Film Socialisme (Jean-Luc Godard, 2010)

[kaujot]

It seems to me that Ebert's policy is to allow anything unless it's spam or grossly vulgar.

[domino harvey]

grossly vulgar.

Don't let Ebert read this post or else he'll share that Mel Brooks anecdote for the hundredth time

[jackford]

Can you reiterate what you initally wrote, Henry? I've been posting there under my real name, Neil Bahadur, much of it leading to me getting torn apart, ahaha. Neverthless, you might note that my initial post was a tad bit vitrolic, yet Ebert put it up. Strangly, he refrained from allowing some of my more subdued posts from going up, from which I decided to simply re-write it again, even though I'm more than aware that I'm fighting a losing battle on that website.

Also, among the latest posts, the two latest being by me, I also made a post kindly asking Ebert if he read the Les Inrocks interview posted on Craig Keller's blog, and if so what were his thoughts on it? He refrained from uploading this one, whereas he did for the posts where I was replying to two others who had posted on the blog.

[Noiretirc]

I think it's a bit of a shame that this thread became all about what Ebert allows/disallows on his blog. WHO CARES? (Sorry.)

[HistoryProf]

Can you reiterate what you initally wrote, Henry? I've been posting there under my real name, Neil Bahadur, much of it leading to me getting torn apart, ahaha. Neverthless, you might note that my initial post was a tad bit vitrolic, yet Ebert put it up. Strangly, he refrained from allowing some of my more subdued posts from going up, from which I decided to simply re-write it again, even though I'm more than aware that I'm fighting a losing battle on that website.

Also, among the latest posts, the two latest being by me, I also made a post kindly asking Ebert if he read the Les Inrocks interview posted on Craig Keller's blog, and if so what were his thoughts on it? He refrained from uploading this one, whereas he did for the posts where I was replying to two others who had posted on the blog.

you got torn apart because you started off your initial tirade by saying that Ebert is incapable of "comprehending" late JLG films. It went pretentiously downhill from there.

But alas, it's all nonsense anyway, because as Ebert noted, maybe 2 or 3 of the people who commented had even seen it, so how is anyone to judge it?

[jackford]

Yeah Noiretirc, I agree that the thread shouldn't be about something as irrevelent as what Ebert allows or dissallows on his blog, and at least I got to express my own feelings on the matter. However, this is not the place for that and I'll refrain from posting anymore on that matter. Granted, his actual thoughts on the film, I think are worth mentioning. I'm still very much of the opinion that Ebert is unable to "comprehend" the late work of Godard as he continues to not open himself up to the "unorthodox" way of Godard's filmmaking and attempts to read that in a completly literal manner. I don't think my expressing myself to that effect on his blog was by any means "pretentious," HistoryProf.

[jackford]

Anyways, does anyone know what the deal with the film being uploaded online is? It should have happened by now. Anybody know if this is the version with the subtitles that appeared at Cannes?

[cinemartin]

Rosenbaum:
http://www.jonathanrosenbaum.com/?cat=9" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[whaleallright]

My immediate worry was that he'd probably bring up Polanski, and... he did. Despite the fact that it's a total nonsequitir.

Rosenbaum is very bright; it's too bad he has to slot nearly everything on which he comments into a few stale, oversimplified narratives (in this case, the hangover from the "ideological wars" of the late 1960s). At least he's willing to acknowledge FILM SOCIALISM's "singularly fresh, daring, and often beautiful employments of sound and image"--something few other critics have bothered to note in all the hubbub. Although at that level of generality (and generalities are all Rosenbaum seems to have the will to give us these days), the description could apply to any of Godard's films.

[James]

Not to re-open closed doors, but was there any particular reason behind Godard's Apollo 13 statement from 1970?

[Noiretirc]

My immediate worry was that he'd probably bring up Polanski, and... he did. Despite the fact that it's a total nonsequitir.

Rosenbaum is very bright; it's too bad he has to slot nearly everything on which he comments into a few stale, oversimplified narratives (in this case, the hangover from the "ideological wars" of the late 1960s). At least he's willing to acknowledge FILM SOCIALISM's "singularly fresh, daring, and often beautiful employments of sound and image"--something few other critics have bothered to note in all the hubbub. Although at that level of generality (and generalities are all Rosenbaum seems to have the will to give us these days), the description could apply to any of Godard's films.

Edit: Having just read the Rosenbaum piece, it must be (re)stated that this is not a review of Film Socialism. There's a few passing remarks about the film in there, but mostly, the piece concerns itself with juicy statements of the long past. WHO CARES?

[Petty Bourgeoisie]

Not to re-open closed doors, but was there any particular reason behind Godard's Apollo 13 statement from 1970?

Not to downplay it, but it wasn't as half as bad as everyone assumes. He and one of his leftist groupies were touring the U.S. when the Apollo 13 incident was ongoing. Him and his friend were giving an interview (I believe at UCLA) in English and the topic of Apollo 13 came up. They went on to make a joke to each other in French (which apparently they didn't know the interviewer could speak) about the spacecrafts toilets overflowing so they would be drowned in the own excrement. It seemed like poor taste in humor rather than nihilism. So I remember it being more of a scatological joke than a real wish they would die. While reading MacCabe's book I was surprised he stated it was an outright statement that Godard wished them dead. Perhaps somebody could link to the interview. I read it online 4-5 years ago so it's probably still posted somewhere. What's really bizarre is this bad joke is still coming up in film reviews 40 years later.

[Numero Trois]

Not to re-open closed doors, but was there any particular reason behind Godard's Apollo 13 statement from 1970?

Not that Godard isn't a flaming asshole, but his reasons for saying that don't matter any more than our excuses for bombing the hell out of Vietnam. That's the context probably anything from that time period should be looked at.

[Noiretirc]

The last 2 posts and my edit before them all point to the same thing. It's like taking Paul McCartney to task, after the release of Memory Almost Full, for his 1967 LSD interview boo boo. WHO CARES?

Why must Mr Godard be especially singled out for explanations/excuses/narratives, even amongst his most ardent followers, based on his 1960s doings? I just don't get it.

[Petty Bourgeoisie]

The last 2 posts and my edit before them all point to the same thing. It's like taking Paul McCartney to task, after the release of Memory Almost Full, for his 1967 LSD interview boo boo. WHO CARES?

Why must Mr Godard be especially singled out for explanations/excuses/narratives, even amongst his most ardent followers, based on his 1960s doings? I just don't get it.

The reason I attempted to put the Apollo 13 story in context was because James asked. And of course the reason James asked is because CRITICS still bring it up in film reviews 40 years later. It seems we are in agreement that Godard's bad joke has nothing to do with Film Socialisme (or any of his films). As far as Paul McCartney - I can't stand that guy therefore I don't know what you're talking about.

[Zot!]

Not to re-open closed doors, but was there any particular reason behind Godard's Apollo 13 statement from 1970?

Not that Godard isn't a flaming asshole, but his reasons for saying that don't matter any more than our excuses for bombing the hell out of Vietnam. That's the context probably anything from that time period should be looked at.

The only difference being that Godard didn't actually sabotage the Apollo 13 mission. Vietnam on the other hand was more than a joke in bad taste.

[jackford]

The reaching towards the past that Rosenbaum mentions in his article is becoming evident even here. Anyways, it looks like these late films won't gain any real wide(not necessarily mainstream) acceptance until Godard has died.

Has anyone read Daniel Kasman's review(http://mubi.com/notebook/posts/1855" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)? It's the most interesting English language review I've seen on the film yet.

[domino harvey]

I've said this before, but I just sort of go "Oh Godard" every time I learn about another one of his asshole moments-- and I've had lots of opportunities to utter it. He's a genius and amongst the greatest directors of all time, but I don't think I'd ever want to cross his path!

[henry001]

Can you reiterate what you initally wrote, Henry? I've been posting there under my real name, Neil Bahadur, much of it leading to me getting torn apart, ahaha. Neverthless, you might note that my initial post was a tad bit vitrolic, yet Ebert put it up. Strangly, he refrained from allowing some of my more subdued posts from going up, from which I decided to simply re-write it again, even though I'm more than aware that I'm fighting a losing battle on that website.

Also, among the latest posts, the two latest being by me, I also made a post kindly asking Ebert if he read the Les Inrocks interview posted on Craig Keller's blog, and if so what were his thoughts on it? He refrained from uploading this one, whereas he did for the posts where I was replying to two others who had posted on the blog.

Hello Neil (jackford), for your inquiry, Ebert uploaded all my posts despite my worry. I just thought I had to say something when I read McCarthy's idiotic comments on Godard/his films.

henry

[Noiretirc]

Has anyone read Daniel Kasman's review(http://mubi.com/notebook/posts/1855" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)? It's the most interesting English language review I've seen on the film yet.

Finally, a review that actually focuses on the FILM. Thank you for this.

[RossyG]

](*,) Cock: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/markkermode/ ... l#comments

Cock 2: Electric Boogaloo: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/markkermode/ ... odard.html

(Not sure if this will work for non-UK residents)

[Noiretirc]

](*,) Cock: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/markkermode/ ... l#comments

Cock 2: Electric Boogaloo: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/markkermode/ ... odard.html

(Not sure if this will work for non-UK residents)

Worked well for me in Canada, thanks (I think).

This guy amazes me. In Cock 1, he again manages to speak 4min+ and say NOTHING about the film, other than how the subtitles are not a literal translation of what is being spoken, therefore we cannot possibly "get" this film on any level.

[RossyG]

Depressingly, the cock in question is the highest profile film critic in the UK. His favourite film is the Exorcist, whic is ok, I suppose, but he mentions this at least once a fortnight.

PS. Did I mention that he's a cock?

[perkizitore]

Depressingly, the cock is question

In question, maybe?

[RossyG]

Yep.