criterionforum.org

justeleblanc wrote:

Oedipax wrote:Geez, that review is enough to put me off reading Ebert from now on. It's not because he's changed his mind about the film (just as he did with Eloge de l'amour after Cannes) but that his reasons for dismissing it now display such an oddly simplistic view of what Godard is doing, and of what is possible in cinema.

I disagree. Looking at all that Godard was able to accomplish after Pierrot le fou such as Weeked, Tout va bien, Numero Deux, Sauve qui peut, Carmen, King Lear, Woe is Me.... Pierrot is good, but not as good. Even in terms of Godard's new wave period, Pierrot le fou is maybe merely a greatest hits piece of the 9 films he made before. It's amazing and fun and a statement about cinema, and for any other filmmaker it's brilliant, but for Godard it isn't as special. I agree with Ebert.

Pierrot is not a personal favorite for me either, but Oedipax is rightfully calling into question Ebert's complete dismissal of everything from Pierrot onward. (A position which obviously puts you in disagreement with Ebert as well!)

None of us should be taking Ebert seriously at this point, but his review does exemplify the sort of embarrassed revisionism many critics have been attempting since Godard's fall from fashion in the '70s. These sentiments do nothing except show the critics' embarrassment for what they must see as their misguided, naive flirtation with counterculture sensibility in the mid-late 1960s. (Like Julian Barnes' line, "Truffaut was just trying on the bell-bottoms; Godard was laying in a lifetime's supply.") Such critics may well have been naive at the time (and differently naive now, it seems), but as far as Godard is concerned, they were better off trusting their instincts.

Meanwhile, critics like Ebert reflexively give 4-star reviews to the Kill Bills of the world, as if those movies had more of a "point" to them than Pierrot Le Fou.

No, I agree that Ebert seems a bit lost on how to review Godard's work. But in general, there's nothing wrong revisiting a film after stepping back from the time and place you were in when you first reviewed it. I also am not too familiar with the revisionist history of Godard's work. But isn't someone like Ebert somewhat more of an appreciationist at best?

Also, it may just be my lack of appreciation for outlaw-road films in general, but Pierrot is one of the few films that seemed very impersonal to me when others, who's opinions I respect, really loved it (except for the final act, of course -- that is pretty terrific). And it's strange when it's a Godard film since with him I'M normally the one who loves it more.

I wouldn't call it revisionist history, but Craig addresses the phenomenon in the first paragraph of his Senses of Cinema entry on Godard (which nails the issue).

Yeah, Ebert's an appreciationist at best. It'd do me well to stop considering him altogether. But my beef is not with his opinion on Pierrot, but the across-the-table dismissal of everything that followed, and the conservative and tame attitude toward film-watching it exemplifies.

specs are up in the first post

Gorin strikes again!

I haven't seen any of the other CC features with him: does he usually have worthwhile contributions to make? It makes sense, I suppose, for him to comment here, given the Tout va Bien connection, but the lack of a direct connection between him and the movie makes me wonder.

Cronenfly wrote:Gorin strikes again!

I haven't seen any of the other CC features with him: does he usually have worthwhile contributions to make? It makes sense, I suppose, for him to comment here, given the Tout va Bien connection, but the lack of a direct connection between him and the movie makes me wonder.

He's generally great. He's got far less connection with Renoir but was superb on Boudu. I was half hoping for Poto and Cabengo and friends to turn up this month, but more Gorin-as-commentator is also a good thing.

Cronenfly wrote:Gorin strikes again!

I haven't seen any of the other CC features with him: does he usually have worthwhile contributions to make?

In my opinion, he is one of the great minds out there when it comes to cinema. (I was fortunate enough to study under him recently). He's very close to Manny Farber also (Farber basically brought him over from France to teach at UCSD) and when Farber laid out his critical precepts, number six was as follows: "Getting the edge. For instance, using the people around you, a brain like Jean-Pierre Gorin's." Having heard him speak about Godard at length, I think he'll have more than enough to talk about. He has a very deep understanding of Godard's work. I'm very much looking forward to his commentary.

BTW, here is a recap from Cahiers on his recent speech in Vienna.

Glad to hear such good things about Gorin: it makes me a good deal more interested in this release now, especially if it turns out to be a fairly in-depth analysis (as this was a film with which I felt the need for context when I saw it theatrically).

No other director benefits better from a commentary track and yet again, we're denied one on Godard's best film. That said, so glad they kept the poster art for the disc, looks marvelous.

Hell yes. (Expressing glee at the release - as for commentaries, I can do without.) And a two-disc set as well. One can only hope "Two Or Three Things" isn't far behind. Following the Breathless package, the recently announced Lionsgate set, and, of course, Histoire(s) earlier this year, these are mighty fine days for JLG on dvd.

domino harvey wrote:No other director benefits better from a commentary track and yet again, we're denied one on Godard's best film.

Hopefully Gorin's contribution with regards to the video primer will be a worthy alternative to a commentary (a la the Quandt video essays on the Teshigahara discs).

I too share your anger, though, domino, at the lack of commentaries on Godard's films in the CC other than Contempt. It is, in my opinion, not the best of choices to leave his films without the more thorough context a commentary provides. It seems that CC likes to come up with more unique supplements for the "lighter" Godard films they release (like the references guide on Band of Outsiders), but commentaries would still be more than welcome (even with the price hike that would've entailed for some of the titles), especially to someone like me who's not the biggest fan of his but is still willing to try and dig deeper.

Cronenfly wrote:Hopefully Gorin's contribution with regards to the video primer will be a worthy alternative to a commentary (a la the Quandt video essays on the Teshigahara discs).

This is precisely what I'm hoping for. The Teshigahara Quandt video essays are currently my pick for best supplements in the year end poll. I hope Criterion continues to do more of them. Much easier to digest than a commentary. The information is more thoughtfully presented in a shorter format.

Two points:

1. I wasn't impressed with Gorin's insights on the Chris Marker set.
2. The transfer on Optimum's Belmondo set was an A+. Stunning in fact. I'd be surprised if the CC could improve upon it too much. Also, I love Colin McCabe's intro on the Optimum copy. He told an anecdote (SPOILER ALERT) about Godard's sister fearing that the ending was a harbinger of JLG soon committing suicide (thankfully her fears were unfounded). Basically I'm trying to say, I'm up in the air about double dipping on this one just for the extras even though I'm a Godard fanatic.

If I'm remembering correctly, I thought Gorin's comments on the Masculin Feminin dvd were quite interesting. Personally, I find the video essays more helpful than the commentaries, in part because they are more focused and (usually) tightly organized. I thought Rosenbaum on Breathless was quite good, although I admit I wish it was longer.

I like the video essays much more than commentaries as well. Gorin is generally a very good and insightful commentator, but I didn't think he had much of substance to say about Marker -- and it didn't help that his feature there was all structured as disconnected sound bites. He seems to be a very reliable go-to guy for Godard, as he mixes firsthand knowledge of the man and his working methods with a real insight into Godard's aesthetics and ideas. This looks like a good package in general.

How would you all rank Pierrot le Fou amongst Godard's work? I've loved some (Contempt, Week-End), been indifferent to some (Breathless), and hated a few (Notre musique, Tout va bien). The premise is really intriguing, but I've heard greatly mixed things about this.

I think it's the perfect synthesis of his earlier work and his later Dziga Vertov work, and his best movie.

kaujot wrote:How would you all rank Pierrot le Fou amongst Godard's work? I've loved some (Contempt, Week-End), been indifferent to some (Breathless), and hated a few (Notre musique, Tout va bien). The premise is really intriguing, but I've heard greatly mixed things about this.

As I've said before, it is not only the greatest of Godard's films, it is the greatest of all films. The movie encompasses so much of what made Godard so special, is so dense with material and you would be doing yourself a grave disservice to not have this on your shelf.

kaujot wrote:How would you all rank Pierrot le Fou amongst Godard's work? I've loved some (Contempt, Week-End), been indifferent to some (Breathless), and hated a few (Notre musique, Tout va bien). The premise is really intriguing, but I've heard greatly mixed things about this.

It sounds like you're more enamoured with Godard's sober and serious early work, rather than his more playful early stuff or the more political "essay" films that he started making after Week-End. If that's the case, Pierrot is probably more akin to the stuff you like than the stuff you hated, but it definitely isn't as consistent in establishing a grim tone as Contempt or Week-End. In fact it's very mischievous and playful with its techniques for the most part. As has been said before, Pierrot is sort of a greatest-hits package of his early career, but it does also display Godard to be becoming more overtly political, so I'm sure there is something to appreciate amidst all its chaos. Then again, I'm a little biased considering it's my favorite Godard film (and I see I'm not alone on this opinion).

As for the discussion regarding whether or not Criterion should include commentary tracks on their Godard DVDs, I don't think it's absolutely necessary for every Godard film (Band of Outsiders certainly didn't suffer without a commentary track), but I do find it odd that Criterion seems to be avoiding an inclusion of commentary tracks in favor of these brief audio comments. I always though the majority of viewers thought Robert Stam did a good job on his Contempt commentary track, so I'm not actually understanding Criterion's hesitation. I do think 2 or 3 Things... would benefit greatly from a commentary track from a respected Godard scholar.

Andre Jurieu wrote: I do think 2 or 3 Things... would benefit greatly from a commentary track form a respected Godard scholar.

If you're region free, pick up the Australian R4 2 or 3 Things disc that Madman put out, there's a great commentary on there that goes into Godard's burgeoning relationship with Anne W and Juliet Berto and the other student radicals during filming, among other topics. The guy who did this, Vivre se vie, and Masculin Feminin's commentary tracks is a complete treasure.

Adrian Martin's R4 commentary track on 2 OR 3 THINGS is of the non-stop verbal type; it is full of interesting information. His ALICE IN THE CITIES is good too. O LUCKY MAN - the track I'm sampling at present - has too many gaps and certainly not enough info. There is a commentary track on the R2 PIERROT. It is interesting in the sense that the commentator concentrates on the form of the film which was the best way to approach it back in 1965 and probably even now. [He focusses on the deliberate continuity mismatches employed by Godard throughout the film.] 2 OR 3 THINGS has been described as a summing up for Godard but PIERROT was seen at the time as a conflation of his narratives to date. This film was released in August at the Venice Film Festival just over one month after filming was completed in June '65.

kaujot wrote:How would you all rank Pierrot le Fou amongst Godard's work? I've loved some (Contempt, Week-End), been indifferent to some (Breathless), and hated a few (Notre musique, Tout va bien). The premise is really intriguing, but I've heard greatly mixed things about this.

Pierrot is not his best film. It marks the end of his New Wave period, before he became more focused with politics and less with general aesthetics and cinema. It's in some ways a greatest hits film of his New Wave period, everything from recycling shots from Alphaville or singing from A Woman is a Woman or the plot from Breathless or the music/color schemes from Contempt. I remember reading there was once a marketing strategy for the film when it first came out that was something along the lines of, "This is a story about a little soldier who's out of breath when a woman is a woman and contempt...." or something to that effect.

I don't mind the film. I think it's pretty terrific but I definitely see it as a retirement of his New Wave style. Masc Fem directly followed it and it showed a much bigger interest in a new political demographic that may have also been influenced with the girl he was with at the time.

Also, I would give Tout va bien another chance at some point. It's not a perfect film, but it's a really interesting essay on the role of politics in cinema, and the certain inherent political language of cinema that his Dziga Vertov Group ignored.

justeleblanc wrote:I don't mind the film. I think it's pretty terrific but I definitely see it as a retirement of his New Wave style. Masc Fem directly followed it and it showed a much bigger interest in a new political demographic that may have also been influenced with the girl he was with at the time.

There is also that line "Who do you think you are, Pierrot Le Fou?" said to Paul in Masculin Feminin when he arranges the official car which suggests that those acts don't much impress the girls in that film who are much more interested in pop culture than rejecting their society.

kaujot wrote:How would you all rank Pierrot le Fou amongst Godard's work?

It's among the top 5 along with Contempt, Nouvelle Vougue, Alphaville, and In Praise of Love. No sense in ranking them as they are all so great.

Petty Bourgeoisie wrote:

kaujot wrote:How would you all rank Pierrot le Fou amongst Godard's work?

It's among the top 5 along with Contempt, Nouvelle Vougue, Alphaville, and In Praise of Love. No sense in ranking them as they are all so great.

How we disagree, as if that were a bad thing which its not. His masterpieces for me are CONTEMPT, MASCULIN FEMININ, NUMERO DEUX, KING LEAR, and WOE IS ME, with special love for BREATHLESS, TOUT VA BIEN, and PRENOM: CARMEN.