Maybe someone could point me in the opposite direction. As the title says, I think he’s weak. I won’t go on and on, but some pointers of the weaksauceness(yea, I just wrote that):
lack of characters
semi-important statements, which many are dated
boring(I’m aware this ad infinitum)
Aesthetics, particularly colors
Help me out.
I like this.
“Help me out.”
Don’t watch Godard anymore.
I’m getting the feeling Tom likes this. Hmm.
Hahaha…why is Stop The Lists! Humor creeping into this thread? Josh Ryan, hush! We await Josh D’s entrance!
Haha, I like Tom’s comments. & Spence’s. I will cease after watching A Woman is a Woman, Tout va Bien, Weekend, and La Chinoise
I’ve seen Breathless, Contempt, Vivre sa vie, Band of Outsiders, Alphaville, Pierrot le fou, Masculin Feminin, and Made in U.S.A.
Until then I shall continue to post my witty banter where I please.
I think the fact that a comment has already been moderated is indication that Dushane has entered.
Godard is not weak. He’s just self-indulgent – the original Wes Anderson. And a pretty uninteresting filmmaker.
But I’ll probably be attending the Breathless/Alphaville double feature at the Aero next month. Because I’m a glutton for punishment.
I’m scared, guys. I fear for Christian’s e-life.
Please Hammer JD, don’t hurt ’em!
Fredo sliding in with the truth. Godard owned.
LOL at the anticipation. Get some complimentary dancers* in here to lighten the mood.
First: You are all insane, Stop the List regulars.
Lack of characters? What does that mean? A scant argument. I think the basis of your dislike is that Godard is very overt with his ideas. All writer/directors are self-important, and all artists use the medium to explore their own ideas. What else would they explore? The thing Godard is most often criticized for is doing just this thing. This thing that makes him a real artist. The difference between him, and someone like Kurosawa, or Welles… who both expound their own ideas ad infinum during the course of their films, is Godard is much more obvious with it. He’s not hiding himself behind objectivity. He’s telling you exactly what he thinks.
Maybe it’s dated… I don’t think it is. I think speaking about the plight of the working man (which is essentially all something like La Chinoise talks about), or making fun of the bourgeoisie (a la Weekend ) is always relevant, and always effective. The bourgeois are always stomping on the working man. His overall philosophy may not be relevant, but the backbone of his ideas are still as relevant as ever. One needs only look at Pierrot le fou, or Le Petit Soldat… his questions, and concerns regarding the Algerian war are just as relevant as questions concerning the Iraq War.
If I had known this was a Stop the lists spin-off I wouldn’t have been so hostile. Carry on!
But your response is negated by subjectivity. Yes, he may parade around in the open to Goodbye Horses, but I can still dislike his work and dismiss it.
I could hardly be concerned with the plight of the workers, blah blah blah, this topic has been expunged.
But no, my basis wasn’t his ideological overtness. And assigning “lack of characters” an argument grade is completely unnecessary.
Fredo said it best, he is uninteresting.
Why is he uninteresting? If my response is negated by subjectivity it’s only because I was shooting in the dark. I’ve yet to hear you say anything against him other than he doesn’t make characters, and he’s self-important. So? What about it? If you expound upon on those we can have a real debate instead of me just talking to myself, and then you criticizing me for talking to myself.
Uhh, 1 up for Dushane there. Oh wait… In my original post, I asked to be redirected in my views on Godard’s work. So I want to see you converse with yourself.
Ok ok, here’s a bone for you: characterization. Is there any development? Because I hardly see any.
It’s impossible to redirect someone when they haven’t told you where they’re going.
Not all films have character development. It’s not necessary in all films. Especially in films that play with narrative, like Godard’s. If there is no development in his later films it’s because characters aren’t given the room. They’re put in specific situations, and given room to react within the parameters Godard has set-up. This is precisely why in Pierrot le fou they refer to the audience, and in Weekend there is constant referencing to this as a film vs. reality, and why there is a documentary crew in La Chinoise, but the film is entirely fictional. Godard is acknowledging the falsity of the situation.
I agree with your point that his films dont require it. But I do; so there exists a discrepancy. But films that play with narrative can contain development, look at Memento for example. Development breeds entertainment for me, another chance that Godard misses out on.
Yes, some of his film dont hide their fictional nature, so what; that matters not to me.
holy shit-storm’s. Someone who does not care for Bukowski! HAPPY DAY’S
WELL….that was moderated….rat’s
I need to get out of this depressed funk I am in and actually participate here
Don’t do it, Tom. You’ll regret it.
I’ve only seen one of his films, but if you don’t like Godard then you don’t like Godard. It isn’t the end of the world. :)
You’ve watched a set of films that span a 7 year period at the beginning of Godard’s career and have come to the conclusion that he’s ‘weak’, he lacks characters and that the semi-important statements in these 50 year old films are ‘dated’. Ha ha ha!
Oh wait, someone told you that 1960-1967 was Godard’s ‘best’ period and you concluded that if you don’t like this stuff then you’ll certainly hate the rest?
So you don’t like Godard, does it really matter? Should every filmmaker dumb his vision down to the lowest common denomiator in order to please everyone? What the heck is wrong with taking risks, being different and trying something original?
I don’t like broccoli, what am I doing wrong!?
By being a thorough iconoclast with his unorthodox methods, path breaking ideas, decisions on making films cheaply and quickly, running away from reused narratives, discarding rules of thumb, what he brought to the medium of film itself and the new wave movement is simply astounding.
Lack of characters ? His characters were mirrors to contemporary France Youth, prostitutes, working girls, intellectuals, juveniles, journalists, free spirits – people who yearned for something new. Is there no character in Contempt, Pierrot Le Fou, Breathless, Band of Outsides that is as much characters as the collage of colors he used in his films, and how many more shades do you need in a character to call it “good characterization”.
Boring? – Well, if someone is hell bent on trying to tarnish a filmmaker by speaking only in keywords without proper juxtaposition of statements to back, I am afraid the reason, argument and justification to show him in good light, convince and win over is a waste of time….I might as well return to STL and have unlimited fun :)
Semi-important statements? Godard is as personal a film maker can ever get in terms of expressing his form, content and thoughts without inhibitions, he does make statements that sometimes may seem unimportant, but the ideologies might have dated and when did philosophy become important to average cineaste?
Besides having respect for what he has given to the medium, I always enjoyed his films (all that I have seen which is all the ones Xtian quoted) and never found majority of his films boring.
“I don’t like broccoli, what am I doing wrong!?”
Broccoli is weak. It lacks the character development of cabbage.
Broccoli produced the Bond films, so it does have that going for it.
Put cheese on it.
What about soybeans?