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.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
First Name: Carmen
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.
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.
Monday, November 16, 2009
All's Well
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.
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.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Hail Mary
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.
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.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
La Gai Savoir
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.
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.
Friday, October 23, 2009
La Chinoise
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.
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.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Sympathy for the Devil
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)