we watch a female fashion show for 15 minutes? OK, 10 but all of that. Why? Why was the naked swimmer pressed up to the "window" while two others ate dinner, obvlious? Sometimes I think just because the "critics" or "art aficionadoes" can't understand art or film, they think it is "deep". That is what I think of David Hockney (the art was mostly one dimensional like grade school children's) and the same for this film.