i noticed a comment said that the film was "bad". because they couldn't see the meaning behind it. Perhaps they didn't see the true meaning of subversive cinema? Andy Warhol films always challenge the viewer, and of course they can be viewed in different ways.
didn't Robbe-Ggrillet say: "Around us, defying the noisy pack of our animistic or protective adjectives, things are there... any meaning we impose om them reduces them to the role of tools. Let them lose their pseudo-mystery, their suspect interiority, the 'romantic' heart of things." the film "Blowjob" is daring in its subject matter and its technique. as we study the face, mesmerised, we feel the pain of passion, the on -off tease of lust, the quickening tempo, the orgasm, the sad somehow empty afterglow. the camera does not move. cant you see that the act reflected, exists for itself; there is no meaning.
didn't Robbe-Ggrillet say: "Around us, defying the noisy pack of our animistic or protective adjectives, things are there... any meaning we impose om them reduces them to the role of tools. Let them lose their pseudo-mystery, their suspect interiority, the 'romantic' heart of things." the film "Blowjob" is daring in its subject matter and its technique. as we study the face, mesmerised, we feel the pain of passion, the on -off tease of lust, the quickening tempo, the orgasm, the sad somehow empty afterglow. the camera does not move. cant you see that the act reflected, exists for itself; there is no meaning.