Jean-Luc Godard

[justeleblanc]

not to mention the fact that there was a chance for him to say more about his new film which is now lost.

What?

[Galen Young]

...pulled out due to "reasons beyond his control."

The posted comments on those articles are a laff riot. ("He's no Spielberg") It's not really surprising, especially after such 'democratic' events in the past week like Norman Finkelstein being deported and banned for ten years. I didn't know that Godard was a "cult film director"!

[ptmd]

What?

I think he just means that this was a missed opportunity for Godard to speak in a public forum, and hence to discuss his new film. That said, I completely understand why Godard felt the need to pull out, and I'm a bit surprised to hear that he considered going in the first place given everything that's happened in the last year.

[PimpPanda]

I heard about that a couple days ago, and I have to say, I'm very disappointed. Some of those comments are pretty hilarious, however.

[angst-zeit]

To my amazement, I was recently told by a friend who lives in Amiens, France:

"Godard is TOO french. I have no interest in his work."

[domino harvey]

I just got Brody's Everything Is Cinema and though I'm only a couple hundred pages in, I can safely say that of the seven or eight books on Godard I've read, this might be the best. Brody even manages to write about Breathless in a way that makes it feel new, a sensation that reading dozens of papers on the film had dulled to the point (I had assumed) of no return. It reminds me a lot of McCarthy's book on Hawks in the way it discusses how the films were made from an informed biographical perspective. Plus for anyone interested in the formation of the Nouvelle Vague and the Young Turks, it's a brilliant synthesis of information on many of Godard's contemporaries. In short, if you care enough about Godard to click on this thread: Get. This. Book.

[GringoTex]

I just got Brody's Everything Is Cinema and though I'm only a couple hundred pages in, I can safely say that of the seven or eight books on Godard I've read, this might be the best.

I agree. Godard sure does come off as a sexist asshole, though.

[domino harvey]

I sure I've said this before, but every time I read a story about Godard being horrible, I just shrug my shoulders and go "Oh Godard." I suppose for unprepared fans of Godard (not referring to you, just a general observation), reading about him repeatedly being a shit might come as a shock, but I've read enough about him that nothing surprises me anymore.

[HerrSchreck]

Most great artists would make terrible role models-- vice-ridden, anxiety-plagued, short-tempered, endlessly-self-contradictory. Even the great "humanist director" Renoir apparently had a legendary bad temper on the set. (And he said the joy is not in watching the film, or the final product in and of itself.. he said his primary interest was in the making the film, being on the soundstage or location, waorking with the actors, working the script, working together with the crew, etc etc.)

Todays fixation on the 'public persona' and this sense of 'the responsibility' it carries with it-- and how a touch of vice can send a career down in flames in this hypocritical age-- is partially the reason there are so few genuinely, hugely formidable talents on the scene nowadays.

[domino harvey]

It's like what a character says to Charlie Chaplin in Bogdanovich's the Cat's Meow (paraphrasing here):
"Being polite is for bellboys, you're an artist!"

[Tom Hagen]

Armond White uses the occasion of the 1960s retrospective to offer praise for Godard.

. . . Well, to offer praise for Godard, and to take shots at Hal Hartley, Quentin Tarantino, Todd Haynes, P.T. Anderson, "The Romanian New Wave," Richard Kelly, David Lynch, Gus Van Sant, David Fincher, the Wachowski Brothers, David Cronenberg . . .

And he even manages to work in a Spielberg reference. For fucking Hook!

[domino harvey]

Only Armond White would defend Godard on the basis of emotions and feelings.

[Roger_Thornhill]

I sure I've said this before, but every time I read a story about Godard being horrible, I just shrug my shoulders and go "Oh Godard."

Same here, it's just how Godard is. I remember reading an interview with him in Film Comment a few years ago and he was saying things like Americans have no history, Americans have no real name because they have no culture, etc...and, despite being American and finding his comments incredibly bigoted, I just shrugged my shoulders like you and said 'Oh Godard'.

An old film school professor of mine said that if you can't accept the contradictions and hypocrisies of Godard you mine as well not bother with any great filmmaker, since they're all like that to some degree. In fact, I'd go one step further and say everyone is a hypocrite, it's just that some of us are less obvious about it compared to Godard.

[cinemartin]

Wait until you get to the chapter on France/Tour/Detour and shrug your shoulders. Somehow "Oh Godard" doesn't really do justice. It's almost (but not quite) like saying "Oh Polanski".

Also, I think it's "might as well" as opposed to "mine as well".

[evillights]

Wait until you get to the chapter on France/Tour/Detour and shrug your shoulders. Somehow "Oh Godard" doesn't really do justice. It's almost (but not quite) like saying "Oh Polanski".

The "not quite" part is probably most to-the-point. But if you want to draw "Polanski" comparisons, then it's probably safe to say that Richard Brody is Godard's Laurence J. Rittenband.

From the equation of an artist's consideration of young sexuality with 'disturbing not-so-quasi-pedophilic obsession' (culminating, in that atrocious France/tour/détour/deux/enfants chapter, by the way, with Brody's sublime tut-tut that when all was said and done, the little girl's playground breaks were no longer the same... at least for a week or so), to the absolutely insane inability on Brody's part to take vociferous criticism of Israel (and despite trotting out a weak CYA distinction between good-anti-Zionism and Godard's-bad-anti-Zionism, as convenient; cf. the pathetic chapter on Notre musique) as anything but ill-considered anti-Semitism (for R. Brody is the most considerate, level, just, and moral of sages), the book stinks.

The only two people who have come remotely close (in print or online) to saying so, by the way, are B. Kite and Jonathan Rosenbaum although, to be fair to all, both writers also praise the fine aspects of the book — e.g., he's a sharp critic on some of the films, and there's interesting anecdotage all-round. But there's also a hell of a lot of sub-rosa bubblings-'n-burblings that inform Brody's portrait. One wonders how come, as one example, there's not a peep of why his interview with Godard lasted only a single day, in 2000 — you have to read B. Kite's piece (at the Moving Image Source) for a little bit about that, or go back to Brody's New Yorker article, which started the whole thing. Then extrapolate from the prose itself, and piece together some conclusions. Or just ask around.

I for one find the fruits of Brody's labor splashed with far too many tears, — witness the good center-left New Yorker / New Yorker-staffer who exhibits that brow-furrowedly I-am-disturbed-by-this reflex every-which-way, then, following the venting of the libel-screed, his conscience now appeased, goes on to say that of course as long as there is a cinema there will be Godard, and my dearest heartfelt thanks to this good, good man, who's been something like an artistic father... All in the tone, as my friend put it, of "a spiritual paramour" — and a jilted one, at that.

Yes, even the acknowledgements section at the end is embarrassing to read.

ck.

[cinemartin]

Although it may not seem it from my original post, I agree wholeheartedly with just about everything you wrote. In fact, I find it bizarre that some of his chapters, for instance Kind Lear and Helas Pour Moi, are so good (even to the point of making me re-watch the latter with a new appreciation) while others (ESPECIALLY Notre Musique) are so bad, even, as you say, embarrassingly so. I haven't read B. Kite's piece, but intend to now - thanks for the info.

[wpqx]

I actually thought Notre Musique was a monumental step up from most of Godard's 80's and 90's films. King Lear was almost unbearable and I hate to say it but Helas Pour Moi went right over my head, if I hadn't of read a plot synopsis I still would have no idea whatsoever what the film was about.

I appreciate what Godard has tried to do by constantly challenging us as viewers, but every so often you just want him just once to make a film that might actually entertain a few people.

That said of his contemporary work (ie last 20 years) Historie(s) du Cinema was an outright masterpiece and to me seemed like the best of all that he was trying to do with video and experimental narrative. In a way it seemed like all the films leading up to it were just warm up exercises. He's still in my top 5 favorite directors though so even if I'm overly critical on certain failed experiments of his my overall esteem for his work is monumental.

[accatone]

Actually i find "all" of Godards work entertaining/enjoyable and i think there is a contradiction in the wish for more entertainment on the one hand and praising the Histoire(S) as the masterpiece on the other. I am wondering what a "plot synopsis" to the Histoire(S) could add? Plot=Entertainment? Its the bits and pieces - maybe the (deconstructed) leftovers of "plot" or "cinema" that makes the whole thing so interesting and i find myself watching his films more in a situation as i was as a young boy climbing and walking through the enviroment, digging holes into old/empty houses, looking under stones and woods, maybe "bombing" something whatever and look whats left… Godards often scientific approach comes to my mind as well. (however wpqx, no offense intended!!!). Thanks for the Kite piece reference Craig - and thanks for the Rossellini clip on your blog! Wonderfull!

And while we are talking about books - i was wondering if Introduction à une véritable histoire du cinema has an english release? Its in my opinion such an important book but is to my knowledge widley overlooked in the american reception of Godard? The book is based on a seminar held by Godard in Montral so actually there must be something… iam just curious…

[tavernier]

I appreciate what Godard has tried to do by constantly challenging us as viewers, but every so often you just want him just once to make a film that might actually entertain a few people.

Uh....it's Godard, dude!

[sevenarts]

Armond White uses the occasion of the 1960s retrospective to offer praise for Godard.

. . . Well, to offer praise for Godard, and to take shots at Hal Hartley, Quentin Tarantino, Todd Haynes, P.T. Anderson, "The Romanian New Wave," Richard Kelly, David Lynch, Gus Van Sant, David Fincher, the Wachowski Brothers, David Cronenberg . . .

And he even manages to work in a Spielberg reference. For fucking Hook!

Wow, that piece is everything both bad and good about White's, um, distinctive approach to criticism, all rolled up into one article. On the one hand, he offers some really trenchant remarks on the Godard films and seems to really understand them, even including the 80s and 90s films that so many people unfortunately either ignore or don't connect with. It's great to see a critic really take Godard's later work -- I'd even call it his "mature" work -- so seriously. But then he has to go and pepper the article with totally irrelevant references to seemingly every modern director he doesn't like, comparing them to Godard whether the comparison makes any sense or not. It's not enough for White to simply praise Godard and describe what makes him good, which he does with elegant prose and some sharp insights. No, he has to extrapolate from there to why all his usual whipping boys fail to do what Godard does.

[Dylan]

1969’s Le Gai Savoir, is ideally viewed on DVD—its TV-look being as sui generis as the Neverland sequences of Spielberg’s Hook.

Nice.

[sevenarts]

1969’s Le Gai Savoir, is ideally viewed on DVD—its TV-look being as sui generis as the Neverland sequences of Spielberg’s Hook.

Nice.

I still don't know what it has to do with Hook, but I watched Le gai savoir tonight and really loved it, even though it's incredibly hard to digest, impossibly dense, frequenting grating, and occasionally boring. In other words, Godard at his best.

[Tom Hagen]

Any more reviews on the Brody book? (I know that Domino enjoyed the first several hundred pages.) Is it worth picking up in lieu of a new Criterion that I would otherwise spend my hard-earned $27 on?

[Macintosh]

I bet you did not know this:

Moments later, the motorcycle slid under the wheels of a bus. Aya was thrown clear, but Godard suffered a skull fracture, a broken pelvis, and numerous internal injuries. Godard was in a coma for almost a month. As Gorin recalled, Godard "lost so much skin from his buttocks that you could touch the bone." He also lost a testicle.

Here's another "oh Godard!" moment.

A long day of negotiations mediated by the London festival director, Richard Roud, yielded a compromise: the producer's cut would be shown, followed by Godard's original ending, and then Godard and Quarrier would debate the two versions' merits onstage. However, before his film was screened, Godard urged the audience to refuse to watch it, demand their money back with an additional ten shillings, and send the money to "black power" leaders; then he punched the Quarrier in the face and stomach and was physically ejected from the hall.

This was all about the cut of One Plus One, by the way.

[domino harvey]

Yeah the One Plus One punching incident is legendary, I think I've probably trotted it out the most of any Godard anecdotes.