I get the point. Godard hates capitalism. This film could have been ten minutes long and I would have gotten it. I actually got up and walked out of this one.
shareI doubt you missed anything. I was desperately hoping it would end. One or two very good scenes (the coffee cup, the garage), but nothing worth watching 87 minutes for.
sharei completely disagree, watched it last night and had my eyes stuck to the screen, and got a lot more out of it than anti-capitalism sentiments. I havent seen such a work of beauty in the sense of images and language in a long time.
And it is now in at least my top 4 Godard films.
Last Movie I Viewed:
2 or 3 Things I Know About Her (1966) - Jean-Luc Godard (9/10)
You need help.
shareWhat do you think of other Godard films? I'm a big fan but was not especially smitten with this one though it had its moments (the Pan Am & TGA bags over the head, the kid's dream about the Vietnamese, and the swirls in the coffee cup come to mind). It seemed like most of what it did well was already done better and more engagingly in Masculin Feminin. Also, the star was more grown-up and colder than his usual girlish protagonists, whose energy normally collides with Godard's intellectual severity to create the sparks that make his films so exciting. I thought it was funny when he repeated the Bardot bit from Masculin Feminin, but replaced her with a Nobel Prize winner. But even that was more of a riff on his M/F stylistics than anything else.
share[deleted]
I too, don't love it but I think it's an absolute masterpiece.
shareI know its stepping on dangerous ground to sweepingly dismiss a director who has received so much critical acclaim, but I will say this: from the 5 Godard films I have seen, he is a bad director. Godard seems to revel in pretentiousness, which is tempered by his political opinions, imparted without the slightest hint of subtlety.
Yes, he has some great qualities, including a very subversive sense of humour (like in Week End), but his dialogue is especially incomprehensible (with the exception of when its time for a political message). Now, I know some might jump on me here saying "you just didn't get it", but I would reply with this: What is the point of making a film that no-one can 'get'?
I want to like Godard's films, but at the moment I haven't seen anything that warrants that, with the exception of Week End (in parts, as even that had severe weaknesses).
oh, and it doesn't help that his political views that he pushes so hard are immature and outdated.
[deleted]
[deleted]
You misunderstand me.
I have no problem with non-narrative cinema, indeed that was not my issue with this film at all. My problem is with Godard's pretentiousness - that is, trying to be more profound than he actually is.
Oh, so you have no problem with the politics of Birth of a Nation at all? Seeing as how it's impossible to "judge a film that was shot in the past by todays political facts". Hey, that was too easy.
as for the comment by the above poster that "whoever doesn't 'get' Godard, doesn't 'get' cinema", I think you've just ruled out a very large amount of the cinema-watching population. Including those who like to pretend that they 'get' Godard when they don't.
And why are Godard fans such damned snobs. Lol.
shareA lot of Godard fans are elitists. And a lot of Godard critics are faux populists waving their stick at the "emperor with no clothes" while patting themselves on the back for the courageous honesty. And then there's plenty of people in both camps who are just being honest to their own opinion. I'd say all should try to understand the other's point of view, though perhaps it's easier for a Godard fan to understand why someone wouldn't like a Godard film than vice-versa (I mean how many Godard fans like EVERY SINGLE one of his movies? Godard's one of my two or three favorite directors and yet film-by-film he hovers around .500 for me...though admittedly his misses and mixed bags are fascinating too).
share[deleted]
I just watched Raoul Ruiz's 'Le Temps Retrouve'.... I think that could be reasonably described as non-narrative. Unless I am misusing the word.
shareHow did you like it?
shareLe Temps Retrouve is far from non-narrative. There is a story and there are characters.
Think more Michael Snow or the Warhol screen tests. No story. No character.
Goddard often uses non-narrative elements, but other than Letter to Jane I cannot think of any of his films that really fall into this category.
[deleted]
I agree with you that Godard's pretentiousness and politics is irritating. I don't think he is a bad director. He is quite interesting and made many good films but I have yet to see a great film by him. I give the ones I have seen 5/10 to 8/10. The look of the films is usually amazing and his stile is often clever. But yes, he desperately wants to come off as intellectual which often makes him pretentious.
- No animal was hurt during the making of this burger -
[deleted]
There are many "intellectual" directors who have done it much better: Tarkovsky, Antonioni, Greenaway, Herzog and Kieslowski, to name just a few.
- No animal was hurt during the making of this burger -
[deleted]
Maybe they are just my kind of pretentious people ;)
All jokes a side. I would even go so far as to say that they have all been a little pretentious at one time or another. I just think that Godard has been guilty of that more times than these other directors. But let me say once again. I like Godard. I just don't love him.
- No animal was hurt during the making of this burger -
(I know this if from a few years ago, but in case you get email updates...)
I am on the level with your criticisms of Godard as pretentious, and equally so about people who sprout such "whoever doesn't "get" Godard, doesn't "get" cinema" crap, but managed to somehow overcome it. The problem is I think there are other filmmakers who translate their own theory and philosophy into film in much, much more fluent ways, like Ingmar Bergman and Alain Resnais (among many others), and in contrast Godard looks quite amateur, even immature. However after spending a few years getting to know most of Godard's films I found myself recognising his intelligence, if often being frustrated with his ways of showing it. He doesn't seem to be able to create characters that explore ideas very well, instead using the mechanics of film (and with it, film theory/literary theory) to shape his ideas out for his audience. The only time I think he has managed to overcome this is in Contempt. I would be interested if you have re-visted Godard over the years since you posted this, to see if your opinions have changed. Being less invested in forming qualitative judgments over his films meant that I simply enjoyed them more, especially for something like Pierrot le fou.
i agree with some of your points.
i am a rather huge godard fan, but i don't feel the need to argue for him. i give you credit you've seen multiple of his films. maybe you just don't like him, that's ok.
for example i won't trash the beatles, but they do absolutely nothing for me, and i love rock music. it's all about taste, godard isn't yours--thats ok.
i would say (since you appear you want to understand the godard phenomenon if anything) watch some of the recent criterion godard releases with the commentary on-- well worth it. if not, happy hunting for films that you will like!
btw, a frenchy that i adore is jean-pierre melville, seen any of his?
ive studied film for years. i used to hate Godard, finding him pretentious. now he is my favorite director. to say he is "bad" is simply moronic. even when i didn't like him, i was smart enough to realize he is a great director. watch Pierrot Le Fou, that was the one that got me into him. if u get through to the end, and honestly didn't enjoy it, then i guess he isn't for u. im just saying cause i used to write essays on why i hated him haha and know i think he is one of cinemas greatest masters. and im not gonna jump on u saying u didn't "get it." thats what people say when they disagree, but can't form a coherent opinion to respond back with, they shout "u dont get it!!"
H.W.
I completely agree - I love Trufaut and Louis Malle's films...but Goddard seems like you are "Supposed to Like"...Breathless was unwatchable to me. :-)
shareThis is one of the best films ever made.
Orson Welles never made an all-yellow movie.
You're lucky you could get up and walk out; I had to see this in a class I took in Grad school. My teacher, who had nothing but disdain for anything that resembled narrative structure, adored this film.
How come we can't watch some Altman or Coppola in Film school these days?
Maybe your teacher wanted to challenge you.
The package hit Chrissy with an implement.
....how such a shallow, reductionist review ("Godard hates capitalism") is possible. Are you really that lowbrow? Since your tastes are so pedestrian, how on earth did you find this film at all? Why do you bother with fillms that you hate?
share[deleted]
yea, more like "2 or 3 things I hate about this movie"
share