Author Topic: Godard  (Read 46589 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

SoNowThen

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 4536
  • Respect: +9
    • 24/30 Cinema
Godard
« Reply #75 on: February 02, 2004, 09:40:51 AM »
0
Keep checking ebay. I was looking this weekend, and they had a surge of hard-to-find Godard tapes. I think it's catch as catch can. Didn't see Femme Mariee though...
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

modage

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 10783
  • Respect: +726
    • Floating Heads
Godard
« Reply #76 on: February 19, 2004, 10:57:48 PM »
0
i have a question and it may seem sort of stupid/naive, but here it is.  because this is my theory.  did godard really set out with his first film or two to break all the rules and such?  like, was it intentional from the very start.  or was he just somebody who decided 'hey i'm going to make a movie too', and did.  except for he didnt have a clue how to, and it was littered with errors and such like jump cuts because he really wasnt aware of them or how to tell a story coherently.  because like, fellini, in his early efforts you can see understands how to tell a basic story, and later gets weirder with his narrative etc., but godards early movies (from what i've seen) just seem like maybe he didnt know HOW to play by the rules and when his movies came out and were critically acclaimed it was a sort of pat on the back to keep going in that direction.  like, 'oh yeah, i'm trying to break all the rules!' you know (happy accidents)?  like taking it further.  because his later movies like contempt seem to be more straighforward as far as understanding how movies are made but earlier ones ive seen Band of Outsiders, Alphaville, My Life to Live, Breathless seem like a guy who didnt really know how to make a 'normal' movie if he wanted to.  and these 'mistakes' became good because they broke rules and freed up filmmakers etc.  does anybody see what i'm talking about?
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

godardian

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 3733
  • Respect: +6
    • Trappings
Godard
« Reply #77 on: February 20, 2004, 01:07:56 AM »
0
Quote from: themodernage02
i have a question and it may seem sort of stupid/naive, but here it is.  because this is my theory.  did godard really set out with his first film or two to break all the rules and such?  like, was it intentional from the very start.  or was he just somebody who decided 'hey i'm going to make a movie too', and did.  except for he didnt have a clue how to, and it was littered with errors and such like jump cuts because he really wasnt aware of them or how to tell a story coherently.  because like, fellini, in his early efforts you can see understands how to tell a basic story, and later gets weirder with his narrative etc., but godards early movies (from what i've seen) just seem like maybe he didnt know HOW to play by the rules and when his movies came out and were critically acclaimed it was a sort of pat on the back to keep going in that direction.  like, 'oh yeah, i'm trying to break all the rules!' you know (happy accidents)?  like taking it further.  because his later movies like contempt seem to be more straighforward as far as understanding how movies are made but earlier ones ive seen Band of Outsiders, Alphaville, My Life to Live, Breathless seem like a guy who didnt really know how to make a 'normal' movie if he wanted to.  and these 'mistakes' became good because they broke rules and freed up filmmakers etc.  does anybody see what i'm talking about?


The reason it's thought to be intentional on his part is because of the tremendous astuteness of his Cahiers du Cinema pieces and things he'd written/said before he ever made a film, which definitely lend credence to the generally accepted claim that he spent most of his life absolutely steeped in both cinema itself and cinematic theory. Because of his "cinematheque education" and all the time/effort he spent on cinema before he picked up a camera, it's safe to say he knew most cinematic "rules" and conventions inside and out and backwards and forwards before he made his first feature.

And he always said his films were "essays" rather than "fiction," so of course with that aim, none of the "storytelling" rules apply anyway. Godard is one of the finest and probably the single best-known avant-garde filmmaker in movie history, probably because he made features rather than shorts, a much more typical avant-garde format.
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

SoNowThen

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 4536
  • Respect: +9
    • 24/30 Cinema
Godard
« Reply #78 on: February 20, 2004, 09:16:10 AM »
0
The jump cuts were not planned. He had over a three hour cut of the film. He asked people, included Melville, how to shorten it, and they all said "cut out the scenes that are not necessary to the story". This bothered him, so he decided instead to just cut out arbitrary chunks here and there. Now we have the jump cut.

Thing is, like Godardian said, JLG was a (somewhat) respected critic. The reason I can respect him as a rule-breaker is that he saw ALL THE FILMS, he knew just as much or more than the top cinephiles of his time, he was a walking encyclopedia. So he knew film history, and style, upside down. He was able to take this incredible knowledge and subvert it, as opposed to his pretenders that came later, who just broke the rules without knowing the rules. Plus I think of lot of his style wallowed in that low budget life, simply out of necessity. Contempt showed he could do a polished film (if still keeping his quirky mise en scene) when he had the crew and the money.
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

modage

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 10783
  • Respect: +726
    • Floating Heads
Godard
« Reply #79 on: February 20, 2004, 11:43:18 AM »
0
thanks, godardian and sonowthen.  i found a quote of his that i think explains one of my problems with him.  "I don't think you should FEEL about a movie. You should feel about a woman. You can't kiss a movie."
i like feeling in my movies and thats why for me, i just cant enjoy some of his movies.  thanks for the explanation, though.
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

soixante

  • The Magic Flight
  • ****
  • Posts: 649
  • Respect: +5
Godard
« Reply #80 on: February 20, 2004, 12:24:18 PM »
0
Alphaville is filled with exquisite compositions and brilliant camera movement.  Watch it with the subtitles off, and just experience it visually.  Also, My Life to Live is a very measured, highly stylized film.

Breathless took its cue from low-budget American B-movies, so it reflects that style.

Godard was working with extremely limited resources, so he made the best of what he had.
Music is your best entertainment value.

Sanjuro

  • The Road of Trials
  • **
  • Posts: 99
  • Respect: 0
Godard
« Reply #81 on: February 21, 2004, 02:45:41 AM »
0
i remember him saying in the band of outsiders dvd ,something like he just shot things like that because its what looked nice to him.  its what appealed to him, what looked beautiful.  its plainly a matter of what interests you and thats what you show and how you show it.  (i think kubrick said this also regarding the controversial subjects of his films).
"When you see your own photo, do you say you're a fiction?"

SHAFTR

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 2337
  • You brought two too many
  • Respect: +4
    • rmlumley.com
Godard
« Reply #82 on: April 16, 2004, 11:52:08 AM »
0
Le Petit Soldat is on tonight at 2am ET on Turner Classic Movies.
"Talking shit about a pretty sunset
Blanketing opinions that i'll probably regret soon"

SoNowThen

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 4536
  • Respect: +9
    • 24/30 Cinema
Godard
« Reply #83 on: April 16, 2004, 11:55:22 AM »
0
All who haven't seen before should WATCH!
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

tpfkabi

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 2673
  • Respect: +22
    • twitter deed, twitter dead. in the heart or in the head?
Godard
« Reply #84 on: April 18, 2004, 02:03:32 PM »
0
i bought the Band of Outsiders Criterion a month or so ago.
the first time i watched it, i was kinda pissed.......i felt i had kinda blown my money.
in BofO there are no compositions like in My Life to Live or Contempt, and that's one of my fav things about Godard.
then, for some reason, i decided to give it another try.
and i really loved it.....i enjoyed it so much that i watched it the next day again...it seems this happens with all New Wave films........same thing happened with Shoot the Piano Player and My Life to Live.
soooooo, so far i've seen these Godard films:
Breathless
Contempt
My Life to Live
Band of Outsiders
i actually think Breathless is my least favorite of all of them. i don't hate it, i just enjoy the others so much more.
i can't wait for the Criterion for A Woman is A Woman coming out soon. i want to see Alphaville badly, but i hate to spend that money on a disc w/o any extras........i really wonder why Criterion didn't put anything else on there......i kinda fear in the future they might though.

one thing that always jars me in Godard's films is his music editing. music never fades out or coincides with visuals......it just randomly stops.....has he ever explained this?
I am Torgo. I take care of the place while the Master is away.

SoNowThen

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 4536
  • Respect: +9
    • 24/30 Cinema
Godard
« Reply #85 on: April 18, 2004, 10:57:22 PM »
0
I don't think he's ever specifically explained it beyond the fact that he wants to use sound as something more than just a "helper" of the image. Even beyond juxtaposing the image, sound can tell it's own story. See later Godard to experience the height of crazy sound.

Buy Alphaville, you will not be sorry. The transfer alone is worth the money.

And I agree with you about Breathless: good, but not even close to his other great movies.
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

The Silver Bullet

  • The Ultimate Boon
  • ***
  • Posts: 585
  • Respect: 0
    • http://esotericrabbit.blogspot.com
Godard
« Reply #86 on: April 21, 2004, 05:51:41 AM »
0
As far as I'm concerned, of the films I've seen, Godard's four-out-of-four-star masterpieces are Bande ŕ part, Alphaville, The Little Solider and Breathless [and in that order].

I love My Life to Live and Contempt, of course, but there's distance there, a seemingly detached "coldness," that makes them harder to connect with than those other four. But, or so I suspect, that same "coldness" is probably just a misconception that one makes upon their first viewing. Both My Life to Live and Contempt are, in retrospect, very emotional films, perhaps even more emotional than the other films. Thus, I need to re-watch them both.

That said, The Little Solider is relatively cold as well and I utterly love that one...
RABBIT n. pl. rab·bits or rabbit[list=1]
  • Any of various long-eared, short-tailed, burrowing mammals of the family Leporidae.
  • A hare.
  • [/list:o][/size]

cron

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 3292
  • deeply superficial
  • Respect: +9
Godard
« Reply #87 on: May 05, 2004, 03:51:51 AM »
0


An interview with Godard is on this week's edition of the French magazine Les Inrockuptibles.
context, context, context.

SoNowThen

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 4536
  • Respect: +9
    • 24/30 Cinema
Godard
« Reply #88 on: May 05, 2004, 09:07:43 AM »
0
Transcribe in english, please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

El Duderino

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1554
  • Respect: +2
Godard
« Reply #89 on: May 05, 2004, 09:49:32 AM »
0
I've never seen a Godard film. where do you think is a good place to start?
Did I just get cock-blocked by Bob Saget?

 

DMCA & Copyright | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy