criterionforum.org

This is a bit of self-promotion, but a friend and I attempted to address this by reviewing Anthony Lane's review in the New Yorker, which drove me crazy.

Thanks for posting that, I enjoyed it.

Let me clarify a few things about what I said earlier.

First, I found the Spielberg bash quite funny, if in a bit of a juvenile way, due to debates I have had with friends in the past about spielberg. I found nothing offensive in that. I liked that he came out with an actual target in mind there and went at that target with both barrells. Bravo.

And yes, I understand the anti-american tendancies in most of Godard's work. The difference to me is if you look at Weekend for instance, it was presented in a more intelligent way. It's been a month or so now since I've seen In Praise for Love, but what I sticks out in my memory as chafing to me is the "America? Which America? United States? Brazil has states." line of dialogue that was repeated 3-4 different times throughout the movie. It just seemed to be a pointless semantic argument and one that I could hear from the anarchist kids down the street. And I guess I just had higher hopes in way of dialogue for Godard than that.

hangthadj wrote:Thanks for posting that, I enjoyed it.

Thanks. I'll let the shepherds know; they'll be pleased.

hangthadj wrote:Let me clarify a few things about what I said earlier.

First, I found the Spielberg bash quite funny, if in a bit of a juvenile way, due to debates I have had with friends in the past about spielberg. I found nothing offensive in that. I liked that he came out with an actual target in mind there and went at that target with both barrells. Bravo.

And yes, I understand the anti-american tendancies in most of Godard's work. The difference to me is if you look at Weekend for instance, it was presented in a more intelligent way. It's been a month or so now since I've seen In Praise for Love, but what I sticks out in my memory as chafing to me is the "America? Which America? United States? Brazil has states." line of dialogue that was repeated 3-4 different times throughout the movie. It just seemed to be a pointless semantic argument and one that I could hear from the anarchist kids down the street. And I guess I just had higher hopes in way of dialogue for Godard than that.

Point taken. I do think that the "critques," such as they are, are a bit thin in In Praise of Love. I'm not sure how substantial any of the earlier stuff is in terms of critique. I think that Godard is really good at quoting other people. Take Weekend as an example: some of my favorite radical talk in that film is from Jean-Pierre Léaud as Saint-Just. The sequence with the two garbage men speaking each other's thoughts seems like it might be lifted from Frantz Fanon. These all work pretty well for me. But a lot of Godard seems like mere provocation to me, and I don't mind that, though it does seem fairly analogous to what the anarchist kids down the street are doing. Somehow it works better in the earlier films--because he's quoting more at length and the In Praise of Love lines are pretty fragmentary?

I finally saw Notre Musique last night and found it to be a bit more to my liking than In Praise of Love.

there's a quote from David Sterritt on the cover calling Notre Music Godard's best film, and I'd really love to see anyone justify that opinion. I mean, it's a better than average film for late period Godard, but best ever? Gimmeabreaksville.

On my copy Sterritt's quote says "****... Far and away one of the best films of 2004!" And he's also included as one of the people who put it on their yearly top 10.

The other two quotes on the front call it "A supreme masterpiece!" and "One of Godard's best-ever!" But no one is saying it's his best, period, at least on the cover.

Sterritt's book on Godard is quite good, by the way...

I just checked my copy and you're right, I got mixed up. thank god though, it was really bothering me how such a Godard expert could make such a bold claim.

jguitar wrote:But a lot of Godard seems like mere provocation to me, and I don't mind that, though it does seem fairly analogous to what the anarchist kids down the street are doing.

Hey j - i know you in person - and you know better than to let a slander aginst anarchists slide.

Now - before I get pissed off - can y'all clarify who these "anarchist kids down the street" are? Anarchist kids rock. What's better than idealistic, committed youth? Idealistic, committed, mature individuals maybe, but everyone is young once.

Back to Godard...

Let's not forget that most of the anti-Americanism in In Praise of Love comes from one character, the underwhelmingly named Elle, who more or less represents the elusive idealism Edgar is after.

And the "US states" bit isn't repeated 3 or 4 times. Its mentioned exactly twice - once by Elle when the American producer and the trade ambassador are present, and once by Edgar when he recalls Elle's critique later on in the story (but earlier in the story).

Even if Godard is being anti-American, Americans need to grow some nerve. Every review of the film that takes issue with the "anti-Americanism" that I've read doesn't do anything to respond to the actual critique Godard is making - that American society has selective amnesia, which given the current state of political affairs, shouldn't be in doubt. Sure, its not a deep critique, but as deep as it goes, its true.

Godard does make a fatal error in overlooking the struggle that runs throughout US history - against colonialism, racism, etc., which he picks up some in Notre Musique - but no reviews I've read critique Godard for that.

Also, In Praise of Love has so much going on in it - so much its hard to follow often, which I think is the point - that I think Americans tend to pull out the thing they can most comprehend from the constant quotations and references - the affronts to themselves.

two or three things I know about her...

Film Forum, NY, Nov 17 – 30

Nuart, LA, Dec 22 – 28

Godard is essential to my life. His films opened up a new artistic path for me. My favorites are "Le Mépris", "Vivre sa vie", "2 ou 3 choses que je sais d'elle", "Pierrot le fou", "Passion", "Nouvelle Vague", "JLG/JLG" and "Histoire(s) du cinéma". These films breath fresh air and feel as radical as when they were made.

I find his Miéville-collaborations such as "Numéro deux" interesting though not particularly enjoyable. He certainly is one of cinema's giants.

I've been meaning to post a response to Hail Mary, but I can't figure out exactly what I want to say. That was seven kinds of frustrating right there -- yet it's the same kind of frustrating that keeps pulling me back to JLG. There are points in time (and not just in Hail Mary) when it seems like Godard isn't even paying attention to the choices he is making -- utter instinctual filmmaking -- and one moment out of ten will click, but that is such an layered and intense moment that I will spend the other nine trying to fully grasp that one.

...And then there are times when the whole thing seems so meticulously staged that it becomes a formal experiment of sorts, and I'm stuck standing everything on its head in an attempt to place the situation within a greater scope.

...And then fucker switches back again.

The man is a genius, no doubt, but it's the constant questioning that draws me back. How can one use the medium to work against what has come before and the presumptions that go along with that history? It's tangential cinema of sorts and that's a fascinating goal (even moreso in that JLG achieves it on many instances).

This is the cinema that makes my head hurt in that "the answer is always around the next corner" type of way. And I love it.

-Toilet Dcuk

Kretschmar-Schuldorff wrote:Godard is essential to my life. His films opened up a new artistic path for me. My favorites are "Le Mépris", "Vivre sa vie", "2 ou 3 choses que je sais d'elle", "Pierrot le fou", "Passion", "Nouvelle Vague", "JLG/JLG" and "Histoire(s) du cinéma". These films breath fresh air and feel as radical as when they were made.

I find his Miéville-collaborations such as "Numéro deux" interesting though not particularly enjoyable. He certainly is one of cinema's giants.

I agree, more essential than oxygen. But I've found his work with Mieville to be just as terrific (and inconsistent). Numero deux was one of the last films I've his I got a chance to see, so maybe I was "ready" for it, but I think it's an absolute gem and an awesome statement. It's strange that the film's form can feel so dated and at the same time still edgy.

And I'm also a huge fan of Prenom: Carmen. There are few moments in Godard's films where he becomes remotely sentimental (watch everyone yell at me for that) but when he does become sentimental, such as in My Life to Live, the pay-off is pretty effecting. Carmen, while not manipulative, has a few heartbreaking moments that really make the film stand out for me. Plus, Godard gives he best pick-up line ever. I've yet to use it for fear that some woman might say yes.

Any film that he made from '74 on is a collaboration with Mieville. Of course, some more than others, but they live together and share the same studio. Godard's films wouldn't be what they are without the influence of her, and vice versa.

cinemartin wrote:Any film that he made from '74 on is a collaboration with Mieville. Of course, some more than others, but they live together and share the same studio. Godard's films wouldn't be what they are without the influence of her, and vice versa.

I'm fuzzy on his bio.... did he meet Meiville before he made Tout va bien, during it, or after? Did he overlap with the ladies or did he leave Wiazemsky before meeting Meiville. I know there was something about a motorcycle accident and Godard having an epiphany about the whole socialist cinema movement. Anyone?

That was seven kinds of frustrating right there...

One too many kinds apparently for those ladies who left in a huff near the end of the movie, no? Maybe it was just one too many shots of Myriem Roussel's crotch. Who knows? For my money, they missed the best part of the movie, when little Jesus is actually born and starts interacting with his parent(s).

But I'd certainly agree that it was a frustrating film, and at times, almost completely impenetrable. I'm still wrapping my brain around the sequence I alluded to earlier that those two women walked out on. Either way, I thought it was a pretty masterful film, and a far more satisfying and cinematically rich one than say, Detective (which admittedly was a supposedly "commercial" film).

And I'm also a huge fan of Prenom: Carmen.

Yes, Carmen is a very beautiful, very poetic film, and at times, as you alluded to, also heartbreaking. We were fortunate enough to screen a pristine 35mm print here in Chicago that was sent straight from the French ministry in Paris.

There's some connection, I think, between the shots of the sea that Godard intersects with his narrative in Carmen, and the shots of water and the sea that he intersects in Hail Mary, but they seem to be taking on totally different functions within the narrative itself.

justeleblanc wrote:I'm fuzzy on his bio.... did he meet Meiville before he made Tout va bien, during it, or after?

Mieville was the still photographer on Tout Va Bien, and Godard met her there. He got into the accident just before that film (leaving most of it up to Gorin) and she supposedly nursed him back to health. At least that's what I heard. And as for Wiazemsky, he left her for Gorin, so to speak.

Hrm, I thought he stayed with her throughout his partnership with Gorin. Did you ever notice that all of his women have the same name?

No, I actually never did. That's odd.

Kretschmar-Schuldorff wrote:Godard is essential to my life. His films opened up a new artistic path for me. My favorites are "Le Mépris", "Vivre sa vie", "2 ou 3 choses que je sais d'elle", "Pierrot le fou", "Passion", "Nouvelle Vague", "JLG/JLG" and "Histoire(s) du cinéma". These films breath fresh air and feel as radical as when they were made.

I find his Miéville-collaborations such as "Numéro deux" interesting though not particularly enjoyable. He certainly is one of cinema's giants.

Well, I do think that "Numéro deux" is great, though I don't enjoy it as much as "Le Mépris" or "2 ou 3 choses...". I was certainly ready for "Numéro deux" and I think it's an intellectual challenge and formally brilliant, yet not as emotional and personal for me as his work from the 60s or later works such as "JLG/JLG" for example. Two other favorites of mine that I forgot are "Prénom Carmen" and "Puissance de la parole". In these two works there is some of Godard's finest use of music. "Prénom Carmen" has a sequence with a Tom Waits song that breaks my heart every time I see it (a censored clip can be seen here) and the very unknown "Puissance de la parole" (which I saw in a rare screening presented by Raymond Bellour) that uses Leonard Cohen's "Take this Waltz" quite poetically.

I know this is random, but I don't know where else to put it. Does anyone know where I can find that catchy song from Les Chinoise with the choruse of "Mao, Mao, Mao!"...?

hey! What happened to my trendy title?

Tonight I watched Godard's A Married Woman, which seems to be absolutely THE most overlooked Godard film from his pre-68 period. It's a truly great film, too, and very much unlike his others from around this time while also planting some seeds that would sprout up in his later work. The editing and structure are distinct and very compelling. He establishes an episodic structure with each moment of the day broken down into a series of fractured views. There are a few scenes of Macha Meril in bed with her husband or her lover where the sexual tension is emphasized by avoiding full body shots. Instead, the camera sets up on her legs, her eye and the bangs of her hair, her belly, her hands, her feet sticking up in the air as she lounges around. There's a rhythmic repetition inherent in these scenes, and it's heightened when the same scene is basically replayed three times during the film, with the dialogue (and the man she's with) casting a different light on it each time. The repetition and symmetry of the editing add up to a cumulative effect of emptiness and boredom. All of Godard's films are of course triumphs of editing, but this one in particular seems to hinge upon it, and really make full use of its subliminal potentialities.

The film also lays the groundwork for Masculin Feminin with its use of a direct interview style that became so crucial in the later film. In fact, this film can be thought of as an early take of Masculin Feminin where the anthropological focus is on Parisian thirty-somethings rather than twenty-something students. Here, as well, the interview technique is used to lay bare the characters' inner concerns and their struggling attempts to give voice to them. The film is concerned with modernity -- two of the interviews explicitly contrast concern for the past (memory) with living in the present -- and it prefigures Masculin Feminin's treatment of birth control and the modern lack of interest in history and politics. At one point, when asked about Auschwitz, Macha Meril's Charlotte hesitates a bit and guesses wrong before embarassingly exclaiming, "Oh! Hitler!" Somewhat surprisingly, Hitler and the camps are a definite undercurrent within the film, and another shot later on juxtaposes a newspaper image of Hitler with a huge fashion magazine spread. It's a theme that Godard would of course pick up again in the 80s and 90s.

Overall, A Married Woman has now leapt up among my favorite few pre-Weekend Godards, along with Masculin Feminin, Alphaville, and Bande a parte. It's puzzling to me that such an inventive, enjoyable, and ultimately important work from Godard's peak period has gone overlooked for so long. I watched it from the only available DVD, New York Film Annex's virtually un-advertised edition, which is perfectly decent. Seemingly a bit cropped, the image isn't totally pristine, and there are a handful of subtitle misprints, but on the whole it looks good and I'd definitely recommend it.

A (The) Married Woman was one of his few post-Breathless films given tolerably favorable reviews by most of the U.S. press. It's quite good. Little Christophe Bourseiller makes his motion picture debut and Macha Meril is definitely NOT Anna Karina -- making a nice change of pace for Godard in his treatment of women. He finds her attractive but isn't smitten with her. Roger Leenhardt (a filmmaker virtually unkown outside of France) is delightful in the Jean-Pierre Melville/ Fritz Lang part.

In my opinion every single film that Godard made between BREATHLESS and WEEKEND is a complete masterpiece. He made great work afterwards as well, but as J. Hoberman correctly put it, no one has been so artisticly productive since Griffith at Biograph as Godard in the 60s.