Film Socialisme (Jean-Luc Godard, 2010)

[Oedipax]

maybe a repeated question but, online streaming is only available in france? (yet... )

Seems to be; haven't heard of anyone getting lucky with a French proxy server either (to make it appear that one is connecting to the site from France).

[Noiretirc]

Godard and Cohn-Bendit — now in English:

http://cinemasparagus.blogspot.com/2010 ... -cohn.html

Wow....fascinating stuff, and it sounds to me like JLG really is "done".

[Diotima1]

maybe a repeated question but, online streaming is only available in france? (yet... )

Yes, and this is VOD.
Is anyone going to see it today?

[Oedipax]

I cannot for the life of me find where one actually rents the film on filmotv.fr. And this is using a French proxy while logged into an account... it is surely one of the worst-designed sites I've ever had the misfortune of using. I'm about ready to give up. Maddening. The search function doesn't seem to work either, when one searches for Godard as Réalisateur.

However -- I did stumble across this reading other forums on the net, in other languages, with people voicing similar complaints - a link to what appears to be the text of the first section (or 16 pages, anyway) of the film! Does anyone know what pol-editeur is? Are they publishing a Film Socialisme book?

[accatone]

P.O.L is a publishing house. They have "Phrases" of many of other JLGs films (Eloge de l'amlour, JLG/JLG, Allemangne neuf zéro…) - very nice editions indeed!

http://blogs.lesinrocks.com/cannes2010/ ... dard-00551" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[LQ]

I cannot for the life of me find where one actually rents the film on filmotv.fr. And this is using a French proxy while logged into an account... it is surely one of the worst-designed sites I've ever had the misfortune of using. I'm about ready to give up. Maddening. The search function doesn't seem to work either, when one searches for Godard as Réalisateur.

Oedipax, I think we may be too late to see it: If you look at this page, right under the button you'd seemingly click to rent Socialisme for 7 euros, it reads "Avant-première limitée aux 1000 premières séances" ... I clicked to rent it and basically went nowhere. So I'm left to conclude that it's already been viewed 1000 times. I'd love to be proven wrong, can anyone carry through with the renting process?

[Diotima1]

Oedipax, I think we may be too late to see it: If you look at this page, right under the button you'd seemingly click to rent Socialisme for 7 euros, it reads "Avant-première limitée aux 1000 premières séances" ... I clicked to rent it and basically went nowhere. So I'm left to conclude that it's already been viewed 1000 times. I'd love to be proven wrong, can anyone carry through with the renting process?

No, it's not because of 1000 viewers. I clicked that button today, yesterday, several days ago... no difference. I'm sure that Oedipax did it many times either.

[evillights]

The best interview in years with Godard, by Jean-Marc Lalanne yesterday for Les Inrocks. Rohmer. Copyright. YouTube. FBI warnings on DVDs. Obama. Tsunamis. Barcelona v. Arsenal. Varda. Truffaut. — AND remarks on the FilmoTV download. Now translated into English at Cinemasparagus.

http://cinemasparagus.blogspot.com/2010 ... -jean.html

[J Adams]

Todd McCarthy thinks it's crap.

[Noiretirc]

Todd McCarthy thinks it's crap.

Todd seems more concerned with Godard's no-show, his Apollo 13 comments, other comments.....how about the film, Todd?

[Noiretirc]

Ebert has a few things to say about it:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/05 ... ts_ab.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So far the reaction seems quite negative. I can't wait to see it!

[Peacock]

Along with Kermode (link is in the Cannes thread)

But the fact that their claiming Godard slipped in quality after the 60s and should have stopped making films by that point, makes their opinion worthless.

I suppose the subtitles thing has made the film difficult to understand, but I think people are giving up trying way too quickly.

[Oedipax]

So far the reaction seems quite negative. I can't wait to see it!

Almost all the critics on Letras de Cine loved it. It's certainly not going to gain any significant mainstream acceptance, though.

[Noiretirc]

I suppose the subtitles thing has made the film difficult to understand, but I think people are giving up trying way too quickly.

This is especially hilarious, hahaha.... (Last part of the video):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/markkermode/ ... st_fi.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No Godard film has ever bored me. (Baffled? Of course.) I'm actually very happy that this one, quite possibly his last, is getting this kind of initial reaction from the slightly more mainstream press. It would just be so wrong if he went out with something "nice".

It really does look like his last one though, doesn't it? (The selling off, recent interview comments, etc.) What a body of work, and what a shame that the very long post-Weekend is so often seen as decline.

Edit: The more I think about some of these reviews though, the more offensive I think they are. Because they didn't "get" anything from the film on first viewing (do they all have Robert Bateman paintings in their houses?), Godard should have been a father, or Godard hates his miniscule audience, etc etc.

[jackford]

I myself find some of these reviews (read: Ebert, McCarthy, Kermode) quite offensive as well. Again badgering Godard about their dumb, preconcieved notions of what a film should be, and what kind of person Godard should have been. Then, too, McCarthy is really a glorified Ben Lyons who somehow can still get into Cannes, Kermode is one of the worst contempory critics around, and Ebert, although interesting to read, is really more of a "film appriciationist" rather than a real essayist.

I guess it's too bad I myself am getting so riled up about this though. I suppose I should be happy as well that what may be the final Godard film is getting this sort of non-mainstream acceptance. At least the American critics haven't been unamiously negative. About the subtitles, from what I've read of them, they sound quite extrodinary, and the critics(Kermode) who arn't understanding the subtitles simply arn't opening themselves up to them.

[Noiretirc]

After the explanation of the subtitling process a few posts ago, I rolled on the floor, in tears of joy and laughter. This is pure Godard, referencing our film history in all its glory. What a masterstroke! What a joy to have his control/touch on the subtitling process. The subtitles here are Part Of The Art, not just some tool to help us along. And perhaps this is a first? (ie Purposely using Hollywood Navajo.) He is still finding ways to re-invent, or rather, re-position (?) Cinema.

Maybe Criterion will pick this up, with 2 English subtitle options - Godard's version and a "straight" version. ???

[kaujot]

On the off-chance that they do pick it up, I imagine that Godard would nix any sort of normalized subtitle option.

[jackford]

Yes, the subtitling process is quite extrodinary, isn't it. I hope to see it with these subtitles as well, rather than a "straight" version. I myself can confess to being diverted from the image and the sound on the screen in Godard's late work at times, as I am stuck reading the poetry of the words. This way, however, allows for a more direct connection to the image, as the subtitles are part of the film itself, rather than a tool. The example from Screen Daily's review notes one line "Money was invented so we don't need to look God in the eye," is shown on screen as simply "Money Invented," which really is all that is needed to be said, as well as hitting us harder with its directness. Macleans points out lines simply shown as "space is dying" and "don't talk about the invisible show it a smile that dismisses the universe". These "simplifed" titles are truer to the nature of all of Godard's late work rather than the subtitles which we have been provided.

Its an interesting idea too, "Navajo English", as the struggle to express something in a language foreign to them usually allows for a more profound and clearer statement, much truer to the nature of what the person had in their mind rather than what is usaually expressed by them.

[HistoryProf]

But the fact that their claiming Godard slipped in quality after the 60s and should have stopped making films by that point, makes their opinion worthless.

why? it's certainly not a novel opinion...and to suggest that critics are only valid when they abide by your preferences is absurd. But looking at the fierce debate following Glenn Kenny's post in response to the early reviews, it seems absurdity on the part of JLG's detractors and supporters is too often par for the course.

[domino harvey]

This is really great: Match the NYT review quote to the corresponding Godard film

[Peacock]

But the fact that their claiming Godard slipped in quality after the 60s and should have stopped making films by that point, makes their opinion worthless.

why? it's certainly not a novel opinion...and to suggest that critics are only valid when they abide by your preferences is absurd. But looking at the fierce debate following Glenn Kenny's post in response to the early reviews, it seems absurdity on the part of JLG's detractors and supporters is too often par for the course.

I definitely could have put that better but I was annoyed by the reviews I was reading.
Of course everyone has their own opinions, but the way they put it was that Godard had made nothing good since the mid 60s "boring old fart" "pretentious". When to many Godard fans, watching his later films is very rewarding; more work - but rewarding. So reading reviews where they dismiss the film because all Godard's late films are worthless crap, makes me feel the same about their 'reviews'.

[Numero Trois]

[why? it's certainly not a novel opinion...and to suggest that critics are only valid when they abide by your preferences is absurd. But looking at the fierce debate following Glenn Kenny's post in response to the early reviews, it seems absurdity on the part of JLG's detractors and supporters is too often par for the course.

A differing opinion isn't the problem. The problem is the refusal to engage his movies in their own specific terms. It's fine if one finds his latter day movies lacking after spending time and trying to honestly understand them. If only that were the impression one gets from most of the detractors. Rather, the grand majority of comments the detractors give lack any critical substance whatsoever.

Look, there's no doubt that even hardcore movie buffs can have a tough time jumping into his latter day work. That certainly was the case for me the first time years ago with First Name Carmen and I'm sure for a lot of other people. It can take a while to acclimate oneself to Godard's vocabulary before even being able to start to decode it. What it comes down to is that you'll have to look far and wide for articulate detractions to his latter day works. For the most part you find blanket if not downright ignorant dismissals.

[henry001]

I myself find some of these reviews (read: Ebert, McCarthy, Kermode) quite offensive as well. Again badgering Godard about their dumb, preconcieved notions of what a film should be, and what kind of person Godard should have been. Then, too, McCarthy is really a glorified Ben Lyons who somehow can still get into Cannes, Kermode is one of the worst contempory critics around, and Ebert, although interesting to read, is really more of a "film appriciationist" rather than a real essayist.

I guess it's too bad I myself am getting so riled up about this though. I suppose I should be happy as well that what may be the final Godard film is getting this sort of non-mainstream acceptance. At least the American critics haven't been unamiously negative. About the subtitles, from what I've read of them, they sound quite extrodinary, and the critics(Kermode) who arn't understanding the subtitles simply arn't opening themselves up to them.

I sent my message to Ebert Blog, but apparently he rejected it. I totally lost respect for him. The argument is really lopsided;
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/05 ... odard.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/05 ... ts_ab.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Henry

[kaujot]

I find it hard to believe that he rejected it. He allows just about any comment written, even those that disparage him. Give him time. I've written comments that have taken a day or so for him to get around to approving it.

[HistoryProf]

That is a bit odd. I've seen some downright mentally ill haranguing in response to his entries before....and a LOT of critical comments, which above all he seems to revel in. within the last week I recall one that ripped Ebert apart, called him a moron and worthless for his wrongheaded critiques, and declared he'd never read him again. Ebert's response was "I like your spirit, we need more people like you reviewing films" !! (ETA: It appears to be in response to a comment under his Godard piece....which of course makes sense, for no single cadre of film lovers rally the troops quite like Godardites when their master is slandered)


I have to wonder what it was you tried to post if he didn't let it through. I also noticed Dave Kehr has a similar power of moderating the comments, they are all moderated and only post if approved. For a critic's blog to have that kind of oversight seems incredibly disingenuous to me. "I'm going to trash whatever I want, but i'm not going to let you say anything I don't like." I tried posting something to preach restraint during a heated exchange about the viability of Digital projection vs. film w/ one of the Cinemania guys (jack?) who will only see films in 2 or 3 venues at this point because of his mental illness - a point I tried to delicately make in terms of realizing that this is one guy out of millions, and not someone worth debating the future of film with - the topic itself being a huge tangential curve off the original subject (which I can't even recall now). But Mr. Kehr felt it unworthy of posting, and it disappeared, and I didn't feel the need to try again.

I think critics need to be careful with this...if you are going to start a blog to make yourself more visible and to be able to say more and do so more often, then you should do so honestly and welcome dissent.