criterionforum.org

The Lion's Gate box has a pretty nice transfer

According to google news its goin' through the (online!) press (however its always the same source, so...). I am wondering what people expect from him here - the contrechamp to Schindlers List? (i just come to think about that because in that one source "The JLG on the Holocaust" is kind of the headline). I don't think this will turn into a film by the way . . .

Again i can recommand the following book on this subject (of course i read the german translation but think its appropriate to link to the "original" release - i am not aware of an english translation anyway.)http://www.amazon.fr/Images-malgré-tou ... 80&sr=8-19

Here is the english translation - might be interesting for some around here to digg a little deeper into one of the main subjects of JLG ...
http://www.amazon.com/Images-Spite-All- ... 759&sr=8-1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

cinemartin wrote:Depardieu left before the shoot was even halfway finished. That's why this film is such a mess. Watch JLG/JLG to hear Godard's thoughts on this (among many other things, of course).

I'm very surprised that anyone familiar with Godard would consider Helas Pour Moi to be a mess. I was captivated (and confused, in equal measure) by this very strange, beautiful, hallucinatory (is that a word?) yet slightly frustrating film. This surely must be one his very least understood / most overlooked works.

Is the damn thing supposed to be 85mins or something else, please? I'm seeing conflicting information on this.

In Praise Of Love is next for me. I'm just sayin.

Personally, I think he really started to get great in the late 70s - present (Notre Musique is one of my favorites). I'll take new godard over his 60s stuff, its too bad that so many people focus on his early stuff they ignore his better films.

Oh Woe Is Me is one of Godard's best looking films.

ouatitw wrote:Personally, I think he really started to get great in the late 70s - present (Notre Musique is one of my favorites). I'll take new godard over his 60s stuff, its too bad that so many people focus on his early stuff they ignore his better films.

I couldn't agree more. Numero Deux and beyond is really when he found his voice.

ouatitw wrote:Oh Woe Is Me is one of Godard's best looking films.

If you include its sister film, Nouvelle Vague, then yeah, maybe. I still get chills thinking about that great tracking shot that finally reveals

Spoiler

a pinball machine

A certain torrent site that shall remain nameless (but which I'm sure a lot of people here are acquainted with) has turned up a surprise: an alternate edit of Vladimir et Rosa prepared by the head of Evergreen Films/Grove Press, Barney Rosset. Evidently Rosset was expecting a film about May '68 and hated hated hated what he actually got, so he chopped out roughly half an hour, brought in Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin and a few others to do a running commentary -- which was videotaped in black and white, supposedly by Haskell Wexler -- and then cut that commentary into the film.

The commentary is occasionally amusing, but there's a lot of obscure references to the actual trial that I can't make heads or tails of (one entire scene is a discussion of some "Mrs. Baldwin" that Google doesn't help me with at all). Rubin spends most of his screentime complaining about how boring the movie is compared to the actual trial; Hoffman is more sympathetic and at one point dubs it "a movie for the Weather Underground," which doesn't seem wholly unreasonable, actually. The cuts predictably refocus the movie on the trial and almost everything that happens afterward is deleted, including all scenes dealing with women's liberation. It's an odd artifact and I wonder what became of it -- the uploader says it was briefly distributed before Grove's film division went under, but I've read several reviews from the U.S. theatrical run (even Newsweek did one!) and none of them mention any Rubin/Hoffman footage.

I've never seen this before: A very playful trailer for Détective

Three minutes and 42 seconds of that adorable mug.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hf65408Gwbc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I realize a question like this is liable to open a huge can of worms but nonetheless I hope it will inspire some interesting discussion. About a year ago I took a course during my senior year of college about Postmodernism in Film and Media, and we watched some pretty interesting films within the context of postmodern theory, Repo Man, episodes of Twin Peaks, Natural Born Killers and others. But I'm wondering, I've heard some critics like David Sterrit describe Godard as being a postmodernist and boy I don't see this at all. Certainly I'm not trying to say a single semester course would give me a complete and total grasp of concepts of postmodernism and modernism but JLG seems pretty firmly modernist to me.

There an certainly postmodern elements in Godard's work (and I'm thinking really more of the 60's period, with its whimsical genre play) and his use of both "high" and "low" references and. But in his concern with history and politics, as well as the genuine sense of romanticism and alienation that pervade much of his work, doesn't seem postmodern to me at all. I should add that I haven't seen every Godard film, but I've seen all of his new wave work, tout va bien, and the 80's work from the Lionsgate box so I have a pretty good sampling but I'm certainly not an expert by means (on Godard, modernism or postmodernism for that matter).

Just as a quick example, Greenaway seems like an archetypal postmodernist to me but I could never seen him making a film as genuinely tragic as Contempt. Even though, both share a playfulness, rule breaking, compulsive quotation and irony, but the worldview seems quite different. I see Godard's films as expressing alienation but with a genuine sense of lament as opposed to just playful irony that one would see in say "The Draughtsman's Contract" (not a knock on PG since I like what he does when he's good anyway)

Apologies if this is a little slapdash and or generalized but I'm just thinking out loud a bit here. I'm wondering what other peoples thoughts might be.

Natural Born Killers, lol.

Seriously though, "Postmodernism" is just a label to me, like "gay", but hopefully some others who are so much brighter than me will entertain Marcel Dalio.

Now look here, I keep reading that Socialisme is Godard's last. But where did this notion come from? Any credible sources that I overlooked? Thanks in advance, and I really can't wait for it to finally get out.

Robert de la Cheyniest wrote:But I'm wondering, I've heard some critics like David Sterrit describe Godard as being a postmodernist and boy I don't see this at all. Certainly I'm not trying to say a single semester course would give me a complete and total grasp of concepts of postmodernism and modernism but JLG seems pretty firmly modernist to me.

There an certainly postmodern elements in Godard's work (and I'm thinking really more of the 60's period, with its whimsical genre play) and his use of both "high" and "low" references and. But in his concern with history and politics, as well as the genuine sense of romanticism and alienation that pervade much of his work, doesn't seem postmodern to me at all.

This strikes me as a pretty fair appraisal too. In addition to the genre play, I'd point to the love of pop art as something distinctly foreign to modernism that pervades Godard's 60s work, but on the whole, I too would place him closer to, say, Brecht than to Warhol. (For the record, Sterrit acknowledges Godard's modernist side in the Weekend commentary.)

What do you make of Godard's obsession with quotation, though? Jameson distinguishes between the affective quotation of a Mahler, an Eliot, or a Joyce and the affectless pastiche of a Doctorow or a George Lucas, and I see Godard figuring interestingly in such a dialectic. My own impression, which I don't feel I've digested enough to articulate yet, is that [Warning: highly tentative, impressionistic, unsubstantiated prose ahead] while some major part of Godard is trying hard to quote like the great modernists did, he's enough in tune with the prevailing modes of discourse of his own world (and enough of a juvenile show-off, to boot) that even some of his most overtly Brechtian attempts at quotation emerge more as pastiche. Takers on that one?

Noiretirc wrote:Now look here, I keep reading that Socialisme is Godard's last. But where did this notion come from? Any credible sources that I overlooked? Thanks in advance, and I really can't wait for it to finally get out.

I haven't ready anything that substantiates that - just speculation based on his age, I think. Supposedly the latest Rivette is also his last. Anyway, JLG still looks healthy in recent interviews, and I can't see him retiring from filmmaking until it's simply no longer possible...

For the Viennale ´10 there is supposed to be something done/collaboration with JLG i.e. the man himself and not just a retro. http://derstandard.at/fs/1256744058975/ ... mit-Godard" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(For those complaining about links to non english sources/pages - kiss my a**)
So it looks like there is something left in JLG.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialisme" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yes I know, Wiki=Satan, but I'm dyin' here! Jan 10th for Socialisme then?

Noiretirc wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialisme

Yes I know, Wiki=Satan, but I'm dyin' here! Jan 10th for Socialisme then?

I'd be surprised if it opened in January without making the festival rounds first. There is a ridiculous lack of good information on the film though, at least from English sources.

Can somebody please comment on this Godard: Images, Sounds, Politics (BFI Cinema)? Is there something exclusive in this (older) publication? My guess is no, but maybe somebody can submit an "index" or something alike? I think i allready read/own most of JLGs publications so i try to avoid buying filmmaker "introductions only"books ... Thank You!

It's a book-length study by MacCabe, with contributions from Laura Mulvey and Mick Eaton, focusing on '68-'80, or roughly from Le Gai Savoir through Slow Motion (with occasional detours to some pre-'68 work). Personally I think it's vital for anyone interested in the period, which most overviews (even MacCabe's Portrait of the Artist at 60) don't give its full due -- although Images, Sounds, Politics has some elisions of its own (for example, MacCabe basically says Vladimir et Rosa is worthless and gives it something like one paragraph of coverage). It's loaded with photographs -- from the actual films/videos, not just production stills -- which is quite useful, since some of these works aren't easy to track down (and no doubt it was orders of magnitude more difficult in 1980). Each chapter concludes with a short interview with Godard, conducted specifically for the book. It also has some reproduced pages from the "script" (actually elaborately xeroxed photo/text montages) for The Story, the aborted de Niro/Diane Keaton collaboration Godard spent a couple of years kicking around in the late '70s. I'm not enough of an expert to know how much of this has reappeared elsewhere, but I cherish my brutally worn copy...

Yo - perfect! Thanks a lot for that info!!! The book is quoted in some other books but i was not sure about the full content until now - Bought!

Happy birthday to the greatest director in the world!

Wrong thread--Woody's birthday was two days ago.

tavernier wrote:Wrong thread--Woody's birthday was two days ago.

Wrong thread--this thread is about a man who still does great films.

Jan 20th for Socialisme then?

tavernier wrote:Wrong thread--Woody's birthday was two days ago.

Oh that's rich.