A few minor points

[deleted]

I do agree... the rhythm of Eloge de l´amour had to be in that slow introspective way of an elegiac poetry that praises those lost instants in everyday´s life, the black and white contrasting with the colourful memories are the way of recreating those gone moments that seem vivid in the distance...

IMO both 'Éloge de l'amour' and 'Notre Musique' can be seen as the farewell of a great master. It's not that I am expecting him to die, No! but the master is already 79 years-old (he was already 70 when he directed Éloge de l'amour), there are no many reels more in Godard's camera. And he knows it better than anyone else.
Just like Kurosawa did in his latest films: 'Rhapsody in August', 'Dreams', 'Madadayo'. Godard is "writing" his testament. A testament that speaks about his passions, disappointments, success and failures, analyzing them in the context of the current world situation.
I can feel both his hopelessness and faith on humankind in these two films. Regrettably I think the lack of hope dominates. But can we blame him? Let's see today's world, let's see how the ideals of an entire generation, HIS generation, have been blasted by the power of greed and petty ambitions.
Godard could have said with Julius Ceasar: "Veni, Vedi, Vici", but he could add "yet nothing really changed for good".
He may leave soon, but he still has something to say. Let's hear him.

The movie is a poem, melancholic and nostalgic like the the best poetry. Once Antonioni and Bergman have passed away, Godard is now, without any doubt, the most important and influential filmmaker alive. But Godard knows that to be acclaimed and respected is not enough, and so he is telling us to watch our souls in a mirror in order to see if we like the sight.

Can't wait for his next film, "Socialisme". If it's "un-officially" banned in USA (like Soderbergh's 'Che'), I think the master will smile once again. After all he's still an iconoclast. The best of them all.

PS: About the country with NO name. It reminded me a discussion that I witnessed several years ago. A friend from Chicago, whose father was a german immigrant, was trying to convince a native-american or amerindian from Guatemala (Maya), why he couldn't be considered "american" despite the fact that he and his ancestors had lived in the same land (The Americas) for the last 10,000 years or so. And why he (first person in his family born and raised on US soil) was a "true american" unlike the guatemalan fellow. It was kinda funny to watch that. No need to tell you who won the debate, I suppose

I posted some thoughts on this film on another message board today, but maybe they're worth repeating here since I like your OP, and this board doesn't seem to get much chat.

I love it. Buy I can't really tell you what it's about, or why I love it. It's just a film to sink into. I let the sounds and the images wash over me. It's one of the most aesthetically beautiful films I've ever seen. Every shot is perfectly composed and perfectly lit; the rhythm of the shots, the appearance of the inter-titles and the use of music creates something almost sensory. The way Godard contrasts 35mm black & white with over-saturated DV is also astonishing.

I'm still not sure if the performers in the film are actors or real people; Godard still blurring the line between fiction and documentary; between abstract expressionism and personal essay.

It was an amazing film to see in the cinema; almost like the last 15 minutes of 2001: A Space Odyssey stretched out to feature length. After a while the thought of "plot" or "characterisation" becomes irrelevant; the appeal of the film is in the feeling that it captures and sustains. I love the almost unremittingly sad and elegiac tone that runs throughout it (and most Godard films); there's a great sense of loneliness to it; a genuine heartbreak, or a sense of longing and failure, disconnection and the weariness of a heavy heart.

I could relate.