Infuriating


I can see why some people would like this film--I mean, it does have its merits--but it just pissed me the hell off. There's no way Godard wasn't trying to put you, the viewer, in the most uncomfortable position possible. Was that the point? Awkward acts by the social buffoon Paul...awkward conversations, in general. I did consider turning it off at the sixty minute mark, but decided to grit my teeth and see it to its conclusion. Without a doubt, the hardest Godard film I've had to sit through. While Vivre sa vie was more boring, this was a more painful experience. Of the ten Godards I've seen so far, I've liked half. I find that there are no in betweens with his work, when it comes to my enjoyment of them...they're either really good or really bad. Godard...definitely a polarizing director.

reply

Heh, if you find this unique, mindblowing, captivating work difficult to enjoy, you may want to skip his later work then! Well, I dunno -- honestly, as much as I love this film, I can see why someone would find it a bit pointless; I can't, for the life of me, understand how anyone could find My Life to Live "boring" though. I guess, for less patient people who are interested in Godard's work, I'd reccomend Pierrot Le Fou, Week End, Keep Your Right Up, and Le Petit Soldat (very underrated). I'd say his best film overall is Slow Motion/Every Man For Himself, though -- check it out.

I don't think any of Godard's movies are "bad", perse, though Detective definitely wears its welcome out pretty quickly..

-
pre·ten·tious: characterized by assumption of dignity or importance.

reply

While i do think of myself as a patient person, i too found this devastatingly boring. I don't think there is much substance to this film and kind of see it as a complete letdown from some of his other work.

reply

his goal is to actually make the viewer as uncomfortable as possible. He does this by adding random title cards, seemingly incoherent soundtrack pieces, muffled dialogue, and the breaking of the fourth wall.

Although I was not completely satisfied with "Masculin Feminin", I can understand the reasons why he took unconventional methods in presenting his work. It makes it more effective and thought provoking, for example the intertitles containing messsages the viewer would have to interpret their true meaning. But there are some examples I found baffling, such as the man threating Paul with a knife before stabbing himself. At face value it makes no sense but if you think more deeply it can be seen as Godard making "Masculin Feminin" a film which there is no escapism for the viewer.

"I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not".

reply

There's no way Godard wasn't trying to put you, the viewer, in the most uncomfortable position possible.


Actually he was. It's my understanding of Godard's intentions as a filmmaker as usually utilizing Brechtian techniques, in which, his goal is to actually make the viewer as uncomfortable as possible. He does this by adding random title cards, seemingly incoherent soundtrack pieces, muffled dialogue, and the breaking of the fourth wall. He doesn't want you to feel like you're watching a regular movie.

Anyway, that's how I understand him.

reply

Well you have to change the way you think about movies when you watch a Godard movie. With Hollywood you have a beginning, middle and an ending. With Godard it is almost as he had set up a camera in a café and recorded what happens and you are seeing a day in someone’s life. Every so often he throws something in that is totally out of character, which throws you off balance. He is basically playing with your mind and demanding that you really watch his movie.

reply

The inherent problem with his work is, consequentially, that I may understand him and his aspirations, but repeating a similar set of creeds for hours upon hours in different films grows meaningless.

It might be my personal preferences, but I don't want the film to challenge the viewer to an extent that it becomes nearly incomprehensible. The New Wave's contempt for screenwriters, linear narratives and dimensionality in characters just results in films full of loosely connected ideas, references, homages and experiments that have no possibility to succeed nor fail.

I am aware of the fact that I am watching a film. I am aware that Godard made it and I am aware of your comments on genre conventions and modern filmmaking. What I'm not aware of is why I'm supposed to keep watching.

reply

ed-pilling says > Well you have to change the way you think about movies when you watch a Godard movie.
I hate absurd comments like this because they sound incredibly arrogant. As I have said before in regards to other directors, if I have to do research on a film's director in order to understand their work I don't think they're very good at their jobs.

In my opinion, a movie should be self-contained. The director should be able to say whatever he has to say within that movie; not in their bio. I love movies that challenge and inspire me but if a movie annoys and confuses me, like this one, I want no part of it.

Directors who have to explain or think audiences have to, as you say, 'change the way we think about movies' in order to appreciate their films, are basically admitting their work stinks. Instead of blaming themselves they act as if the viewer is somehow lacking. Maybe some viewers like these films but most just pretend they get it so they can seem a lot more artistic than they really are.


Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]

reply