The most troubling aspect of Blue is the lack of moving images. The film, if one could call it that, is a well written story about a man’s experience with AIDS. The story is told through a soundtrack overlaid on a blue screen. The blue is the same for the hour and a half the movie plays out. I do not like calling this film a film or a movie because it insinuates that it is a moving picture, when in actuality, it is a radio show disguised as arthouse filmmaking. The same way that War of the Worlds told a riveting story through radio shows, Blue does the same for AIDS.
Lombardo’s essay about Blue says that the lack of imagery made them ‘see’ the voices and music. If one’s thinking was more abstract than mine, I can understand how that could be seen. However, I did not feel the same emotions that Lombardo did. I could not get past the lack of imagery to enjoy the film. Film is the combination of imagery and audio and one could argue that the color blue is imagery and I would agree. But there is a distinction between a film and a podcast. A film is not a film without a moving image while a podcast can stand on its own without an image to further the story.
The lack of imagery can be viewed as a strength and a weakness for the film. In terms of the strengths, without an image, the viewer is much more in their head and trying to understand the characters’ minds rather than see what they are thinking. Much like a book, the audience is tasked with imagining the world in which the story resides. That being said, every person’s image of this film will be different. No one will imagine the same thing while viewing the film. The reasoning behind the blue aesthetic of the film is compelling having it be how the director viewed the world due to his blindness. Making a movie that he could experience almost identically to everyone else is a beautiful choice. However, I found that aspect of the film more as a weakness.
The experience of watching Blue is the same experience of listening to a podcast, radio show, or audiobook. The audience only hears what is happening and never sees it. That is the format in which Blue depicts the story. The film falls into one of those categories rather than ‘film’ because it does not possess the basic requirements of a film; moving imagery and sound (even silent films had a soundtrack). The choice to make the entire movie one blue frame is a bold choice that creates much discussion but it lacks the film aspect to the film. It turns it into a radio show that is being told through a visual format. Moving imagery for a film is arguably the most important part of a film because taking it out of the equation makes it not a movie.
Blue is a compelling film about the AIDS epidemic but lacks the requirements to be considered a film. While I can understand its artistry, I do not think it should be considered a film. It is a radio show that was made for a visual medium.
Film, Gender, Sexuality 
Hi! I was super interested in the way you classified this film as a “radio show” format because I spent a lot of time thinking about what to call it. I agree that it’s tough to actually call it a film, so I ended up calling it “poetry aided by a soundscape.” I think it’s pretty difficult for us to appreciate this film as perhaps people did when it first came out, in the midst of the AIDS epidemic and more aware of Jarman and his impact. I read a comment on his film that gave me a lot to think about. She wrote, ” ‘I was living in London and had seen all of Jarman’s movies. When this came out I cried like a fountain in the cinema. However, I doubt it would retain the same power today, especially on a small, individual screen. Back then, fresh after his death, the large blue screen and the voice-over created a sense of community.'” I think that’s a pretty astute understanding of how the film’s impact has shifted.
LikeLike