A Godard thread about Britney Spears

Started by Xixax, February 08, 2003, 10:38:42 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
User actions

AlguienEstolamiPantalones

#75
August 18, 2003, 03:36:04 PM
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman
Quote from: AlguienEstolamiPantalonesyour ethnic cleansing my ideas  slobodan blackman

I try.

That reminds me though, I haven't edited a Pantalones post in months... I miss the sweet taste of genocide...

see what socialisum leads to ? all great artists like myself have to bear the pain of censorship

be proud that your role in history was to try and make me all sweet and nice

Cecil

#76
August 18, 2003, 06:00:16 PM
spears is fucking hideous

Fernando

#77
August 18, 2003, 07:01:28 PM
Int. At the theater in the NY film festival is shown newest film by controversial filmmaker Cecil B. Demented, show just begun and the theater is packed with A-List celebrities.

Everything is running smoothly with the showing, until a cell phone rings.

Britney Spears: (Loudly) Hello?. Hi dear, how are u? Oh yeah, just bought some Manolo's they're gorgeous.

Annoying stupid chat continues when another cell phone rings.

Spears Manager: Chewy here. I told you those towels must be pink or light blue Henson!

Cecil: Hey people, we are trying to see a film here.

Cecil's being ignored by Britney and and her staff.

Cecil: That's it. (To the projectionist) Stop the film damn it! STOP THE FUCKING THING. NOW, either you shut the fuck up or...on a second thought GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE!

Spears Manager: Hey you can't talk to us like that!
Britney: (in a frighten tone) Who's this guy?!

Cecil: Shut up and leave.

Spears Manager: Fuck you asshole!

Joe Pesci takes his shoe off and starts beating the shit out of Spears Manager.

JP: What the fuck did you say!, You don't talk to him like that you fucking faggot, fuck you and your fucking staff, get the fuck out the here you fucking pussies...(Swearing and shouting continues)

Britney and staff leaves the theater in mad panic.

Cecil: Ok, roll the damn thing.

chainsmoking insomniac

#78
August 18, 2003, 09:09:41 PM
That scene brought tears of joy to my eyes.

Fucking fucking beautiful.
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote: 'The world's a fine place, and worth fighting for.'  I agree with the second part."
    --Morgan Freeman, Se7en

"Have you ever fucking seen that...? Ever seen a mistake in nature?  Have you ever seen an animal make a mistake?"
 --Paul Schneider, All the Real Girls

Ravi

#79
August 18, 2003, 10:51:32 PM
What if Godard made a movie about Britney Spears?

Cecil

#80
August 18, 2003, 11:00:37 PM
Quote from: RaviWhat if Godard made a movie about Britney Spears?

"godard is strange. acting in a godard film is strange. you actually have to concentrate during the scene"

cine

#81
August 18, 2003, 11:22:45 PM
Quote from: Cecil B. Demented
Quote from: RaviWhat if Godard made a movie about Britney Spears?

"godard is strange. acting in a godard film is strange. you actually have to concentrate during the scene"

"when we're all taking a break, godard and me would sit back and have a smoke. well, he would have a smoke. not me. i don't smoke. i'd hold his smoke, at most. so like, we'd talk about stuff and he'd say how his breath inspired my music videos... which i didn't understand at first, but then i thought 'wow.. this guy is, like, SO artsy!' i'm having lots of fun. heehee."

Ghostboy

#82
August 18, 2003, 11:30:54 PM
I think Britney started smoking. So she'd actually be back there smoking with him, nodding and blowing smoke and trying to understand what he's saying. But he'd be speaking French,  and so she just keep saying 'oui' and 'merci.'

Gold Trumpet

#83
August 19, 2003, 12:08:13 AM
For SoNowThen.........who loves this film and hates this critic:

PIERROT LE FOU

by Stanley Kauffmann

Jean-Luc Godard made Pierrot Le Four six features ago (at this writing), far back in 1965. I saw it at the New York Film Festival the following year and disliked it. It's now released here, and after La Chinoise and Weekend, I like it even less.

A Parisian TV writer (Jean-Paul Belmondo) is suffocating in his marriage to a rich, pretty, dull Italian girl. (Godard likes to kid foreign accents in French: Jean Seberg in Breathless, the Italian girl here.) Belmondo suddenly runs off one night with the baby-sitter, Anna Karina. Complications of murder and torture follow from her previous involvement with gangsters and gunrunners. The pair flee to the Riveria and try to have an idyll; the gangsters follow. It all ends with Belmondo shooting her, then committing suicide by tying dynamite around his head after painting his face blue. Why waste the resources of color film?

The story would be trite - a mod Elvira Madagin - it if asked for any attention as such. It would also be incredible. That this mousy little baby-sitter is also involved with killers and is undisturbed by a corpse in the next room on the night that she and her lover first go to bed - all this would be ludicrous if we were meant to take the narrative seriously. But in a frantic way Godard is deliberately fracturing story logic, using narrative only as a scaffolding for acrobatics, cinematic and metaphysical. The question is whether those acrobatics are consistently amusing and/or enlightening. I think not.

There is the usual Godard barrage of devices, standard even by 1965: verbal-visual puns (VIE in neon turns out to be part of RIVERIA); editing that goes backward, forward, and sideways in time; saturation in film references. Water torture is reprised from Le Petit Soldat. There are anticipations: close ups of comic strip violence, which prefigure A Chinoise; a ghastly auto accident used un tableau mort, which prefigures Weekend - as does a 360-degree pan when the lovers debark from a small boat. In short, more grist for the movie-buff mills.

For me, the film is a function of three boredoms. (I exclude my own.) The hero is bored by his Parisian life, which precipitates the story. The girl is soon bored by the tranquil island where he takes her, which brings about their deaths. And, principally, Godard is very soon bored. I think that the whole film after they flee the girl's Paris appartment is a series of stratagems to keep Godard himself from falling asleep: improvisations, high-school philosophizing, grotesqueries, and supersanguinary violence. His quick mind seems to have flown ahead to his next film while he is faced with the need to finish this one. Boredom has been a (one may say) vital element in art for Gogol and Musset to Beckett and Ionesco, but in their cases, boredom has been the subject, not the artist's own reaction to the making of his art. The first half of Weekend, which is Godard's best work to date, is brilliantly about certain boredoms; but in the second half he was bored.

His contempary, Truffaut, seems to be running out of interests and is becoming a body of film-making skills more or less for hire. Godard, a man of larger and more desperate hungers, keeps snatching at themes to nourish his interest. He has gobbled at blood ( a midget with scissors in his neck in Pierrot), alienation, the Vietnam war, Maoism, fantasy youth revolt, real youth revolt. If anything ever gripped him profoundly, even if for a couple of months, what a film we might get!
--------------------------------------------------

and to combat any criticism, I have not seen the film. Just a gift wrapped present.

~rougerum

SoNowThen

#84
August 19, 2003, 12:45:13 AM
Die Stanley Kauffmann.


"Who are you talking to?"

-- "The audience." --

"Oh."


Killer.
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.

Gold Trumpet

#85
August 19, 2003, 12:48:57 AM
Can't you at least see some validity in his review? Just validity, even if you still disagree.

And this wasn't even the harshest of the negative reviews by Kauffmann on Godard that I got.

~rougerum

Ghostboy

#86
August 19, 2003, 02:31:47 AM
And now it's all come full circle.

MacGuffin

#87
August 19, 2003, 02:42:44 AM
Now someone needs to Photoshop Britney's face on that poster for the circle to become an ouroboros.
"Don't think about making art, just get it done. Let everyone else decide if it's good or bad, whether they love it or hate it. While they are deciding, make even more art." - Andy Warhol


Skeleton FilmWorks

Ghostboy

#88
August 19, 2003, 02:55:17 AM
Take a closer look, Mac...compare and contrast...

SoNowThen

#89
August 19, 2003, 03:14:51 AM
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetCan't you at least see some validity in his review? Just validity, even if you still disagree.

And this wasn't even the harshest of the negative reviews by Kauffmann on Godard that I got.

~rougerum

well, what's trite and boring to Kauffmann is interesting and amazing to me. i'll admit, i had to watch godard films a few times to make it through them, but once i started reading them just as godard films, and not expecting anything like i had seen before, it opened up this fucking wonderful new movie watching world so that i can barely stand other movies, and crave his meandering mise en scene almost daily.

it's a fix, man. dig it.
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.
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
User actions