Unfortunately there are more Godards and french art-house movies on the BFI top 50 list.
I must be missing SOMETHING surely. I feel so frustrated at being unable to enjoy something that is supposed to be so good.
----------------
Watching the IMDB and BFI top 50's for my blog www.reviewedatrandom.com
If you're having that much difficulty with it then watch and listen to Jean-Pierre Gorin's free form analysis of it A Pierrot Primer on the Criterion disc. If you don't appreciate it after that then you should probably just go ahead and follow through on the claim from the title of this thread.
shareIf I need a primer to be able to appreciate it perhaps I AM missing something?
----------------
Watching the IMDB and BFI top 50's for my blog www.reviewedatrandom.com
If you're going in not expecting to have to actually think then yes.
shareIn all honesty I AM intrigued. I am not a "Film Buff" but like to say I appreciate a good movie. My post does seem a bit troll like I know but there have been way too many movies going well over my (fairly well educated) head in this list.
I really am trying to expand my horizons! I will see if I can get the the soul of it.
----------------
Watching the IMDB and BFI top 50s for my blog www.reviewedatrandom.com
Watched plenty of Godadrd so I sort of knew when to expect when watching this for the first time. I loved the film, found it audacious beautiful and bizarrely funny - perhaps the most consistently hilarious of his films.
Like he so often does in his 60s films, Godard draws attention to the fact that we're watching a movie - tricks with the lighting and soundtrack, words, signs and language, editing and breaking the fourth wall etc.
However, having got much from this, I can see where you are coming from in your original post, so of the references to art and literature where a bit showy and highbrow. Had no problem with the pop culture references and politics, but a primer might help with the other stuff. Enjoyed this very much thought.
This movie is just not good. It started out very promising but it fell apart after 50 minutes and it turned into a big mess that was all over the place.
shareTrust your own judgement too. Just because a bunch of critics say something is great doesn't mean it is.
My best example is the rise of "Vertigo" by Hitchcock to #1 on that list. What an overrated movie!
I'd bet anything the critics are rating their memories of that movie and haven't actually seen it in 25 years. Because if you actually watch it and think about it, it's not really that good.
Don't feel alone, I never got him, either. A lot of us literate, film dorks have tried and failed to grasp the "genius" that is JLG. I've seen at least ten of his more respected films and it's all like this. He isn't good with plot or developing characters. His editing is horrible. Everything seems arbitrary, like he was trying to tell a joke or say something profound but it got lost in translation. And this is actually better than his later films.
I think you're just supposed to be charmed with the dialogue and scenery and buy into it without thinking too much (which is exactly the opposite of what everyone says who claims to love his stuff. If anyone tells you you are stupid for not liking his work, they are being pretentious jerks). But, yeah, if the cheesy avant guarde flourishes leave you cold and you want a theme or interesting commentary on life or morality or whatever, you're screwed.
"Everything seems arbitrary, like he was trying to tell a joke or say something profound but it got lost in translation."
Yes, Americans can't appreciate art and only watch comic-book adaptations; you are so witty and original. Never heard that one before.
Granted the word "pretentious" is overused, your post is about the laziest, stupidest defense I can think of. Even other avant-garde directors bash him as having his head up his own ass. And that's saying something, and some of them are Europeans that a lot of Americans respect. Your argument is worthless.
I don't care how people defend him bringing up the auteur theory or jump cuts, his movies are amateurish and politically/stylistically dated. King Lear might be the worst film ever made, partly because he didn't respect his actors enough to direct them and cynically took advantage of an inept studio out of his need to keep producing films, no matter how unwatchable they are for 99% of the population. That tells you what kind of ass he really was. If you want to waste your time watching randomly improvised scenes, sloppy writing, and mediocre dialogue because that's your idea of art, be my guest.
It's ironic that you call his defense as the laziest, however you resort to bringing up the opinion of 'other' avant-garde directors to back your own up instead of actually discussing the topic. Great directors tend to criticize opponents, doesn't mean much about the quality of cinema portrayed.
If you don't care about how others express an opinion different from yours, why post in a public forum. If this is not having one's head up on his/her own ass, I don't know what is. If you don't want a discussion, be my guest and leave the forum to those who're interested.
A tip for you. Any criticism that says worst film ever made will never be taken seriously. You obviously haven't seen every film that has 'ever' been made.
Godard's works have a lot more than auteur theory/jump cuts. He is not responsible if part of the audience focus on the superficial and miss out on the core of it all.
'Unwatchable' for 99% of the audience, yet somehow a lot of his films have very high scores here (not a benchmark - but just to refute your illogical claim). You don't seem to be able to talk for yourself here.
Let's have some sense next time around. Good luck.
A tip for you. Any criticism that says worst film ever made will never be taken seriously. You obviously haven't seen every film that has 'ever' been made.
Of course, discussion on art is subjective. Which is why one ought to be cautious when associating superlatives. 'Worst film ever' and 'Best film ever' are some of the most stupid and cliched comments along with 'Go watch Transformers' that are often popular in these boards.
I do agree and have always had the notion IMDB ratings are mainly popularity indicators. Films extremely popular tend to have very low expectations from the audience and high ratings are generally thrown around. Lesser known films have a high benchmark and are given ordinary ratings despite being good. However, the usage of IMDB rating in this conversation was not to validate anybody's opinion on the film but to question your authority when you claim it is unwatchable for '99% of the audience'. You didn't like King Lear. Fine. You don't prefer Godard. No problem. He's praised by enough already. But who actually did belong in that '99% of the audience'? Did you go around the world and take a survey? Well, this is called having the head up one's own ass.
It's a hunch, but I assume there is a minuscule market for Godard movies outside of movie geeks or film students. Which is why I have never had a conversation on the subject outside of this website, and more specifically never outside the Godard threads on this website.