Author Topic: Godard  (Read 46525 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

SHAFTR

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 2337
  • You brought two too many
  • Respect: +4
    • rmlumley.com
Godard
« Reply #30 on: January 21, 2004, 12:58:00 AM »
0
Quote from: themodernage02
Quote from: SHAFTR
b/c it's better.

how?  what is better about it?  what is even good about it?


http://www.xixax.com/viewtopic.php?t=1414&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=210

2nd post Up (from the bottom) onward.
"Talking shit about a pretty sunset
Blanketing opinions that i'll probably regret soon"

classical gas

  • The Ultimate Boon
  • ***
  • Posts: 586
  • Respect: +31
Godard
« Reply #31 on: January 21, 2004, 02:42:31 AM »
0
i was going to make my case for this film, but i think the above link provided by shaftr makes my point...
of course, there's nothing wrong in not liking the film, but i personally love it.  maybe godard is an acquired taste....and i'm really not trying to be snobbish here...really any film director can be an acquired taste.
i like godard for the new reality he put into films...Pierrot le fou is a good example...

SoNowThen

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 4536
  • Respect: +9
    • 24/30 Cinema
Godard
« Reply #32 on: January 21, 2004, 08:56:30 AM »
0
I think it's one of the most perfect films ever made.

Most Godard's take me a few watchings. The first time I saw Vivre Sa Vie, I was wired and stayed up most of the night, pacing the room, and thinking "that's exactly how I wanna make films"...
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: 10779
  • Respect: +719
    • Floating Heads
Godard
« Reply #33 on: January 21, 2004, 12:03:19 PM »
0
well, i happen to agree with GT on this one.  i just didnt enjoy watching the movie, (and i liked Breathless and Contempt).  but i think that personally, film is an entertainment medium, where you can still get ideas across, but it should be in a way that is firstly interesting to watch.  i didn't find the film to be very interesting.  i dont want to watch somebody writing a letter for 8 minutes or somebodys back for 10, and have some hasty resolution come out of nowhere with no drama.  shit, if all the film does is thumb its nose at convention, i could go out right now and film a movie entirely upsidedown where everyone speaks a made up language because that would really BREAK THE RULES.  but that doesnt mean anyone will want to watch it?  does it?  i guess if i'm not interested in the characters, then it doesnt matter to me WHAT the film did for history, cause it just doesnt interest me enough to find out what makes it important.
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

SoNowThen

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 4536
  • Respect: +9
    • 24/30 Cinema
Godard
« Reply #34 on: January 21, 2004, 12:10:49 PM »
0
I don't think of it so much as breaking the rules to break the rules, but more as making up new, better rules that are fresh and interesting.

When Godard cuts to a CU in this film, it means so much more to me and produces such a greater emotional reaction than in the countless thousands of movies I see where they use standard set-ups and cutting, and are ALWAYS showing various CU's. Also, I find the 12 tableau division to be a great way of structuring an episodic story. I hope at least you found the cafe conversation interesting...?? :oops:
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: 10779
  • Respect: +719
    • Floating Heads
Godard
« Reply #35 on: January 21, 2004, 12:21:52 PM »
0
i did not HATE the film.  i just didnt enjoy it.  i felt the most emotionally for the character at the beginning of her journey, and the longer he told the story the less i felt because it was being done in such a way to drain any investment in the character.  so by the time the resolution came around i practically laughed it off.
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

SoNowThen

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 4536
  • Respect: +9
    • 24/30 Cinema
Godard
« Reply #36 on: January 21, 2004, 12:30:57 PM »
0
*spoileroos*

Yeah, he's using the good old Brechtian distancing there. I'm kinda happy it ends like that. There's no sappy-pappy bunk going on. Instead we get the pulpy, almost fake-looking instant ending. Basically because we're told she's in for it twice before in the film. That last tableau is like an afterthought "because it's gotta end that way" kinda thing. For me, the story ends in the cafe section, then the film about a film idea ends with the oval portrait section.
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.

godardian

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 3733
  • Respect: +6
    • Trappings
Godard
« Reply #37 on: January 21, 2004, 01:11:51 PM »
0
Quote from: SoNowThen
*spoileroos*

Yeah, he's using the good old Brechtian distancing there. I'm kinda happy it ends like that. There's no sappy-pappy bunk going on. Instead we get the pulpy, almost fake-looking instant ending. Basically because we're told she's in for it twice before in the film. That last tableau is like an afterthought "because it's gotta end that way" kinda thing. For me, the story ends in the cafe section, then the film about a film idea ends with the oval portrait section.


I hear the French version lingered on the last shot- Karina's body shot down tragically in street- for a good two minutes, and the American one leaves it short. Anyone else heard this? I wonder if the old Vivre sa Vie Criterion laserdisc is the "original" or the American version?

Godard is anything but sentimental, but I find a good deal of tenderness in Vivre sa Vie. The police interrogation scene and the scene at The Passion of Joan of Arc are among my favorites in the film, because you do see that emotion, and it's part of what's going on- Godard just has a bigger picture in mind, and he doesn't limit himself to that. In a way he's talking about the characters and situations, in a way he's talking about the lawlessness of the human spirit (which would lead to the many "political" interpretations of the film), and in a way he's talking about the relationship between the audience and the film. In a way, he's challenging the "completeness" of any film by leaving in what's left out of most narrative fictions, and giving it to us in evenly divided fragments- his film may seem arbitrary, but he's simply calling attention to the arbitrariness at the heart of any made-up story while still giving credence to the need to tell them. This is a very similar impulse to the nouveau roman novelists, like Robbe-Grillet, who were coming to prominence at the time. "Why, exactly, is one thing "interesting" and fit for a fictional narrative, and another isn't?" That also ties in with Andrew Sarris's thing about "It's not the what, it's the how."
""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.

soixante

  • The Magic Flight
  • ****
  • Posts: 649
  • Respect: +5
Godard
« Reply #38 on: January 21, 2004, 01:31:47 PM »
0
Truffaut once said he was interested in the stuff that happened after the scene ended.

One of the delights of Tarantino's films is he shows you the "in-between" stuff -- rather than just showing hired killers or professional thieves doing their jobs, he shows them waiting, philosophizing in restaurants, etc.

As for My Life to Live, it is the most emotionally powerful film Godard has made.  Usually, Godard's films are an intellectual experience, and this one was too, but I also felt genuine sadness at the end.  There is a genuine sense of a loss of innocence.
Music is your best entertainment value.

SHAFTR

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 2337
  • You brought two too many
  • Respect: +4
    • rmlumley.com
Godard
« Reply #39 on: January 21, 2004, 05:14:46 PM »
0
modernage, what about Gerry?  Did you enjoy that film...to me that lingered way beyond the fact and just became extremely boring.

Some more tidbits about My Life to Live I enjoyed.
In his early films, Godard likes to play with the Hollywood conventional endings and he does so here as well.  She is a prostitute so she must die...it's her punishment according to hollywood.

Also, the last section with Godards voice reading the (story or poem, not remembering) about painting an image of your wife, etc.  Interesting.
"Talking shit about a pretty sunset
Blanketing opinions that i'll probably regret soon"

MacGuffin

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 22985
  • Respect: +639
Godard
« Reply #40 on: January 21, 2004, 05:36:43 PM »
0
Quote from: SHAFTR
modernage, what about Gerry?  Did you enjoy that film...


Quote from: In the Bottom Ten - 2003 thread, themodernage02
allow me to revise my list and remove Spider (since it was 2002), and replace it with probably (trying not to exaggerate) the worst movie i've ever seen in my entire life Gerry.

10. once upon a time in mexico
9. the matrix revolutions
8. daredevil
7. the singing detective
6. jeepers creepers 2
5. irreversible
4. northfork
3. t3: rise of the machines
2. house of 1000 corpses
1. gerry

what a piece of shit. i dont even know where to begin.  first of all, the only reason anyone is sitting through this 100 minutes of garbage in the first place is that its Gus Van Sant and has 'real stars' in it.  if this exact EXACT same movie were made by some kid in college and starred his two buddies.  not only would no one be talking about how good it was, but no one would be able to sit through it EVER.  no studio would look at it and agree to put it out, no one would give them another job to ever work again after watching it.  it was terrible.  

i was prepared for a movie with no story about two guys wandering around talking about nothing.  i was not prepared for unbroken shots that went on for 10 minutes and more that contained no talking or a still camera.  if i want to look at a photograph ill do that.  when i want to watch a movie, you better fucking have somebody talking or move the camera or SOMETHING.  tell me a fucking story already!??  i dont want to watch somebodys art project, i want to see a movie.  

this is an example of the absolute worst 'independent film' has to offer.  a fucking bullshit 'art' movie with two assholes wandering around the desert.  how so many of you were tricked into thinking that this was in any way 'good' i have no idea.  who are you kidding?! this thing blew the hardest of any movie ever.
“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

modage

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 10779
  • Respect: +719
    • Floating Heads
Godard
« Reply #41 on: January 21, 2004, 05:46:39 PM »
0
so, in summary, i enjoyed Gerry immensely.  

but, no like i said above (about My Life To Liv), i didn't hate the film.  (at a brisk 85 minutes, i barely had time to register that i didnt care for it, until it was almost over), so i didnt hate it.  i just didn't think it was very good.  i couldnt relate to the characters, because the filmmaker seemed to not take them seriously, and that forced me out of believing in the film.  macguffin, have you seen this, and if so, what did you think?

also, this ties into my SECOND QUESTION in my 'what makes a film great' thread.  is a film great because it IS, or because of what it does?  if i had seen this in the 1962 or whenever it came out, i might've loved this movie, but as it may have influenced tons of movies i DO like, it is neccesary for the doors it helped to open.  however, looking back on this movie, its hard for me to see what made it so important because i've seen other movies that took ideas from this one.  does that make any sense?
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

tpfkabi

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 2673
  • Respect: +22
    • twitter deed, twitter dead. in the heart or in the head?
Godard
« Reply #42 on: January 21, 2004, 10:01:13 PM »
0
i love the film.
part of it might be that it was my first time to see Anna Karina *wowsers*
i love the camera work. i wonder how the gunshot / coffe shop editing was done? at first, i thought he had just removed a few frames, but when i watched it slowly, it looks like alternate shots from different distances.

and i love when she's writing about herself and measures her height like she's doing "itsy bitsy spider"
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 #43 on: January 22, 2004, 09:09:49 AM »
0
Quote from: themodernage02
so, in summary, i enjoyed Gerry immensely.  

but, no like i said above (about My Life To Liv), i didn't hate the film.  (at a brisk 85 minutes, i barely had time to register that i didnt care for it, until it was almost over), so i didnt hate it.  i just didn't think it was very good.  i couldnt relate to the characters, because the filmmaker seemed to not take them seriously, and that forced me out of believing in the film.  macguffin, have you seen this, and if so, what did you think?

also, this ties into my SECOND QUESTION in my 'what makes a film great' thread.  is a film great because it IS, or because of what it does?  if i had seen this in the 1962 or whenever it came out, i might've loved this movie, but as it may have influenced tons of movies i DO like, it is neccesary for the doors it helped to open.  however, looking back on this movie, its hard for me to see what made it so important because i've seen other movies that took ideas from this one.  does that make any sense?


Oh yeah, that makes sense. It's like, I know that Nosferatu (the original) and Metropolis have influenced a ton of films I like, yet, watching those two movies, I wanna gouge my eyes out from boredom.

But I certainly think that Vivre Sa Vie IS a great film, and DOES things that make it great, all at the same time. I really wanna make movies like this now, with this exact type of feeling, but something tells me modern audiences wouldn't stomach it, or they'd say "it's so amatuerish, the guy doesn't know what he's doing".

I'm prepping a feature, and a buddy of mine from LA wants to produce it. So I'm trying to tell him how I want the script to look and feel. I made him watch Band Of Outsiders. He phones me and goes "yeah, there's lots of cool stuff, but if you just set up the tripod like Godard, and it's not even level, I'm gonna fucking kill you". And when I say stuff like "it doesn't really matter if the tripod isn't on the exact eyeline, or it isn't exactly level, or the dolly is bumpy, or we don't cut into a CU on the emotional moment, it doesn't have to look or cut crisp like a commercial"...  he thinks I'm crazy. :)

Godard sets us all free...
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: 10779
  • Respect: +719
    • Floating Heads
Godard
« Reply #44 on: January 22, 2004, 11:15:33 AM »
0
oh well.  no biggie.  Band Of Outsiders is up next...
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

 

DMCA & Copyright | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy