MUBI

A cinematic essay in which Godard discusses many, many “things he knows” about… film. He explores the very essence of cinema, discussing (and beautifully illustrating) the relationship between images and language, all the while demonstrating the very political nature of cinema and depicting the gravest consequence of consumerism: a mother working as a prostitute in order to pay for her family’s unnecessarily frivolous and wasteful lifestyle. All the more grave is the fact that this does not even phase the beautiful Juliette Janson, played with calculated bourgeois-charm by Marina Vlady. Because of the depth of Godard’s philosophical arguments in this film, its striking relevance to film theory, and the auteur’s integral relationship to the film, I would without hesitation label it as a masterpiece that deserves to be seen and appreciated by all cinephiles.

Jean-Luc Godard. By all accounts, a true film connoisseur. A film historian, philosopher, critic, etc. Knowing this, Godard in the ever contemptuous 2 or 3 Things I Know About Her, has decided to dabble in the art of social commentary. (He may have dabbled in an earlier film, but I haven’t seen enough of his catalog to say so. I will delve into his other films eventually.) This film, by all means, is bullshit. Some say it’s misogynistic, but frankly, I’m accustomed to directors being misogynists, pessimists, narcissists, et al. Though, Godard’s misogyny and narcissism rears it’s head in every frame of this film. He speaks in volumes, but rarely says anything. It’s all convoluted wannabe philosophical bullshit, and I’m tired of it. I’m tired of being looked down on; Godard’s contempt is ridiculous. Some may find it amusing, somewhat brave of him as a filmmaker, but I, for one, find it beyond disrespectful to have my intelligence tested like this.

I have no shame in saying I did not finish this film. It’s the second time in my recent film watching experience that I’ve completely given up on a film (the first being Jarmusch’s Limits of Control). This is a rare occasion for me, and one that I did not expect with a Godard film. I genuinely enjoyed films like Breathless, Pierrot le Fou, A Woman is a Woman, hell, I even found Histoire(s) somewhat interesting. But this?! No fucking way am I going to sit through having my intelligence put on the test and pretend to even like it.

What did I like? It had some pretty colors at least.

ou 3 choses que je sais d’elle (2 or 3 Things I Know About Her)[/url][/b]

A film from Godard that is a bit of a mix between his older films and the films as he makes them today. Part fiction and part documentary style, Godard uses the story of Julliette Jeanson (who prostitutes herself to earn some more money to make ends meet) as a template to tell us how he thinks about almost everything. After watching this film you know how he thinks about politics, war, capitalism, love and mankind in general. He brings Jeanson (and prostistution as a whole) to the screen as the ultimate thing of the consumer culture that we live in today, of capitalism. Later on in his career Godard would become a convinced Maoïst.
A strong film from Godard where multiple viewings can be required and are recommended, but it`s nothing for people who would like to start watching the Master`s films.

]

I believe I have outgrown Godard. I was once dazzled by his daring to take cinema in directions unexplored. Once upon a time, My Life to Live and Band of Outsiders forever changed my notion of what movies could be. It’s not that his films are unappealing. But he never wants to draw me in. Curiosity, his legacy as an auteur of the French Nouvelle Vague – these were enough to keep me searching for more. However, I am no longer curious; I have an idea of what I’m getting into. And I realize watching Godard means watching on Godard’s terms: political and intellectual over emotional sentiments. The actors and the “narrative” are more vehicles to express Godard’s thoughts than they are actual people and events living and breathing. They are there to constantly remind you that you are only watching a movie. They are there to remind you that you are not watching something unfold or take place but ideas and concepts take shape. There’s no denying what the man has achieved with the medium is nothing short of revolutionary. But he has come to make that revolution almost all his own in a career not unlike a Bob Dylan. At times, it feels he no longer wants to share. At times, it seems he wants to deliberately keep me out.

It took me three viewings to get in tune with this film. I now see it as a masterpiece and as one of Godard’s greatest achievements. I’ve always felt that Godard was more of a critic than a storyteller, and in this film he made the leap from criticism and dissection of film to that of society. You don’t have to agree with everything Godard says (I’m not sure if he even does) to appreciate the film, but you will be engaged intellectually and ponder the way you live, think, and feel in ways like few other films have been able to accomplish. The movie might have been shot in 1966, but it seems as resonant today as ever. Since 2 or 3 things is a stream-of-consciousness film essay rather than a narrative, most will question if they want to sit through an hour and a half of being lectured by a self-indulgent, intellectual malcontent. Indeed, many of Godard’s later works feel like that, but with this one he got it right.