paul2001sw-1 Joanna Hogg makes sparse, almost stilted films about uncommunicative, and to my mind, unappealing middle class people. 'Exhibition' is not quite as painful to watch as her earlier film 'Archipelago', but it does feel a little pointless: an architect loves his artistic wife, even though they don't really talk to each other. Her explicit refusal to discuss her work is made exasperating for the viewer because the film doesn't show us it either, at least not in any terms that one could imagine as saleable product: the vision of the artist here is of someone spending time alone, periodically donning weird outfits and standing or sitting in strange positions. Instead of the art-theme predominating, we're just left with the irritating ticks of the overly-fortunate. It feels like an improvisation that was never turned into a finished script.

DiscoVinyl I love art films don't get me wrong but this is just a plain bore.Even the female leads two attempts at masturbation don't titillate. Furthermore they don't add anything to the story either. Though, I do enjoy the scene where she plays with the blinds nude. That at least had something visually striking to it.Honestly I'd be surprised if this filmmaker will get financing to ever make a film again.The neighborhood is clearly the most attractive thing about the film. The house and it's furnishings are obviously posh and eye-catching so in effect they are the most important thing about this film. But these two aspects a film doesn't make.

J Hearn I'm not sure why the first reviewer felt the need to attack Hogg personally and trash her aesthetic. Her removed, mesmeric method of filming people in relationships isn't for everyone, but she will appeal to viewers interested in unconventional approaches and who appreciate not having characters' emotions spelled out at every step.As with her earlier film Archipelago, the characters reveal themselves solely through their actions and speech in a context of mundane everyday life, but Exhibition ventures into fantasy/dream-state in a way that helps expose the inner reality of D, the wife who seems almost trapped in a house that is as much a character as its human inhabitants. Something happened at one point that we are not privy to, but it has deeply affected D. One could say that she and the house are haunted, and it acts as a defining structure for her relationship with her husband H. Its spaces are strictly defined as to who lives where, as both artists work next to, but separate from, each other.We are given glimpses of each through short interactions, attempts at lovemaking, and H's sense of control contrasted with D's retreat. She seems passive and self-protective, and their decision about the house will change everything.The movie may be considered "boring" by people addicted to action, or who can't stand having negative space where an explanation "should" be. The film isn't slowly paced, but as with her other films, the spaces between are as important as what the characters say. Get acquainted with Hogg's work and be surprised at how affecting it is.

johnnymurphy15 The term 'Art Film' can sometimes mean an interesting, unique experience full of symbolic possibility, or it can be a code word for pretentious bore-fest! Exhibition easily falls in the latter.D (Viv Albertine) and H (Liam Gillick) are a married couple who live in what Al Pacino from 'Heat' would describe as a 'Bullshit postmodern apartment!' They are both artists and have their own studio in separate rooms. They communicate to each other by using the speaker phone, and there is a spiral staircase which unites the house. We see D sitting around in her room moving a stool around and sitting on it, putting together some kind of conceptual art performance which symbolises something. There is a shot of her lying on a rock or opening cupboard doors and other random, pedestrian activities which I don't care about. There seems to be tension between the couple. D does not like to talk to H about her art because he might be honest to the point of insensitive. H tries to occasionally assert his manhood by trying to have sex with her but she resists. More scenes of them sitting around talking about stuff and waffle about the house being a living and breathing entity which harbours good vibrations within the walls. They have to sell the house for some reason, but D wants to stay and blah blah blah! I found it so tedious and so monotonous, I started looking away from the screen as I did not care what was going on at all. Both characters were unlikable, un-relatable and a couple of hollow, ostentatious snobs making the kind of art which is disposable and meaningless. With all these glowing reviews stating how enigmatic and sensual it was, I had no feelings of any kind of enigma or sensuality whatsoever. Was I missing something? Clearly I am the wrong target audience here who has no care for understanding whatever the point of this film was. I am sure it's not that important…. to non pretentious people anyway!