To begin, I'm pretty sure that the letters used to be available on the blog that Jeff has already linked to:
http://jdcopp.blogspot.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
But I sure as hell can't find 'em.
cinemartin wrote:I could see if you didn't like Day For Night for any original reason, but to say "I don't like Day For Night because of what Godard said" is a weak statement. Did you see Day For Night before reading the letters? Or has blind worship for an idol polluted all judgement?
Cinemartin, I never said that "I don't like Day For Night because of what Godard said", indeed, that would be silly. In fact, I went quite thoroughly into my reasons for disliking the film. Simply in the interest of being honest and open, I noted that i had read the letters before seeing the film, but as I think i said before, I nonetheless went in wanting to like it in spite of Godard's criticisms, and came out with a feeling of disgust far stronger than could simply be attributed to the aforementioned criticisms of Godard's. Naturally, some of my views align with Godard's, others veer off into other directions. If you'd like more, than I'll add a few to the list:
1. Flat, dull, bland cinematography.
2. Criminal underuse of great actors. Baye and Leaud, two performers who I am usually entranced by, were only irritating here.
3. The actual sex and drama is purely of the soap opera, daytime TV variety.
4. The film within the film is an absurdly beautiful fictional device, one only has to look at Guido's scaffolding spaceship, Godard/Lang's painted Greeks and buxom mermaids, Von trier's Fifth Obstruction, to know this. Truffaut squanders his on a dime a dozen melodrama.
ByMarkClark.com: I do like
Stolen Kisses and
Bed and Board, though more for Leaud's incredible performance as Antoine Doinel than Truffaut's only passable directing.
GringoTex wrote:FerdinandGriffon wrote:If you haven't read the letter, it was actually full of very justified, if harsh, criticisms of Day for Night. It wasn't actually until Truffaut's response that the argument descended irretrievably into personal attacks...
Why would I comment on the letter if I hadn't read it? Godard claimed the film is a lie because it shows two characters other than Truffaut's fucking Bisset, when in real life it was Truffaut who was fucking Bisset. That's it. That's the criticism. The whole thing was a personal attack.
Yes and no. Godard was attacking how Truffaut portrayed himself and filmmaking, so of course it's personal. But the important distinction to make is that he was criticizing Truffaut not for fucking Bisset, but for not showing himself fucking Bisset in the film, which is a professional criticism. You've to admit that while Leaud comes out of
Day for Night looking like an immature brat, and Baye appears to be a bit of a slut, Truffaut emerges as a teddy bear.
Don't you just want to hug him!
GringoTex wrote:FerdinandGriffon wrote:And while you may call Godard a "socially stunted dick" for being able to separate his filmmaking from his personal life, I'd call Truffaut a "morally-stunted dick" for being able to separate his filmmaking from his personal life in such a dishonest, self-denying way.
You assume we're supposed to be praise the film "Meet Pamela" and it's makers. You missed the point of the movie.
I don't know if we're supposed to praise them. I think we're supposed to find them funny, charming, a little short-sighted perhaps, but interesting people to have a few drinks, maybe go to bed with.
Also, pray tell, what is the point of this movie? The romance of movies? Or is it just a cinematic strawberry daiquiri?