Life and Times with Artaud (late as ever....)

1) As in popular opinion, I found that the most obvious cinema of cruelty effect within the film was evident in the rehearsal scene between Artaud and Collette. I think that it illustrates the difference between cruelty as described by Artaud and as we may understand it now, ie there was no physical violence; the attack was instead psychological and emotional. For me, watching Collette's distress was actually more uncomfortable than I think I would have been had she been under physical attack; the raw emotion is hugely affecting and I think an excellent example of the way in which Artaud wanted theatre to affect the audience on an extreme personal level.
2)I can see that most people weren't too keen on the use of sound in the film, but I actually thought that it worked to an extent. I think, rather simplistically I'm sure (but never mind), that the juxtaposition of the folk (ish?) music worked to emphasise the rather nightmarish existence unfolding on screen. I also think that the use of perhaps unexpected music served on occasion to create an eerie and disturbing atmosphere when one considers the action it accompanies. The use of silence in the film, particularly during the sequence in the theatre, was also extremely powerful. Without sound at this point I think an audience is forced to really consider what they are looking at, to force themselves to think where they may not otherwise have to. For me silence during performance constitutes an important part of what I understand theatre of cruelty to be.
3) Having seen the film in black and white I find it impossible to imagine it presented in any other way. Not only does the stock, as has been mentioned, give the film a depressed, melancholic feel, it manages I think to create for the audience an impression of the haze (drugs, alcohol, sex etc) in which much of the lives we see must have been lived.
4) If forced to rate the film I'd give it a four. I think it's an excellent account of the way Artaud lived and worked and the effect he and his practices had on others. In this sense I think the documentary style works really well; to express the same story from Artaud's point of view wouldn't work I think; I think it is far more powerful to see his life through the eyes of someone else, albeit not impartial, and I think in this way we get a real impression of his own struggles and suffering.