criterionforum.org

Available in the aforementioned Lionsgate set FYI

domino harvey wrote:Nouvelle Vauge's his best later-period film, but it's only out in France, so I'll save recommending you track that one down

Well, I have a region free DVD player (Blu-Ray too), so as long as there are English subtitles on the release, I don't mind importing it (although I'll try to find it online before spending money on it).

I think I may still try to watch some of his later films, though I'm going to be very cautious. I'll attempt In Praise of Love and Domino, based on your recommendations, I'll try to track down Notre Musique and Nouvelle Vague.

BTW, how are both King Lear and Every Man for Himself (Slow Motion)? Those two looked interesting to me...

criterion10 wrote:BTW, how are both King Lear and Every Man for Himself (Slow Motion)? Those two looked interesting to me...

Two of my favorites from this period! Those plus Nouvelle Vague and Detective would be my personal top post-Week End Godard picks

domino harvey wrote:Two of my favorites from this period! Those plus Nouvelle Vague and Detective would be my personal top post-Week End Godard picks

Well, that's good to hear. I'll try to persevere and keep an eye out for the five we discussed here. My library actually has Notre Musique, so I already placed a request for it. Should get it in a couple of days.

Notre Musique is a good primer for JLG's late-period style due to its structure, which gives you good examples of both his present filmic concerns: it opens with an essay film (arguably Godard's best and tightest use of the format) before settling in for a modern political examination equal parts compelling and confounding. For Ever Mozart is probably his weakest modern feature, so I'm glad you're not letting it sway you too far!

Sounds interesting. Until recently, I had only seen his earlier works, many of which stand among my favorite films.

I actually watched La Chinoise today for the first time. After the suffering of the prior two films I mentioned, it was nice to return to Godard's earlier period, though I actually didn't like it as much as I had hoped to. I mean, it was okay, but I felt that the endless political speeches and ramblings eventually became tiresome, and I started to lose interest. There were certainly many interesting political themes and messages there that I would like to explore, however. (Although being a younger viewer, I still have plenty to learn about politics.)

I'd say his '80s work is the closest to his '60s stuff though obviously there are a lot of differences. Notre Musique is my favorite Godard period so I'll throw in an other rec for it.

zedz wrote:They're good indications of what late-period Godard is all about, so if you reacted like that (not unusual, believe me) I'd advise you to avoid the rest. Maybe you could make a one-off exception for an early 80s title like Prenom: Carmen, which isn't quite so abstruse, but you're under no obligation to persevere.

Yeah, I'm with zedz, some are better, some are worse, but none of them is going to make you come around from thinking they are the worst films you've ever seen. I'm guessing you would like his 70's Dziga Vertov Group / commie things even less.

domino harvey wrote:None of those three are among his best late-period works in my opinion, though none are Godard at his worst, much less all of cinema! Notre Musique is his most-recent great film, and going back a little more, any of the films in the Lionsgate set (Detective et al) are worth seeing and easily obtained. Nouvelle Vauge's his best later-period film, but it's only out in France, so I'll save recommending you track that one down

I'll have to disagree, as I think In Praise of Love is one of his most beautiful films. Also, if you want an accessible late period Godard you could try Sauve qui peut (la vie), as well.

I don't mean this as a criticism of rrenault or of anybody in this thread since I see this all the time, but I have to say it's kind of crazy that people still refer to a film released in 1980 as part of Godard's "late period," given that the chronological mid-point of his career as a filmmaker is currently 1986. Sauve qui peut (la vie) is actually slightly closer to Breathless than it is to In Praise of Love!

chronologically but it has techniques, aesthetics and themes he's still working out up through Film socialisme

watch all 3 together and decide which two are more like the other

for me, Mieville marks his late period, I don't know where else you could see him making a drastic change in methodology

If the problem with For Ever Mozart and Film Socialisme is that they're difficult he might want to reattune his viewing habits instead of just switching to another difficult film he probably won't like.

wigwam wrote:chronologically but it has techniques, aesthetics and themes he's still working out up through Film socialisme

Oh, sure. I'm not really making a stylistic, aesthetic, or thematic argument. I think there are a couple of pretty clear breaks in Godard's work before 1980, whereas after the Dziga Vertov Group his progress becomes much more fluid and I'd certainly have a difficult time drawing any distinct lines between different "periods," if someone wanted me to do that for some reason. I'm just saying that since Godard has been in this "late" period for more than half his career, maybe it's time to stop using a word so tied to chronology to describe it. My problem is merely semantic.

wigwam wrote: I'm just saying that since Godard has been in this "late" period for more than half his career, maybe it's time to stop using a word so tied to chronology to describe it.

I was recently surprised to find that Dan Morgan's book Late Godard and the Possibilities of Cinema focused primarily on the films Soigne ta droite, Nouvelle Vague, Allemagne 90 neuf zero, and the Histoire(s), as my association with the term was more or less post-1990.

(I've rather liked the book so far, FWIW)

criterion10 wrote:I actually watched La Chinoise today for the first time. After the suffering of the prior two films I mentioned, it was nice to return to Godard's earlier period, though I actually didn't like it as much as I had hoped to. I mean, it was okay, but I felt that the endless political speeches and ramblings eventually became tiresome, and I started to lose interest.

As someone who has so far had relatively little luck with any period Godard, and for some of the same reasons as you, the late ones I've found most rewarding were Détective (which is actually funny, no small thanks to Jean-Pierre Léaud) and Hélas pour moi (which has my favourite scene in all of his work apart from Le Mépris). I have to admit I haven't seen the most acclaimed ones like Notre musique and Nouvelle vague, will have to check those out at some point.

BTW if you're going to watch Hélas pour moi, be sure to read up on the Greek myth it's based on (Alcmene and Amphitryon), as the film might appear rather confusing without that information!

repeat wrote:Hélas pour moi (which has my favourite scene in all of his work apart from Le Mépris).

Is it the possession scene? That's one of my favorites.

No, it's the night scene at the café with the

Spoiler

pinball machine

But to be honest I like the whole film much more than I had reason to expect - it's one of the few Godards that I feel like watching again and again. I kind of overdosed on repeated disappointments with him a couple of years ago, but now I feel like trying again with the ones I haven't seen... I see AE has reissued Sauve qui peut (la vie) - I think it was out of print when I last checked?

Anyone with the least interest in Godard should own the Lionsgate set; it's one of the best (list-price) deals in the history of DVD, and the films are an ideal introduction to not-sixties Godard. Detective and Prenom: Carmen are especially good litmus tests. If you don't find anything to like in these two, I wouldn't look any further. And I say this as someone who loves all of his features, Band of Outsiders and Made in USA aside.

criterion10 wrote: I found both of them to be utterly insufferable, easily two of the worst films I have ever seen. Is it worth it to even attempt any other of these later films, or are the two I watched good indicators of what I am in for?

It probably bears repeating once again that films as challenging as these in most cases require multiple viewings to absorb the details. It's usually never going to gel enough after a single viewing to really know if one likes the film or not, let alone make sense of it. Godard himself said that Notre Musique (or was it Forever Mozart?) needed to be viewed about four times just to take it all in.

I always wind up recommending In Praise of Love because its visual and tonal lushness makes it easier to tune into his usual astringent personality.

It took me four viewings of Hélas pour moi to know (more or less) the plot. I like that. His stuff can be watched so many times.

Same here. Four times has been the usual number of times I've needed for what I've seen of his post-1975 work. That also goes for movies like Hiroshima Mon Amour and Sans Soleil.

Numero Trois wrote:

criterion10 wrote: I found both of them to be utterly insufferable, easily two of the worst films I have ever seen. Is it worth it to even attempt any other of these later films, or are the two I watched good indicators of what I am in for?

It probably bears repeating once again that films as challenging as these in most cases require multiple viewings to absorb the details. It's usually never going to gel enough after a single viewing to really know if one likes the film or not, let alone make sense of it. Godard himself said that Notre Musique (or was it Forever Mozart?) needed to be viewed about four times just to take it all in.

I always wind up recommending In Praise of Love because its visual and tonal lushness makes it easier to tune into his usual astringent personality.

If you like the end scenes of In Praise of Love (or the "Hell" segment of Notre musique) be sure to look into films like Histoire(s) du cinéma and its underrated cousin pieces like The Old Place and L'origine du XXIe siècle. In my opinion these films are the peak of Godard's career and his most "pure" films if that makes sense.

I know deep down Godard simply resents the way his early features have become the victims of bourgeois hagiography, although he sometimes appears to outright disown them, even if it's not really true. With that said, it almost seems as though one is put on a guilt trip by him for even daring to love Breathless or Vivre Sa Vie. What do others think?

rrenault wrote:I know deep down Godard simply resents the way his early features have become the victims of bourgeois hagiography, although he sometimes appears to outright disown them, even if it's not really true. With that said, it almost seems as though one is put on a guilt trip by him for even daring to love Breathless or Vivre Sa Vie. What do others think?

I really don't understand how films can be victims of "bourgeois hagiography", or how you interpret those two words. Take a deep breath, sober up and try again!

rrenault wrote:I know deep down Godard simply resents the way his early features have become the victims of bourgeois hagiography, although he sometimes appears to outright disown them, even if it's not really true. With that said, it almost seems as though one is put on a guilt trip by him for even daring to love Breathless or Vivre Sa Vie. What do others think?

What in his films or interviews makes you so certain of this deep seated resentment, and when do you think he guilt trips you for loving early works?

As far as I know, he's only ever come close (during a single brief interview) to disowning just three films: A Woman is a Woman, Band of Outsiders and Made in USA. The latter two are the only two Godard films I don't care much for myself, but I've always been puzzled by his disdain for A Woman is a Woman, as it seems so key to the development of his use of sound and color.