Semi-fictionalized documentary biopic of British artist David Hockney. After a difficult break-up, Hockney is left unable to paint, much to the concern of his friends. Titled after Hockney's... Read allSemi-fictionalized documentary biopic of British artist David Hockney. After a difficult break-up, Hockney is left unable to paint, much to the concern of his friends. Titled after Hockney's pop-art painting 'A Bigger Splash'.Semi-fictionalized documentary biopic of British artist David Hockney. After a difficult break-up, Hockney is left unable to paint, much to the concern of his friends. Titled after Hockney's pop-art painting 'A Bigger Splash'.
- Awards
- 1 win & 1 nomination total
Edward Kalinski
- Self
- (as Eddie Kalinski)
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
This is an odd quasi-documentary ostensibly about Hockney's breakup with his protégé and lover (Peter Schlesinger) and, to some extent, its effect on his painting and on his relationships with his friends and colleagues.
Very unfortunately the result is a mish-mash: some glimpses into what passes for access into the worlds of art and fashion (one particularly long fashion show scene is almost painful to watch); musings on the relative merits of London, France, Italy, New York and California (early-70s New York comes off as truly wretched); contextless vignettes of Hockney's friends and colleagues, who could not possibly be as dull as they are presented here; some actually interesting looks at Hockney's techniques, including "joiner" collages he used to construct elements of his paintings; and all this punctuated with what is supposed to be an examination of the breakup between Hockney and his younger boyfriend. A good bit of gay sex and nudity are thrown in to spice things, and while it was assuredly arresting in 1973, very little of it feels very sensual, and certainly not erotic. Their relationship is left entirely unexamined, so at best one might conclude that Peter is more self-absorbed even than Hockney or that he simply prefers the company of men more his age. Ho-hum.
This might have been a lot more interesting at 45 minutes: you might not notice how inconsequential it all seems.
Very unfortunately the result is a mish-mash: some glimpses into what passes for access into the worlds of art and fashion (one particularly long fashion show scene is almost painful to watch); musings on the relative merits of London, France, Italy, New York and California (early-70s New York comes off as truly wretched); contextless vignettes of Hockney's friends and colleagues, who could not possibly be as dull as they are presented here; some actually interesting looks at Hockney's techniques, including "joiner" collages he used to construct elements of his paintings; and all this punctuated with what is supposed to be an examination of the breakup between Hockney and his younger boyfriend. A good bit of gay sex and nudity are thrown in to spice things, and while it was assuredly arresting in 1973, very little of it feels very sensual, and certainly not erotic. Their relationship is left entirely unexamined, so at best one might conclude that Peter is more self-absorbed even than Hockney or that he simply prefers the company of men more his age. Ho-hum.
This might have been a lot more interesting at 45 minutes: you might not notice how inconsequential it all seems.
This film is a snapshot of Hockney's life in London in the early 70s.
It's often unintentionally funny. The talk is mostly so boring, but that's often the case as artists express themselves through images, not words. They're rarely fascinating to listen to. Read or listen to any Hockney interview today and it's just as unimpressive.
I guess the homosexual love making and the male nudity was quite avant-garde in its day and of course naked young men hanging around swimming pools in LA is what was on Hockney's mind and canvases back then.
I enjoyed the snapshot of the Portobello Road area of London at that time and the New York locations.
The dialogue is unintentionally hilarious....sort of: 'Are you going to New York, David?' 'I might go, I prefer L.A.'
'Why don't you invite,Celia (Birtwell)? to go to New York, David?' 'I might, but she doesn't like it there, she prefers stylish people. She likes nice clothes. I don't particularly notice them.'
& again, later... 'Will you stay in New York, David?' 'I might, but I don't think I will. I prefer L.A.'
But the film does capture what it sets out to capture. David Hockney's life and work and personality (if that's not too strong a word), circa 1972.
The fast forward button is definitely your friend during the particularly long and draggier sections.
It's often unintentionally funny. The talk is mostly so boring, but that's often the case as artists express themselves through images, not words. They're rarely fascinating to listen to. Read or listen to any Hockney interview today and it's just as unimpressive.
I guess the homosexual love making and the male nudity was quite avant-garde in its day and of course naked young men hanging around swimming pools in LA is what was on Hockney's mind and canvases back then.
I enjoyed the snapshot of the Portobello Road area of London at that time and the New York locations.
The dialogue is unintentionally hilarious....sort of: 'Are you going to New York, David?' 'I might go, I prefer L.A.'
'Why don't you invite,Celia (Birtwell)? to go to New York, David?' 'I might, but she doesn't like it there, she prefers stylish people. She likes nice clothes. I don't particularly notice them.'
& again, later... 'Will you stay in New York, David?' 'I might, but I don't think I will. I prefer L.A.'
But the film does capture what it sets out to capture. David Hockney's life and work and personality (if that's not too strong a word), circa 1972.
The fast forward button is definitely your friend during the particularly long and draggier sections.
Artist David Hockney is such a lively colorful figure that one might expect a film about his life and art to be a bubbly romp. But Jack Hazan takes quite a different route. He followed Hockney and his circle of friends around for quite a considerable amount of time -- shooting in 35mm, rather than 16mm as was popular for documentary films at this time. Moreover, rather than aim for a "cinema verite" styled "truth," Hazan deals in fantasy and melodrama. The action covers a period in which Hockney and his lover and model, Peter Schlesinger, are breaking up. Hockney is having what appears to be a somewhat difficult time finishing a large canvas for which Schlesinger was the subject, and Hazan suggests that the end of the relationship played a part in this difficulty. But he only suggests. He doesn't offer a set conclusion. What he does do is utilize film as means of entering Hockney's visual world. Many of his close friends and associates, including Ozzie Clark, Celia Birtwell, Patrick Procktor and Henry Geldzahler make appearances conversing with Hockney -- whose verbal wit is everywhere apparent. Most daring of all is scene in which Schlesinger and another young man make love.
When he finally saw the results Hockney was both surprised and slightly appalled. "Two hours of weeping music," he called it. No surprise as "A Bigger Splash" gets a lot closer to Hockney's inner and outer life than he probably imagined it would.
A very important film for art lovers, and a very important piece of gay cinema.
When he finally saw the results Hockney was both surprised and slightly appalled. "Two hours of weeping music," he called it. No surprise as "A Bigger Splash" gets a lot closer to Hockney's inner and outer life than he probably imagined it would.
A very important film for art lovers, and a very important piece of gay cinema.
Seems that IMdB reviewers either hate or appreciate this film. As for me, I savored particular portions of this somewhat disjointed, dreamlike take on the early 1970s when Hockney was already thriving, while revealing glimmers of increased fame in the following decades. The choice of classical music was quite interesting throughout, and included snippets of operas... the vibe felt a bit over wrought, but it actually worked. Over the years, I've come to find Hockney to be an insightful, gifted, and innovative artist. His outlook towards using new technological inventions is admirable, and he has educated others on old master techniques and tools.
The camera (whether still frame or cinematic) makes the wide majority of subjects self-conscious. Even when they try to "be on their best", the viewer can interpret this "cover up" according to their own filters. For me, one of the most effective scenes in this film was when the art dealer Kasmin was trying to persuade Hockney to speed up his output so that the lusty whims of art collectors could be satisfied. Hockey appears slightly bemused and his face teases while he endures his gallerist's guidance. This push-pull dilemma is an age old struggle whenever an artist engages others to commercially sell their work. The rhythms of a successful artist's life are no longer their own.
As enticing and lovely as the fashion show segment was, I found it extended and a bit deflated. There were segments of the main characters coming and going to Hockney's place or to Celia's flat which felt stale. For anyone interested in Hockney, his comrades, and gay life in London during the early 70s, I would recommend this movie. Be forewarned though, the pace of some scenes drag, and there are fawning long takes of several choice people which unfortunately decrease the potential for surprise.
The camera (whether still frame or cinematic) makes the wide majority of subjects self-conscious. Even when they try to "be on their best", the viewer can interpret this "cover up" according to their own filters. For me, one of the most effective scenes in this film was when the art dealer Kasmin was trying to persuade Hockney to speed up his output so that the lusty whims of art collectors could be satisfied. Hockey appears slightly bemused and his face teases while he endures his gallerist's guidance. This push-pull dilemma is an age old struggle whenever an artist engages others to commercially sell their work. The rhythms of a successful artist's life are no longer their own.
As enticing and lovely as the fashion show segment was, I found it extended and a bit deflated. There were segments of the main characters coming and going to Hockney's place or to Celia's flat which felt stale. For anyone interested in Hockney, his comrades, and gay life in London during the early 70s, I would recommend this movie. Be forewarned though, the pace of some scenes drag, and there are fawning long takes of several choice people which unfortunately decrease the potential for surprise.
Ive saved this film to my watchlist for a long time, saving it for when i can appreciate watching it rather than background noise.
I rather liked the film. You have to know Hockney and his works to understand it. Yes it dragged in parts but i didnt mibd that, its artistic not a full on gangster shoot out.
It was nice seeing full male nudity on screen as this is very rare even these days, it makes a change to see instead of naked women all the time.
Great to see ossie and Celia in the film..sadly ossie passed away in the 90s and this is a rare bit of footage of him.
The premise of the film is simple enough, but done in hockneys own artistic way. I liked it as much as his art.
I rather liked the film. You have to know Hockney and his works to understand it. Yes it dragged in parts but i didnt mibd that, its artistic not a full on gangster shoot out.
It was nice seeing full male nudity on screen as this is very rare even these days, it makes a change to see instead of naked women all the time.
Great to see ossie and Celia in the film..sadly ossie passed away in the 90s and this is a rare bit of footage of him.
The premise of the film is simple enough, but done in hockneys own artistic way. I liked it as much as his art.
Did you know
- ConnectionsFeatured in Who Gets to Call It Art? (2006)
- How long is A Bigger Splash?Powered by Alexa
Details
Box office
- Budget
- £20,000 (estimated)
- Gross US & Canada
- $95,826
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $18,000
- Jun 23, 2019
- Gross worldwide
- $130,327
- Runtime
- 1h 46m(106 min)
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 1.66 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content