Whereas seeing it in 3D is exhilarating, like breaking up with her in person.swo17 wrote:Watching this movie in 2D is like breaking up with your wife of 30 years by text message.
Adieu au langage (Jean-Luc Godard, 2014)
-
Jeff
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:49 pm
- Location: Denver, CO
Re: Adieu au langage (Jean-Luc Godard, 2014)
-
knives
- Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm
Re: Adieu au langage (Jean-Luc Godard, 2014)
The big pleasure to me with this film is the surprising joy for life and overall optimism with which Godard brings to the table. I can't remember if ever he has concluded, if in a pessimistic tone, such a positive view of the evolution to humanity. That the last symbolic image we see is a cover to a Null-A book along with the reoccurring image of Frankenstein is terribly suggestive that the breakdown of language is not man's death, but a rebirth into a new entity. I suspect this also plays into the pun of the title which Godard reminds the audience of continually. It doesn't merely say goodbye to language, but also that à dieu is to language. As usual I'm not terribly certain that this is a coherent message let allow well thought out in its delivery, but in Godard's own sort of academic wonk speak it at least comes across as an engaging idea of the future.
The philosophy conveyed through the spectacle, as usual, seems spoken on much more secure ground and is honestly the more compelling thought. The use of visual 3D really earns its automatic legendary status accomplishing things with the method that no one else would have thought of. I think that has a lot to do with Godard seeing 3D less a method in and of itself and more a way of delivering on many of the film centered questions of his previous feature. In this digital age when film has become fully socialized how does one accomplish classical techniques with these new tools in a way which is honest to these new tools? This film thus is sort of a rediscovery of cinema with much of the technique replicating techniques from the earliest days of cinema. For example the two shots where the 3D splits apart so that it is a unique shot for each eye ultimately is intended to be like the classical overlays which I was just talking about the other day in my La roue post.
Where I think Godard earns the 3D that is sometimes placed in the title is with the soundtrack. This is the most impressive use of filmic sound I've encountered since Melancholia with at least one sequence terrifying me that a plane was going to crash into my house (I live near an airport). Sound hasn't as dramatically been affected by digital cinema as the image, but it has to the extent that many amateur films feature truly terrible sound depending on camera mics. I don't know what effort lead to the final mix we have here, but Godard pulls out so many tricks with sound placement, level, and overlays that it should compel any filmmaker of spectacle or otherwise to do far better then they have been with digital tools. Going back to the point I made at the top of the paragraph many of these sequences give a sense of 3D sound. One of the most impressive 3D effects and sort of the opposite to the split in the images is the very simple overlapping soundtrack element. The best of these is the scene showing Mary Shelley writing with a very scratchy quill as some dialogue is spoken in english. Just an amazing effect whatever larger purpose it is supposed to deliver.
The philosophy conveyed through the spectacle, as usual, seems spoken on much more secure ground and is honestly the more compelling thought. The use of visual 3D really earns its automatic legendary status accomplishing things with the method that no one else would have thought of. I think that has a lot to do with Godard seeing 3D less a method in and of itself and more a way of delivering on many of the film centered questions of his previous feature. In this digital age when film has become fully socialized how does one accomplish classical techniques with these new tools in a way which is honest to these new tools? This film thus is sort of a rediscovery of cinema with much of the technique replicating techniques from the earliest days of cinema. For example the two shots where the 3D splits apart so that it is a unique shot for each eye ultimately is intended to be like the classical overlays which I was just talking about the other day in my La roue post.
Where I think Godard earns the 3D that is sometimes placed in the title is with the soundtrack. This is the most impressive use of filmic sound I've encountered since Melancholia with at least one sequence terrifying me that a plane was going to crash into my house (I live near an airport). Sound hasn't as dramatically been affected by digital cinema as the image, but it has to the extent that many amateur films feature truly terrible sound depending on camera mics. I don't know what effort lead to the final mix we have here, but Godard pulls out so many tricks with sound placement, level, and overlays that it should compel any filmmaker of spectacle or otherwise to do far better then they have been with digital tools. Going back to the point I made at the top of the paragraph many of these sequences give a sense of 3D sound. One of the most impressive 3D effects and sort of the opposite to the split in the images is the very simple overlapping soundtrack element. The best of these is the scene showing Mary Shelley writing with a very scratchy quill as some dialogue is spoken in english. Just an amazing effect whatever larger purpose it is supposed to deliver.