Quadrophenia (1979)
Truth be told, I've never been much for these rebellious "coming of age" narratives like
Dazed and Confused or in this case
Quadrophenia. As for those narratives that share the "coming of age" tale, I tend to like those that focus on the growth and maturity of the characters rather than those living in some "Pan's Fable." (Which may be why I enjoy Jean Renoir's
The River so much...) All this to be said, I do have both films within my vast collection and I have them for good reason...
I find the philosophy of film, (or any art for that matter), could be considered an "argument" only in artistic forms. To understand an "argument" though, one need look no further than the Philosophy of Logic.
It was Peter Abelard who made the great discovery in Logic that it is not necessarily the "content" of the argument which dictates it's validity... but the "form" of the argument.
Now why is this important in my discussion of Film Art?
Because while a person may "disagree" or "not like" a cinematic work/or form of art. I find the closest thing we can do to find some sort of "objective" ground within the work itself is looking at what is purely "formatical."
Example:
I do not "agree" with the "content," as I find the content rather juvenile, (as I do
Dazed and Confused), but in it's "form" it's completely solid.
For Phil Daniels' character, (Jimmy), to enter into a home where a party is taking place and for the camera to track behind, and then beyond him, into the dance, and then back to profile in one long continuous shot is pure bravado.
For a film who's subject matter is on "Mod Culture," (Modernism and the influence of Modern/Free Jazz thereof), to let the narrative "loose," to let the camera "loose," and past a central character and into a "Culture" and their "dance" is utterly brilliant.
Structurally speaking, the film is completely sound if not rather invigorating and inspiring... it does hold the house on which I find the script it builds itself upon to be quite dreary and dull.
All this to be said, I find the work a fascinating example of an artistic "argument" being philosophically correct, albeit errored in many ways.
Would I recommend it? Absolutely! Enjoy!
8/10