English 5070

Histoire(s) Du Cinema

2009-12-13T10:34:00.000-08:00

I could not get a hold of this video, but attempted to watch it on youtube. The subtitles were blurry and unreadable and there was only three of the six parts available. However, I could get a slight idea of what Godard was trying to say in this film. With footage from Hollywood films, Godard critiques the world of film outside of Jean-Luc Godard. Most of it seemed pretentious, but there were some interesting points and images.

My favorite, was that of Anna Karina. He seems to halfway explain (in a JLG fashion) his love affair with Karina. He compares it to world leaders and the French army taking it in the behind from the German Army in WWII. The rest of the film was violently put together into flashes between images of films, Godard himself, and other stock footage. Throughout the entirety of the film there was a constant banging of a keyboard.

I wish I could have fully watched, and appreciated this film. Hopefully one day I will get my hands on the video,

Notre Musique

2009-12-13T09:33:00.000-08:00

War is hell, the aftermath is purgatory, and death is paradise or heaven. The stock footage and severe images of war, was meant to shock the audience right out of hell into purgatory. Purgatory is where the bulk of the film fell. In a war tattered Sarajevo, students and a reporter named Olga, went to Sarajevo to break a story on war (or at least I believe that is why they were there). In this portion of the film, we again have a philosophical overload, of deep set, often cliche commentary. Godard himself, took a part in this commentary with his showing of photos, it was almost as if he was teaching the students that were there. Olga was a reporter and of Jewish descent, which made for an interesting interview with a Palestinian man. The man spoke of poetry, and claimed that a country should not and cannot win if they do not have good poets. He also said Palestine is known because of Israeli's attacks, and it is Israeli that is notorious.

There were some interesting points in "purgatory", but for the most part (which Godard's later films tend to do) it dragged on and I quickly lost interest. Once again, Godard succeeded in making an eighty minute film seem as if it was three and a half hours long. I am not sure if this is a negative effect of age, or if Godard is purposely making his films drawn out and frankly...boring. What happened after the eighties? He went from making the most obscenely racy, sexually and politically charged films, to sleep worthy, overdone, images and commentary on philosophy of war and countries status.

Yes, this film was boring, but the structure and once again cinematography was beautiful. It was easier to follow past Godard films, which produced mixed feelings. I know I have complained in the past of Godard's lack of structure but it has grown on me, and I have realized that without that style it is not Godard. Although aesthetically beautiful, this film was not shocking, not progressive and not Godard.

Numero Duex

2009-12-12T12:34:00.001-08:00

Godard not only crossed the line, he personally moved the line to a further distance and crossed it again. A wife performing oral sex on her husband’s flaccid penis, naked children, and children getting a first hand account on sexuality while watching their parents make love, all were included in this film. The parents described the vagina as lips and the penis as a mouth, and love making is a sort of silent kiss. The only thing I could think to myself was; who in the right mind would allow their child to be in this film?

What really pushed the envelope, opened it and then spit on it, was some of the dialogue. The open commentary on otherwise taboo subjects, such as; constipation, anal sex, dirty undersides and so on. Many of these subjects were discussed with their children. For example; the wife asks her son Nocolas if he knows what shitting is, he answers “yes” and she then proceeds to tell him that she hasn’t shit in two weeks. Another disturbing piece of commentary that included the children, was the husbands explanation of what he did to his wife when he found out she was cheating on him. He claimed he was so mad at her “he could of raped her”, so instead he had violent anal sex with her while she screamed, he then realized that one of his children was watching the entire encounter. It seemed that Godard wanted to take his audience to the darkest place in their subconscious, and let them roam comfortably in their abnormalities.

Even the way this film was presented was dark and tormented. We watched the encounters with this family through television screens in Godard’s editing room, through his eyes. This made each subject even more eerie, even more forbidden and taboo. This begs the question; why did Godard make this film? Why did he want to show us a seemingly normal family and their darkest secrets, through his gritty eyes? It left me wondering…”was this genius, or simply a strange perversion?” If it was genius, this could have been Godard’s statement against normalcy. No family is “normal”, every family has curious children, and strange sexually charged thoughts between husband and wife. Is normalcy actually perversion, but we just don’t talk about it? Or was Godard simply going for the shock factor, and not trying to expose an underlined issue? Maybe Godard was simply waking up his audience. Maybe he wanted them to revert to their natural and animalistic Freudian subconscious and not think at all. Maybe this film was made to make us not think; instead of to make our heads spin with unanswered questions. The reason for this film I will never be sure of, but I am sure Godard achieved his goal.

British Sounds

2009-12-11T13:00:00.001-08:00

This was the most relevant, and well argued political film I have watched by Jean-Luc Godard. It did not transport me to a different world, or allow me to use my imagination. It brought to reality, and left the imagined unimaginable. Instead of going through the motions in a daydreamed daze, this film forced me to think of the world, my world, our world and the failure of its system. I am not a Marxist communist, but I know rigid, fundamental capitalism has failed. This is why places like the city of Detroit have over a 30 percent unemployment rate. This is why people are freezing to death because they have lost their homes due the greedy bank induced mortgage crisis/ this is why I am two days and three credits shy of a college education and working in a factory through a temp. agency. This is why; if I stay in my current position; I will never be unionized and I will continue to be taken advantage of. This is why I went to college; to eventually be the boss of people like me, to live the American dream, to continue living the dream of capitalism, to use a college degree as a base/start of getting my hands on as much money as I can, to drive a Range Rover, to smoke the finest cigars and drink the best wine, while an unemployed ex G.M employee rummages through my trash. Isn’t life grand?

Who would have known that we, the self proclaimed greatest nation in the world, could become failures? Why have we failed? Greed. Capitalism. They go hand and hand. The AIG presidents demanding millions of dollars in bonuses, after their company got bailed out by working class American people. The big three continuing to produce oil gasoline hogging SUVs , when they know oil prices can go up at any moment; it was too expensive to change their lines, and the American people wanted the status symbol of the bigger the better.

Even though it was made in Great Britain in 1970, “British Sounds” was relevant to modern day class struggle in America, and forced me to think of the reality of America via 2009. Still we over sexualize and undermine women, still workers are taken advantage of and underpaid, still we need reform. Maybe not as extreme of reform as JLG speaks of, but at least a compromise, something similar to modern day Switzerland or France would be beneficial to our country. I want to live the day that the quote in the film: Q “ Mommy is Daddy dead?” A. “ No honey, he works for GM” is laughable and untrue. It has been awhile, but Godard has struck a cord with me and has once again made me re-evaluate life, capitalism, women’s suffrage and my current and relatable situation in this “struggle between image and sound”.

Meeting with Woody Allen

2009-12-09T17:12:00.001-08:00

This was extremely interesting seeing these two major influences on film as we know it, sitting down and speaking to each other. What can I say? It was simply a great experience anticipating and trying to guess what Godard was going to ask Woody Allen. It also was neat to see a humanized and curious Jean-Luc Godard ask questions to such a different type, yet equally as important, film maker.

I am glad Godard brought up the subject of television. What great directors though of television has always been a curiosity to me. Godard told Woody Allen that it has a negative effect on his creative process and compared it to radiation poisoning. I am pretty sure—due to the language barrier—Woody Allen misunderstood the question. Yet, it may have been a little bit after—Woody Allen said that television is a mere appliance not an art. However, Godard seemed to expose a contradiction in Woody Allen’s statement by bringing up a shot of buildings in one of his films. He asked him if the shot would have been the same if he lived in a country where TV. did not exist. Woody Allen drew blank, and eventually said it may have been. Godard basically was making a statement that T.V subconsciously affects us. They then moved on to discussing the creative process, as seen untainted by television.

Woody Allen has never watched the entirety of a single film he has made. He spoke of coming up with the greatest and most beautiful idea, the excitement that comes with that idea, and the eventual frustration that comes with not being able to produce that perfect image in his head. He does not want to watch the finished project because all he can see is the imperfections. He feels that directing is a tedious process, he is just glad he can do something tedious with film. Like most great artist, both Godard and Allen are never satisfied, nothing they produce meets the standards they produce in their head, and they will always stride for perfection, producing the perfect piece of art. We may see their art as beautiful and flawless, but in their eyes they will never see anything they produce as perfect (let alone satisfactory). Great artists are in constant battle with themselves…and they will never be satisfied.

In Praise of Love

2009-12-07T17:02:00.001-08:00

In Praise of Love:

Is it just me or is Godard starting to slip in to an unconscious and distorted oblivion? “In Praise of Love” was layered with so many ideals that once again they were all lost, and once again I was left shaking my head. How can one film have three separate love stories (if you want to call them stories), knock Spielberg, tackle pompous Americanism, deal with a film within the film and give us a history lesson on the French Revolution…all while adding extremely thick dialogue coated with “deep” and often random thoughts? The answer; it cant. It was a mess--if it was not for the cinematography and the lack of color contrasted with the overuse of color—I would have fallen asleep.

I hate to sound bitter, but Godard’s modern works simply are unbearable. Like an athlete who hangs up the sneakers after his knees give out, it looks like Godard should have hung up the scripts and camera. It seems the flaws that actually helped make earlier films more beautiful and real, have been overexposed and equate to an explosion of sleep worthy modern Godard films.

I also have a slight problem with Godard completely contradicting himself. I may have misinterpreted it (which is most likely the case, since this film was so poorly put together) but he seems to take a feminist stand. Correct me if I am wrong, but he makes a statement against female nudity in American cinema. This is strange, since the last five films I have watched had dozens of naked females in the shots. He also once had a fascination with female prostitutes, and used them as main characters. Is he saying it is only okay when he does it? Why cant American cinema also be misogynistic? His point is not what bothers me, what bothers me is his obvious contradictions. It was as if he was searching for anything to attack Hollywood cinema.

For Ever Mozart

2009-12-02T16:37:00.000-08:00

The run time was an hour and twenty five minutes, but it felt like it ran longer than Titanic. I failed to learn the relevance of more than half of this film; either I have a short attention span, or Godard lacked logical closure and explanation. Did Godard piece together this film just for the sheer fact that he could? Did he know he could rush through and produce a bowl movement of a movie, knowing people would watch it because of his reputation? Did he know that many would claim For Ever Mozart as brilliant, simply because they didn’t understand it?

For the first time, I think Godard took advantage of his reputation as the strange, extremely artistic, edgy, and not easy to follow film maker. He used his reputation to put together a mumbling, rambling bore of a film, and get away with it. I barely followed the main plot of a young crew of actors, an aging director who struggled with funding, and their filming in Sarajevo. On top of this, the essay format and the philosophical jargon was not strong enough to keep the audience thinking—it simply went in one ear and out the other.

The cinematography was sub-par, at best. This really disappointed me. When I watched earlier political films that I could not exactly relate to, I could at least admire the unique beauty of the still shots, use of color, settings, etc. This time; there was no thought that went into the colors, the settings, etc. I was sick of continuous shots of the ocean, and faux woods. The explosions were cheaply done, and the machine gun shots sounded as if they came pre-recorded off one of those “high tech” keyboards via 1989.

I have been critical about many of Godard’s films, but this is the first time I have been thoroughly disappointed. I usually can find some good, but this time I could not. After I watched it, I shook my head and asked myself: "what happened"?

Passion

2009-11-29T09:25:00.001-08:00

This film was a piece of aesthetic pleasure infused with Godard's intellectual mindset. The Polish director may of represented Godard at a young age. The director had a particular problem that I am sure Godard also had-- the issue of funding. The producers did not want to fund a film with a lack of story, and the director responded that the story must be lived before it is created. This may of been Godard's way of stating that films themselves will create a story, even if they lack a structured plot. Another parallel could have been the Polish director's love affairs with the women involved in his film. This could be a representation of Godard's involvement with actresses such as; Anna Karina.

The shooting of the film within the film was particularly beautiful. The Greek setting inside the studio seemed like an extravagant painting from the time of Helen. There was never much explained action, just eye catching frames and wonderful colors. There were dozens of beautiful and eloquently positioned women. The nudity was not pornographic, but an artistic expression and celebration of the human body. It was like seeing sculpted, idealistic nude portraits in a gallery or museum.

I feel Godard went to great lakes to make the shooting of the film beautiful, to let his ideals be known: He does not make films to tell a story, he makes films for the sake of beauty, ideals and the creation of a story through a film.

First Name: Carmen

2009-11-24T15:56:00.000-08:00

A perverse tail of Carmen and her terrorist bank robbing team. Godard plays himself and Carmen's uncle. Carmen convinces Uncle Godard--who is living in what looks like an insane asylum--to use his apartment near the ocean to shoot a film. Although, the film is simply a cover-up for a bank robbery. This inspires Godard--who now truly believes his boom-box is a camera that plays music--to direct the "film" and begin making films again. Godard speaks of his the films he has made early in his career as if he made them in some other life--this was not only extremely eerie, but I felt like Godard was my crazy uncle telling tails of his youth.

In Carmen's initial meeting with her uncle, I feel a strong sexual tension between them. It almost seemed as the two had a strange and inappropriate sexual past. I was reminded of this tension when Carmen and Joseph arrived at the apartment by the ocean. Carmen sighs while in Godard's old room as if it brought upon strange, distorted, yet strangely satisfying memories. Did Godard and Carmen have a sexual past? Was Carmen molested by her uncle?

We do know for sure that Carmen was molested by Joseph. Joseph was what we now call "a sex addict". Carmen did initially enjoy sex with Joseph, but when she no longer wanted to be with him--he could not take no for an answer. He was constantly pulling down her panties and trying to instigate love making. He found her so desirable that when she refused him, he could not help but masturbate next to her while she was in the shower-- which Carmen responded to with the line "why do men exist?"

This strange sexuality made the film mildly entertaining, it was also pretty neat to see the man and the legend on screen. Other than that it seemed to skip around even when it was not skipping around. I kept finding myself thinking that I was watching a flashback, but in all actuality the film was linear.

All's Well

2009-11-16T15:56:00.000-08:00

Finally--a film I enjoyed from start to finish. Although the plot was loose, the film built upon the presented information to the climax--the grocery store scene. At first I was wondering why so much time was spent on the factory strike, why Jane Fonda was in the film, and like usual what the hell was going on. Soon I realized that Jane Fonda was a struggling reporter who's editor would not publish her articles on the class struggle. The factory strike was her first article that was denied. After this realization, I was able to look at the larger picture and Godard's argument actually made sense.

The very "Week-end" like grocery store scene made the entire film worth watching. While watching that scene and listening to Jane Fonda, extremely pro-socialist thoughts came racing through my head. It suddenly seemed ridiculous that people actually make a profit off of our basic needs. Without the act of handing a robotic cashier our money we will actually die. In our society there is someone getting rich off of food. Without their success...we will die. What is wrong with this picture?

Godard makes the point, by exposing the meat factory, that these capitalistic food profiteers cannot even treat their employees right. Jane Fonda compares the factory to the way the supermarket is ran. After working in a factory...this is a spot on description.

This was an all around excellent film, it did not hit me as hard as "Week-end", but it did allow me to get on the same page as Godard. The film seemed to be organized like an avalanche--it started off as a simple protest and gained momentum to be a statement on the political ideology of France via 1972.

Hail Mary

2009-11-08T07:30:00.000-08:00

Once again Godard presents one of the two most controversial issues--religion (politics being the latter). He tells the story of Mary and Joseph in a modern setting, depicting what modern society would most likely focus on. Instead of acceptance of Mary's pregnancy, Joseph struggles with the idea that she is pregnant while he has never had sex with her. He initially concludes that she has cheated on him. He even goes as far as to breaking up with Mary and courting another woman. Eventually he accepts the idea and tells Mary he will stay and "not touch her".

There was also a great deal of focus on Mary's body. The lower half of her body was often exposed, and she also proved to Joseph and her doctor that she was a virgin. This may of symbolized the temptation Joseph felt to take away Mary's purity. There was a very prevalent sexual tension between her and the doctor. The doctor seemed to touch her in a non-medical manner, and struck me to have underline bad intentions. I am unsure why Mary let her son put his head under her gown. It was certainly strange to let a boy that old intentionally look at his mother's naked body.

Even after Mary gave birth, I was not convinced that Joseph believed that the child was the son of God. When Jesus or Jr ran off to "take on his father's work" Joseph tried to stop him and get him into the car. He did not believe Jr had an agenda to do God's work. The people around her also seemed to take the same approach. Toward the end of the movie someone casually (almost sarcastically) said "Hail Mary" to Mary. Societies disinterest in a virgin pregnancy may of been Godard's way of saying "religion is dead".

Again the cinematography was amazingly done. The closeups of the flowers, and the numerous still shots looked like well done abstract landscape paintings. If the film was about thirty minutes shorter I would have been more impressed. After a while I grew antsy, but the underlined issues seemed fit for Godard.

La Gai Savoir

2009-10-27T12:12:00.000-07:00

This was a visual essay. It was exhausting and irrelevant to a twenty two year old in 2009. I am not part of the revolution, nor do I know of a strong modern day communist movement. This certainly made it difficult to get through the film. I did however; full fill my promise and looked at the film through an objective eye. Through a naked eye, I was able to yank out pieces of enjoyment from this otherwise brutal ninety two minute experience.

I found the blacked out space where the two characters met to be a basic but beautiful technique. The colors the characters wore were vibrant, making it look as if the shots were in high definition--the 1969 version of HD TV. I enjoyed the aesthetics of these shot combined with the flashes of the "images" they were studying.

Part of the presentation of the actual dialogue was very interesting. This was when Patricia would speak for Emile and Emile would speak for Patricia. This spiked my interest in what they were saying. It also played a small game with the viewers mind, making them really pay attention to the spoken word. If the spoken word was more interesting, it would have been a very effective technique. I also was obliged to like it, since it reminded me of dialogue in a novel.

Some of Emile and Patricia's studies were also interesting. In particular the words said to the little boy and old man. Words were stated and the little boy and old man would give back a reaction word. They were both innocent and looked uncomfortable when the words "sexual" or "revolution" were spoken. I did however find it funny when the little boy responded with "father" for "sex" and every other negative word spoken. I could never guess how either one would respond and I was actually glued to the screen and laughing during these parts.

I kept an objective eye and found positives in "La Gai Savoir". I just hope the future films are a little less political.

La Chinoise

2009-10-23T10:03:00.000-07:00

This was a history lesson on Leftist politics. It was as if I was in a class studying Marx, Lenin, Mao, etc. Yes, I was indeed bored and had much trouble sitting through the entire film. I feel as if my background in English and literature is hindering my ability to enjoy Godard's political films. Yes there is beautifully constructed dialouge and unconventional filming techniques, but there is absolutely no story line or plot. I would rather watch a documentary, not actors pretending to be in a documentary. I am despreately searching for something, someone or a scene to relate to. I am having trouble relating to 1960s French leftist ideology.

My viewing enjoyment may boost if I start to look at these films in a different way. Instead of trying to find or relate to something in the films, look at them objectively. Look at them as if I am at the DIA admiring a modernist painting. I am coming to realization that Godard is an abstract modernist artist and does not want to conform to traditional storytelling. I may get more out of these films if I clear my mind and simply watch and admire them for their beauty.

I did enjoy the the unconventional shots and the vibrant colors. I also found the characters interesting, especially the female characters. The one being a prostitute and the other seemed to control not only her boyfriend, but the group meetings. I particularly liked the scene where she tells Guillaume that she no longer loves him--simply to prove a point. The point being "you can do two things at once" understand and be devistated.

For the next film: I hope I am able to look at it with more of an open mind and an abstract point of view.

Sympathy for the Devil

2009-10-13T15:03:00.000-07:00

Sympathy for the Devil

I was extremely excited for this film--knowing that the Rolling Stones played a large role—I had a predisposition of enjoyment. Thirty minutes into it, I realized Godard was pretty much filming the Stones recording the song “Sympathy for the Devil”. Not one of them acknowledged the camera; it looked like there was a hidden camera in the studio. To be honest I finally got sick of a song I always loved to hear. I could have done with out the Rolling Stones band practice and was irked by the prolonged and unnecessary studio scenes. The film would have been much more powerful with two Rolling Stones scenes—one at the beginning and one at the end. Not only would this of cut out about an hour of unnecessary boredom after the initial excitement of seeing the Stones via 1968, but it distracted the messages of the film.

That being said; I thoroughly enjoyed the rest of the film. It was bizarre, it was honest, it was thought provoking, it was shocking, it was powerful, it was Godard. The wonderfully eerie Black Panther Scenes were of my favorite. The message of the quite script that was repeated and recorded and spoken on microphone-- contradicted their hateful actions. The background noise of trains and jet plains did distract, but added to the chaos. These scenes were shot in a beautiful junkyard (where cars go to die) and it made me wonder if the place was real or constructed by Godard.

I cannot thoroughly examine the scenes that Godard used to tack the issues of: Feminism, racism, Communism, Fascism (pornographic fascist bookstore) and more. It seemed to me—since the film was in English—Godard was exposing these issues to let western culture realize how close and/or real these issues are.

All around the film was great accept of the overexposure of band practice. Godard may of included these scenes for an important reason—if so it flew a mile over my head.

Made in U.S.A

2009-10-06T11:55:00.000-07:00

The title insinuated that the political left and the right were created in the U.S.A. In the ending scene it was said that the right is simply cold and mindless, while the left is compassionate and understanding. The film was a political statement, promoting leftist politics. Since these statements were constantly interrupting the loose plot, it was often difficult to understand. However, this was Godard’s intention—the plot was simply another element included in this collaboration of politics, metaphors, interruptions, vibrant colors, beautiful shots, and all around bizarre sometimes incomprehensible random events.

Anna Karina played a very different role in this film than the two prior films. Instead of an innocent and naïve little girl, Karina was a powerful leftist investigative reporter that wasn’t afraid to kill of her cause. I enjoyed her character and found it out of the ordinary that Godard made his female lead have power. However, I did not enjoy the film.

Yes, aesthetically the film was very pleasing, but conceptually it was all over the place. I am aware that Godard often has a loose plot, but this film did not even have the metaphors and political statement organized—making them lost in the confusion. It seemed thrown together and self indulgent while relying on passing as “artsy”, “different” or the statement “oh that Godard is making us think again.” It seemed as if twenty ideas were carelessly injected in one tiring script—which burned any hopes of making a plausible argument of radical idealism to ashes.

A Married Woman

2009-09-26T09:03:00.000-07:00

Commercialized and superficial Charlotte has to choose between her husband (Pierre) and her lover (Robert). She tells her lover that she is will leave Pierre and marry him. However, when she is with Pierre she makes love with him and tries to successfully raise his son. I believe the small boy in the film had a separate birthmother. Pierre tells Charlotte that he wants to have a baby with her, Charlotte responds by telling him he already has one, Pierre states that the boy is not hers. Robert also wants to have a baby with Charlotte, which was stated in one of many overdone scenes of close-up touching.

In between measuring her breasts and fantasizing over lingerie advertisements and in vogue magazines, Charlotte discovers that she is pregnant. This is a strange predicament since she is having sex with two men that both want to conceive a child with her. This issue is left unsolved and the audience is left wondering what happened.

The movie is filled with symbolism and long philosophical rants that are often broken into categories or chapters. I particularly enjoyed Pierre’s co-workers definition of intelligence; in fact this may have been my favorite part of the film. I do believe Godard added this scene to reveal Charlotte’s stupidity. She was the exact opposite of the given in depth definition of intelligence.

Again, the female lead irked me. She was an incredibly materialistic person who was mostly influenced by main stream media and pop-culture. She needed to fit the “ideal”. I found it hilarious when she was measuring her bust—it seemed to be the most complicated and inaccurate way to measure anything! The magazine told her to draw imaginary lines after every measurement. Charlotte seemed pleased because she was very close to having “the perfect bust”.

All around I was pretty disinterested in the film, mainly because I was disinterested in Charlotte and both of her lovers. Pierre seemed both spineless and demanding. He must have known she was unfaithful since he once had her followed. It was almost like he used his wife’s infidelity as a way to control her. He would ask her questions such as “Have you been a good girl?” It seemed he used this against her to get what he wanted sexually.

Robert was simply a boring character. As far as I am concerned he was just a part of the many overdone close ups of male and female limbs.

Band of Outsiders

2009-09-21T15:43:00.000-07:00

A naïve little girl lacking the intellectual capability to make a rational decision—this is how Godard portrays Odile (Anna Karina) in “Band of Outsiders”. Odile is coaxed by Arthur and Franz to allow them to steal money from the home she lives in. She first falls in love with Franz, but then realizes that Arthur is more mysterious and available and goes with him. As soon as Arthur is killed she goes back to Franz. To sum it up Odile—although beautiful—was a pitiful character that irked me throughout the entirety of the film.

Now that I got that off my chest, let’s cover some of the stylistic aspects of the film. It is obvious the film was based off of a dime store novel, for it was for the most part light hearted and somewhat humorous. Again, Godard uses a narrator (Franz) throughout the film. This aspect of many of Godard’s films helps me relate to the main character and is very enjoyable. I particularly enjoyed the infamous dance scene. The music stopped, the characters stopped dancing and the narrator told the audience what each character was thinking of while dancing. This—which Godard often uses various techniques to accomplish—reminds the audience that what they are watching is indeed a film. Another example of this in “Band of Outsiders” was the minute of silence. All sounds were complete cut out for what was supposed to be a minute (I counted thirty seconds or so). This was of course, uncomfortable and maybe the start of a new beginning for Godard –which led to many uncomfortable scenes in movies like “Weekend”.

Franz and Arthur were not very serious character, they were horrible criminals and it was extremely entertaining. Especially since the man they were stealing from was suspicious because they left the ladder outside the window near his safe.

All together the film was entertaining, but unlike most of Godard’s films it did not challenge me intellectually—it was simply entertaining.

Le Petit Soldat

2009-09-10T10:50:00.000-07:00

Bruno--a down in luck hit man for a French anti-terrorist group in the midst of the Algerian War—is full of complexities that eventually lead to trouble. Bruno is rethinking his assignment to murder a certain man, and simply cannot bring himself to take action. On his first day of murder attempts Bruno would hesitate every time he had an open shot. Soon after he was captured by the Arabs and tortured. Like a good soldier, Bruno did not give them the information they required (the address of the French group he worked for). Even though he did not give up the information, he was soon betrayed by the very group he was protecting. He killed the man he did not want to kill, they did not fulfill their promises of two passports and they murdered Veronica (Anna Karina).

This was Godard’s second film—made in 1960 but not released until 1963. Here starts his obsession with Anna Karina. Beautifying and worshipping her with the camera, Karina is the only form of aesthetic beauty through the ugly portrait of the underground street gang version of a war. However, Bruno was betrayed and almost tricked by this beauty. The entire time Veronica was working for the Arabs—and once dated a man who helped torture Bruno. He eventually discovered her betrayal, forgave her and trusted her. In fact, he was forced to kill because of her. At the end of the film, I believe Bruno states “It was the woman”, or it was the woman that made me kill. A woman’s betrayal and love may have portrayed Godard’s personal relationship with Anna Karina.

Godard had a raw and rustic shooting style. As far as I could tell he did not use a studio and shot the entire film on the street. I was also intrigued with the sound. Whenever a conversation was taking place there was zero background noise—even when the characters were driving through the busy streets. This allowed the viewer to pay more attention to the dialogue—making every conversation important.

All around I enjoyed the film, but wish I knew more about the Algerian war. I also liked the undertones throughout the film—i.e the newspaper with Hitler’s photo on the front page.

"The Weekend"

2008-12-16T05:24:00.001-08:00

Brent Stapleton
Paper Number II

Week End
Was this a film or a living, breathing, irritated creature waiting impatiently to offend most and force questions that may have no answer? “Week End” was the most physically and mentally provoking and controversial films I have ever witnessed. After experiencing the film (not viewing) I was in a literal trance. Two days following the event, I was still questioning everything from consumerism to the greed consumerism has caused for the modern day Christmas. I was agitated and not pleasant to be around. I wanted to create poetry that was legible to only me or a Dadaist poem out of random clippings from the collaboration of my Norton Anthologies. I had never been so exhausted from a piece of art, so ornate yet so enriched. To make this film manageable and un-haunting, I learned how to learn from the presented chaos.
It starts off with Corinne’s recollection of a twisted threesome involving two women, one man, eggs and cat bowl of milk. The description was encouraged by Roland Corinne’s husband. The sexual experience did not involve Roland and he was turned on by his wife’s adultery. The scene baffles the viewer and forces them to later discover Corinne and Roland are bonded by wedlock. Soon after we get an even better depiction of the extent of heartless and lack of morals the two characters have. They plan on visiting their parent’s for the weekend; in hope that before they get there their parents are killed in a car accident. This way they will not have to kill them to receive their inheritance. The couple leaves for their weekend trip to kill their parents and we are exposed to the horrific outside world. Everywhere the camera takes us is chaos and or ruins in their purest form. Cars burn and people lay dead bleeding on the side of the highway. Roland continues to drive as if the burning cars and people are inconveniencing his mission. He harshly jerks around the convertible, dodging the wrecks disgruntled and irate.
The lengthiest and possibly the most irritating scene is the traffic Jam. Roland, while joining the continuous beeping of the horns in what seems like never ending traffic jam, tries to cut in front of the line. In each car, the passengers are doing something mildly entertaining to pass the time (which is actually quite humorous). After what seems to be a fifteen minute one shot, Roland finally maneuvers his way to the front. A brutal car accident blocking the road is what caused the traffic jam. We now are introduced to a young gal who was involved in the accident. She complains to spectators that she has gotten blood on her new clothes. She nor anyone else acknowledge that the blood is from her brutally killed boyfriend that was in the driver’s seat. She is only worried about the things she consumed with currency.
I can only introduce the characters; I cannot give an extensive overview because there is no possible way to re-tell what is viewed on screen. I can however explain the aliveness of the film and what it provoked within me. Throughout the entire film I felt uneasy and at edge. My heart rate increased and thoughts raced through my mind. I did not try to analyze the film or find any hidden meaning, I simply was not capable. Even though it was a film of the past, I took it in contents and applied it to present day America. It made me evaluate what our greed and thirst for more of replaceable materialistic items have brought us. Sometimes exposing the most despicable case of a negative behavior is the only way to expose what very well could be the cause of our demise. That is exactly what this experience did for me. It exposed me to the brutality and panic greed and excessive consumerism can cause. T
The sheer alarm of the film somewhat fits the mindset of the current American situation. In the past Americans demanded larger everything; for example the purchase of unaffordable massive homes and oil eating SUVs. In result of the excessive consumerism Americans are now living beyond their means. Like the characters in the film, we have little or no respect for human life, as long as the result is more consumption. We fight wars and kill for massive oil fields. Why? So we can continue to destroy the planet and depend on taking lives to cheaply fill our escalades with gasoline? It has caught up to us; our immense homes are being foreclosed and the automotive companies are failing. We are now wondering, especially as Detroiters, why we are left penniless, unemployed and homeless. Maybe Godard was sending a warning to the world through this film. It is a harsh reality that not many can comprehend without becoming “offended” or “repulsed”. The United States is now learning it’s lesson the hard way and is on its way to paying the consequences of greed.
No, most of us are not killing our parents to gain our inheritance, or instead of mourning a death worrying about the blood stains on our shirt, but we have been guilty of putting consumerism in front of the basic well being of the world. Godard depicts this in an extremist mannerism. This way the attention of the audience is gained and people are forced to live through this film. Almost like a bad trip or dream, In order to make it through this film you must think of reality. Godard forces you to think of current events or else the film will stick with you for days, putting you into an odd hypnotized type state. You must embrace the negativity to slay this ornate living creature, like a battle you always learn something from your opponent. This was not a film; it was the ugly and un-wanted face of change.

"A Woman Is A Woman"

2008-12-16T02:13:00.000-08:00

It is incredible looking back and relating this film to the later Godard work. Compared to his later work which is incredibly bizarre and convoluted with little to no plot to follow; this film was fairly simple. In my opinion it was a parody to a traditional musical. The times chosen to sing seemed to be obviously in-opportune and un-necessary. The general plot of the movie was very untradional and not typically put into song. Anna Karina played an unstable stripper that wanted more than anything to become pregnant. Her boyfriend refused and the film was made up of entertaining fights between the lovers. Eventually Anna Karina's character sleeps with a man they encounter daily. When her boyfriend finally agrees to sleep with her she tells him of her relations with the other man. Now if she does indeed get pregnant, they will be unsure who the father of the baby it actually is.

In this film we see early signs of Godard's theme of female sex-workers in his films. The neighbor in the apartment is a prostitute and happily has men coming and going every time she is shown. Godard typically shows prostitutes as average people and often joyful. Anna Karina's character is a stripper. This role is somewhat innocent in Godard standards and may represent the freshness of Godard and Karina's relationship at the time.

This was the first film we saw Godard's idealization of Karina. Constant close-ups and admiration of her beauty continues throughout the film. Some may see Godard's idealization of Karina to be demoralizing to women. They may feel this is puting a women on a petistle and not treeting them as an equal. I am impartial to the argument and feel that a director has the right to depict his characters in any mannerism chosen.

"The Umbrellas of Cherbourg"

2008-12-16T01:44:00.000-08:00

I did not particularly enjoy this film. I am not a fan of musicals and this was beyond a musical. Every bit of dialogue was delivered in song, this made me lose my sanity twenty minutes into the film. I could not find a character that I could relate to and did not particularly like Guy or Genvieve. Guy seemed like a fairy tale depiction of women's desires. He was handsome, simple, caring and sensitive. In my opinion the character was a complete fabrication, I don't know, maybe it was all the singing. Genvieve was naive, spoiled and incapable of making any rational decision. I believe we were supposed to dislike her mother, but I absolutely despised her to the point where I did not want to see her on screen. She practically forced Genvieve to get together with the jeweler while Guy was off fighting a war. She was interested in nothing else but the Jewelers money and used her daughter to get connected to a man with wealth. This is prostitution with the mother acting as the pimp, selling her own daughter. In the end it looked as if Guy full filled his dream of opening his own gas station and Genvieve was a simple play thing to her wealthy husband. This gave me some closure, at least Genvieve's decision to not wait for Guy and marry the jeweler came back to haunt her.

On a bright note, the illuminating colors of the films were indeed interesting. The way the film was shot and the use of color may have been the only positive I took from my viewing. I do not know very much about cinematography, but I do know that the film was aesthetically appealing.

"Vivre Sa Vie"

2008-12-16T01:10:00.000-08:00

This was a truly beautiful film. Godard's obsession with Anna Karina helped produce a beautifully shot film. The twelve different sections of the film guide the audience into Nana's life of prostitution. Was this film done to represent Godard's love and failure to obtain a relationship Anna Karina? This was however originally a novel, how much did Godard change the base of the novel to make Nana (Anna Karina) the subject at all times?

My favorite scene of the movie is when we are first introduced to Paul. Nana is dressed to the nines ready to go to the theatre with her pimp (I lost his name). They make a stop at a pool bar, which Nana is not happy about. This scene shows Nana's true power over men. She asks the bartender downstairs if they have cigarettes. The bar tender tells her yes and asks her if she wants one, Nana refuses. When she goes upstairs, without asking she patiently watches Paul go downstairs and fetch a cigarette for her. She new Paul would fetch the cigarette, and wanted to see if she could influence him with sheer beauty to do her an unasked favor.

This scene established my wonderment of what Godard was representing. Did this have to do with his diminishing relationship with Anna Karina? I feel Godard represented himself in two characters: the pimp and Paul. The pimp simply used Nana for his profit and sold her when he was through (which eventually led to her death). Paul on the other hand was greatly influenced and easily controlled by Nana. The pimp may of been Godard's representation of using Anna Karina in his films and watching and disposing of her when he was done. Paul may of been the representation of Anna Karina's actual power over Godard, and the love he felt for her. I will have to watch this film again to truly analyze it. It seems to be full of under-tones that were most likely influenced by Godard's life and relationship with Anna Karina.

"Les Carabiniers"

2008-12-16T00:47:00.000-08:00

The characters in this film show cartoon like qualities. Everything down to their names is animated and ironic. Ulysses, Michel Angelo, Venus and Cleopatre are not great historical figures or goddesses they are in fact idiots. Ulysses and Michel Angelo are hoaxed into going to war for their country. They are promised the great treasures of the world and truly believe they can obtain them. Venus and Cleopatre beg them to go to war so they can bare gifts when they return. When they are in war they are completely animistic because they believe that everything is there for the taking. They were told that in war you can steal, commit arson, murder in the cold blood, rape and demoralize woman etc. One of the character's promised treasures was a Maserati. They show him at a car dealership not understanding that you need money in order to purchase the car. Naturally he carelessly starts to rob people in order to obtain the un obtainable amount of money it takes to purchase a Maserati. The other character was shown at a movie theatre. The film being played showed an attractive lady bathing, you could see his excitement grow. He did not know that the lady was not real and he tried to kiss her through the screen. He ended up falling through the screen with a comical dumbfounded look on his face.

This was on obvious anti-war film, but also may be an attack on volunteer soldiers. Or the country depicted could have easily represented Nazi Germany during World War II. They brainwashed their soldiers to full fill their goal of world domination. This is exactly what the country in the film was doing with naive Ulysses and Michel Angelo. Godard again leaves the doors open, and the viewer can decide for themselves what the vision was supposed to represent.

"Day for Night"

2008-12-16T00:20:00.000-08:00

This was an enjoyable and clever film that unlike later Godard films allowed me to relax and follow a story. It was great viewing Truffaut's depiction of a studio made movie. Truffaut himself was very natural on screen, playing a struggling young director, and was not a bad actor.

The idea of making a film about the process and drama that goes into the production of an actual film was very revealing and in my opinion educational. I rarely think of clashing personalities, love affairs and experiences of my favorite actors, actresses, cinematographers, directors etc. while they shot my favorite movie. This made me look at the process of film making in a more psychoanalytical way. It was almost as if Truffaut's character was forced to play a parental type role to his staff. This was incredibly stressful because he was battling the high expectations of producers and his personal demons.

Mundane and comical problems became a real hinder to the process. One particular problem that I found enjoyable and quite comical was the kitten that would not drink the milk. The entire shot and days work was in jeopardy because the cat they chose for the scene was to bashful to drink the presented milk outside the supposed hotel room of the lovers having the affair. I believe this may of been a presentation by Truffaut to viewers and staff including actors and actresses, of how stressful his job really is.

He displayed the main actor as a complex love sicken pre-Madonna. The actors personal flaws almost stopped the production of the entire movie. This makes you wonder about the people that are professional actors and actresses and how many times things like this may happen on the actual shooting of a film. Especially in today's Hollywood films, the actors and actresses hold an incredible amount of power and can make or break a directors film. I truly believe this was Truffaut venting.

Two or Three Things I Know About Her

2008-12-15T23:47:00.001-08:00

Most the Godard films we were exposed to were very difficult for me to grasp, I believe this class will motivate me to obtain a Netflix account, do some research of the 60's in France and re-watch the films by Godard we viewed. My lack of knowledge of the politics at the time seem to be tainting my view and understanding of Godard. I realize he is a great and innovative artist and is definitely worth researching and attempting to understand.

There is a definite lack of plot in this film. It is more of a documentary with actors and actresses than a fictional tale. Godard even goes as far as introducing the main actress in the beginning of the film. Since I am an English major and a slappy for fiction I found this style of film difficult to cope with. I do not need a strong plot, just something to temporarily let me believe that it is not a film.

We learned in class that there were problems with the government housing in Paris at the time. This film certainly depicts the noisy, cramped and overpriced cookie cutter living that was available. I however, do not know the reasoning behind why so many people were forced to live in these sort of expensive slums. This is something I may have to research before I can fully understand. I did notice that the main character may of liked her profession as a prostitute. It allowed her to afford new clothes and hats (she was shown shopping at the beginning of the film). This gives me reason to believe that Godard was trying to depict that the characters life style was a choice and not a necessity. It makes ask questions such as; why can't a prostitute be a normal middle class woman? What in society has shunned supposedly the worlds oldest profession? A modern day argument can be the spread of disease and AIDS. Another argument can be the introduction of religion. This is not discussed in the film, obviously the prior AIDS theory was before the films time, but this is what I was thinking instead of trying to follow a sensible line of fiction.

Apparently Godard achieved his goal. He made me think. His lack of plot forced me to produce my own. This may be a positive attribute, a film as a living and breathing thing, producing different ideas in every individual each time we watch. It is one of those things that is so innovative I may hate to like it.

Bonnie and Clyde

2008-12-15T06:14:00.000-08:00

This film was bending the rules of traditional American Cinema. American cinema prior to this never routed for criminals. The plot line followed Bonnie and Clyde and made these characters very likable. Bonnie and Clyde were bank robbers and murderers, but the viewer wanted to see them succeed. In films today this is a very common theme, however in 1967 when this film was produced this was practically un heard of in Hollywood. This makes Bonnie and Clyde a very innovative film that paved the path for thousands of following Hollywood films.

In class the professor mentioned that the original screen play for Bonnie and Clyde was even more provocative. In the actual film Clyde was impotent, this was an ongoing theme and joke throughout the film. Instead of sex scenes we saw Bonnie's frustration and Clyde's inability to make love. In the original screen play Clyde was bi-sexual and had a love affair with C.W. There were certainly under tones of this in the actual film. One example that sticks out in my head is the checkers game in the lodge. C.W is sitting in between Clyde's legs and Clyde is playing with his hair. Bonnie is standing behind the two men with an incredibly ornate look on her face. This certainly is not how two heterosexual men typically behave.

In conclusion, the main characters were both criminals, one was impotent and possibly bi-sexual, the other was sex- driven and very turned on by the site and use of guns. This is not average 1967 Hollywood characters in film.

"Contempt"

2008-11-25T15:12:00.000-08:00

Paul does not realize that on multiple occasions he objectifies his wife Camille. In Camille's perspective, Paul uses her to receive a pay increase and obtain job security from the American producer that hires him. Paul insists that Camille drives with the producer to his cottage and he will arrive by taxi. This makes Camille feel as if Paul was renting her out for the benefit of his career. However, Camille does not communicate her feelings to Paul, instead she plays mind games and does not tell Paul what is bothering her. She acts strange and dramatic, but never tells Paul her feelings. She is incredibly indecisive on whether or not she wants Paul to take the movie. She initially tells him no, but when Paul mentions paying off the apartment she agrees with the decision to say yes to the movie. She changes her mind multiple times and finally claims she supports Paul's career and wants him to take the job. On the film set, Paul again sends Camille to be alone with the American producer. This time Camille kisses the producer in front of Paul, apparently to try and hurt him as much as he hurt her. Before she runs off with the producer (for good), she finally explains to Paul his wrong doings. She claims that the worst part of Paul's actions were the fact that he did not know what he was doing.

As a male I did not see Paul's actions as threatening or demeaning. I felt that he simply had trust in his wife; he did not demand that she went with the producer, he simply agreed when asked. Until I was given an explanation I did not know why Camille was acting as if she did not love Paul. I could not understand how he had wronged her and was looking forward to the explanation.

This is one of Godard's most honest films that I have watched thus far. In my opinion, it's honesty was comical. Paul had no idea what he did wrong and Camille was so angry that she left him. This shows that most of the time men do not completely understand woman. I found it humorous because there has been many times that my girlfriend was mad at me, but would not tell me why or even admit that she was angry. The film depicted a reality that is not always seriously looked at.

"Alphaville"

2008-11-23T15:23:00.000-08:00

If we must categorize "Alphaville" it would be placed in the genre of science fiction. Alphaville is a city on an un-named planet that is controlled by an enormous computer. The computer thinks analytically and dictates Alphaville with pure logic. The citizens are punished and executed for basic emotions and feelings. In Alphaville, dictionaries and literature are controlled and words that strike emotion are eliminated. Lemmy Caution, a detective from planet earth, was sent to this strange place to prevent a declaration of war on earth. He must battle the heartless logic of the super-computer and it's creator. His intellectual western views are radical and dangerous in a place like Alphaville. He must use his wit to stop this super-computer from mastering the entire universe.

Although I have not read George Orwell's "1984" in years, I could not help to see parallels between Orwell's novel and this particular Godard film. Although the plot summary was different there were similarities in the ideology of the "Big Brother" ran government in Oceania and the computer ran society in Alphaville. The citizens of both Oceania and Alphaville were under constant surveillance and control of the empowering body. In Oceania creative literature was diminished and documentation of empowering history was either destroyed or re-written. In Alphaville, citizens were made to believe that the dictionary was the Bible, forcing only logical thoughts. The dictionaries were controlled updated to the super-computer's ideology, eliminating all words that evoke emotion. Creative literature was also destroyed and not known by the majority of the citizens. In 1984, if you violated a law you disappeared and in Alphaville if you thought "illogically" you were publicly executed. It seems to be evident that Godard was influenced by George Orwell's "1984".

However, I do not believe the delivery of "Alphaville" was as intense and serious as "1984". "Alphaville" had classic comic relief and was not meant to be taken as seriously as the George Orwell novel. This is most evident in the last scene, where Natacha (Anna karina) and Lemmy Caution were driving Lemmy's Ford Galaxy back to planet earth. Everything from the vehicle they were driving, the music playing and the use of the word love had a deliberately cheesy delivery. I do believe that Godard had an important message in this film, but I also feel he tried to make it a bit comical.

"The Story of Adhele H."

2008-11-18T18:45:00.000-08:00

Adhele H. was pathetic and psychotic and Lt. Pinson did not know how to deal with her obsession for him. This is a classic story of a psycho ex-lover that will not let go. I know this story is taken from Adhele's actual diary, it makes me wonder if she would depict herself, even in a diary, as this lamentable. Most people who are insane do not know they are insane, it seems that her diary would not have depicted her actions in such a way as shown. This makes me question the historical accuracy of the film, or atleast where Truffaut obtained his information. Love does make people do crazy things, however, it was clear that Adhele was not a balnced person.

She had people around her that supported her and did not question her motives. The people she lived with thought only the highest of her even though they found out she lied about who she was, saw her stalk Lt. Pinson and witnessed her forcing herself into Lt. Pinson's bride to be family's home. Mr. Saunders acted as her chauffer and took her to places and did not question her motives. They both heard her scream in the middle of the night and never once questioned what was wrong with her. The Saunders seemed to be naive to Adhele's condition. Victor Hugo was also enabling Adhele's behavior, he continued to send her money and only asked her to come home. Finally after Adhele faked a marriage and neglected her dieing mother he only sent her money to go home. She used the money to follow Lt. Pinson to his next location.

Overal I found this film to be a typical biography of an unstable person in history. I did not find it thought provoking and did not exactly care for it.

"Pierrot Le Fou"

2008-11-18T18:02:00.000-08:00

Karina's character is extremely complex and Ferdinand falls in love with these complexities. He is bored with his extremely cosmopolitan yuppie life style. His wife was an average woman and fell into the trap of advertisements as did the other people he met. One of my favorite scenes of the film is when Godard depicts Ferdinand's early associates at his in laws parent's house. Everyone at the party was a walking an talking advertisement, the men talked about cars as if they were sales people trying to sell them, and the woman talked about hygiene and hair products. One woman, in the middle of the men's car conversation, talked about her deodorant. It was extremely humorous yet relative to everyday life. Many people talk about material "things" more than they have actual conversations about life, love, literature, ect. I understood and sympathised with Ferdinand's decision to run off with Marianne. His plastic world was starting to become mundane and non-interesting, and Marianne was the complete opposite.

The second scene with Marianne was extremely odd, but set the base for the rest of the movie. She began to sing and said "stand up dead man"when there was an actual murdered man on her bed. Marianne seemed completely innocent, but her apartment was filled with guns and pictures of rebels. This showed Marianne's complexities and oddities, she was killing hit men that were after her, while seeming completely loving and innocent.

I never trusted Marianne with Ferdinand and was simply waiting for the time she was going to use him and or leave him. She ended up doing both which ultimately led to her death. It was extremely evident that Godard and Anna Karina just got through their divorce. It seemed as if Godard was representing his relationship with Karina to Ferdinand's relationship with Marianne. I do not know the details of Karina and Godard's relationship, but it seemed that this film was very revealing and may of paralleled the Godard's situation.

"Le Bonheur"

2008-11-04T08:54:00.000-08:00

Agnes Varda dealt with an incredibly contemporary subject matter in a still traditional time. The love triangle between Francois, his wife and the postal worker was through the majority of the film depicted as acceptable behavior. Francois' happiness and the good mood setting of the film was very eerie. His mood changed from happy to incredibly happy when he started his affair. He loved his wife, but also loved his mistress, and this worked very well for him. He was able to love both women with up most happiness. He was honest with his lover, but his wife was unaware of the affair. His conscious finally told him to be upfront with his wife and tell her the truth about his second life. Her initial reaction was incredibly progressive and open minded; as she accepted the affair as long as Francois was happy. Francois believed this reaction was honest and made love to his wife for the last time.

When he woke up he discovered she was no longer laying next to him, so he frantically looked for her. After an intense scene of Francois' search, we discover that she has committed suicide in a near by pond. The film shows a brief mourning process and then cuts to Francois marrying the postal worker. It then shows Francois and his new wife doing the exact same things him and his previous wife did. Him and the children seemed to have forgotten her and simply replaced her. These last scenes made me incredibly uncomfortable and also left me wondering how one could simply replace the woman they love with the woman that destroyed her.

I believe this was a statement by Agnes Varda protesting the mentality of society at the time. This depicted that woman were simply objects of pleasure and completely replaceable. The eerie exposure and use of death shows the ridiculous and often dangerous mentality of not treating women as an equal. This film was incredibly done.

Cleo from 5 to 7

2008-10-14T10:50:00.000-07:00

Cleo was a pampered singer that seemed to be a one hit wonder. She was extremely frivolous and childish. Her apartment was equipt with a swing and multiple little kittens, even her dwelling reflected her immaturity. Cleo was so puerile that everyone assumed that she was faking her sickness. Even her care taker did not believe she was sick and felt Cleo was hugely over reacting.

Cleo was initially not only childish, but also vain. After the begining scene of the Tarrot card reading, the voice over narration of Cleo's reaction said "atleast I will stay beautiful". She felt that beauty was the only true way to stay alive. The childness and conceited nature of Cleo allowed the viewer to realize how much one can learn in two hours.

The fact that this film was shot in real time made it an impressive journey of the possibilities of circumstance in a two hour duration. Not only was it beautifully shot, but it made Cleo's story real. There was no empty spaces, just time and the gradual fullfillment of a character. The scene of Cleo on the town by herself, shows how fearful and selfconcious she is at this point. She is agitated by people staring, and by others thriving in attention. About an hour later, she meets the soldier; he temporarily takes her mind off of things and personally takes her to the hospital to get her test results. When Cleo does find out she is sick with cancer her fear is diminished and she is no longer in a state of panic. I believe Varda's main point of the film is that fear is not knowing. It also shows how much one can learn about themselves in such a short period of time.

Hiroshima Mon Amour

2008-10-05T15:24:00.000-07:00

Resnais worked with Duras to create a truly beautiful film. The beginning of the film’s amazing photography and somewhat dark narration set the mood of the film. It depicted beauty, love and grief. If one was to read a generic plot description of this film, it would be generalized as a love story. However, the Hiroshima Mon Amour touches on issues that go beyond love.
The film deals with two characters that were greatly influenced by World War II. Elle and Lui were able to share their stories of agony. Lui’s entire family was killed in result of the bombing of Hiroshima and Elle’s first lover was killed in the war.

The similarities between Elle’s first lover and Lui were astonishing and somewhat eerie. Elle’s first lover was a Nazi soldier and an obvious enemy to France. Lui was a Japanese soldier during World War II, also making him an enemy of France. What made this eerie is the way Elle told her story. While telling the story to Lui she would often refer to the Nazi soldier as “you”. This not only kept the viewer guessing, but indirectly exposed the parallel between Lui and the Nazi soldier.

The scene of Elle’s past showed one example of negative effect from war. It was almost as if her grief , humiliation and confinement was her personal Hiroshima bombing.

"Pickpocket"

2008-09-30T18:41:00.000-07:00

I have been infatuated with the development of character, but I had immense trouble relating to the Michel. Bresson did not allow the audience to get inside of Michel’s head. He did not relate to the general public and had a very dull personality. His ways were almost awkward and often gave me a very eerie odd feeling. However, this depiction helped make the movie what it was.

The focus was not on the psychology of one man, it was on his physical movements. It showed Michel’s hands, his footsteps, and his everyday motions, which are rarely captured on film. This interesting technique helped the audience understand pick pocketing as an art. By focusing on Michel’s hands and small motor skills, it showed the work that was put into the art of the pick pocket. The actual pick pocketing scenes showed that practice makes perfect, it allowed the audience to see the thieves by slowing down the shot. The audience sees every step of the process, which allows them to actually route for the thief.

Some things also struck me as ironic in the film. For example, Michel was a thief by profession but did not worry about his own items getting stolen. Michel had no lock on his door and rarely even shut the door as he was leaving. It is funny to think that a common thief is so trusting.
I thought the movie was interestingly shot, but overall I felt it lacked a strong plot. The girl could have had more relevance and Michel could have shown a little more interest in her. I did however enjoy the overall exposure of everyday life, body language and movements.

Bob le Flambeur

2008-09-21T18:25:00.000-07:00

This film induced the ordinary as everything seemed to be very mundane. The lighting of the film was dark, and no set was radical or out of the ordinary. Everything down to the murder scenes did not evoke the emotions of the characters. However the exciting crime induced plot made this style of film incredibly enticing.

Bob “the high roller” is a very much a gentlemen, he keeps up appearance and tries to steer clear of crime. Even though he does eventually turn to crime, he is a criminal you want to see succeed. For a person who is a compulsive gambler and thief, he shows a strong moral code. He has a very paternal quality to him and in many situations shown as a care taker. For example; he has a young protégé that he points in the correct in direction. He also takes care of the young girl, by housing her and giving her money. His paternity and all around calmness reminds me of the modern day Tony Soprano.

The ending scene of the film was incredibly clever. Bob’s luck finally changed for the better and he could not lose. Forgetting about the “plan”, Bob wins all the money in the casino safe. This is wonderful irony and fits the overall undertone of the film.

Les Cousins

2008-09-08T17:07:00.000-07:00

The character development in this film was incredibly interesting and unique, especially for the time. I did not have dedicated sympathetic feelings for one character throughout the film. One moment I would feel empathy for a character and soon after the character would do something that completely irked me. This was especially the case for Charles.

Charles was a guest in the city and was initially portrayed to be a simple minded, hardworking, well mannered yet somewhat rustic person from a rural area. His relationship with his mother first struck me as a healthy and mannered family bond. However, this perception changed as soon as Charles fell in love with Florence. Who mentions their mother when they first meet a woman who they feel connected to both mentally and physically? Someone who is easily controlled by the people around them, someone without a backbone and wishes to be controlled. Instead of feeling bad for Charles, I began to feel bad for the people who had to be around him. Instead of having his mother tell him what to do, he used studying as something that consumed the entirety of his existence. Since at the end he failed his exam, he lost the sensation of being controlled, which caused him to leave the fate of another human’s life to a 1 and 6 chance. This ultimately showed the weakness of Charles, and left him as someone who may of deserved his fate.

Paul was someone I did not like from the beginning of the film. He was arrogant, spoiled and didn’t understand other’s needs. However, towards the end of the film, I began to feel that Paul actually cared about his cousin and really meant words of encouragement. Deep down Paul did not want to cause any harm to Charles, he simply wanted him to be as happy as he could.