One might also want to check out the Louise Brooks character from "Pandora's Box" (see: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0018737/)who not only wears the same exact hairstyle as Anna Karina in this film, but is also a prostitute facing similar circumstances as Nana. Curiously enough, the references page on IMDb doesn't mention this connection at all, though the homage was clearly intended.
It's with this that my personal qualms with Tarantino's oeuvre and particularly "Pulp Fiction" arise, because though both of their film's seem to be in communication with cinema history (sometimes also in contention with it) Godard's homage seems more artful and perhaps more relevant to the central themes/ideas of the film, that is perhaps an existentialist tragedy and a more philosophical take on the human condition; the relevance of Tarantino's homage seems tenuous at best, almost simply an "homage for the sake of homage," not unlike navel-gazing.
P.S. Don't get me wrong, I still think QT is a good filmmaker in his own respect, it's these flaws that keep him from being great.
reply
share
amd8404
13 years ago
Godard may be more self-serious about what he's doing, but he's still sketching his character in the image of iconic movie characters from the past (Maria Falconetti and Louise Brooks). To me there's not that big of a difference, both filmmakers are using cinematic citations as a shorthand to inform the development of their character.
Maybe if Tarantino went around in dark glasses muttering gnomic aphorisms, his work would be considered a bit more artful. Similarly, I wonder if Godard's rigorous, artful style would be as widely enjoyed if he didn't film such a lovely actress, often in frivolous scenes. Actually, we know the answer to that one, as only hardcore fans of art cinema like Godard's work after he parted ways with Karina.
reply
share