ha ha all you guys…get back to STL, you are ruining the thread!
Broccoli [raspberry], . . . Cauliflower is weak.
&dy: we’re taking over! And this thread never had a chance, anyway. It’s just flailing about and dying a slow death. They should have just had it out back at STL!
By the way, when referring to STL!, do not ignore the punctuation at the end. This is critical.
@Sanjuro His highlight years..I apologize that it’s common knowledge. I’ve concluded that I don’t like the works of his I’ve seen, so naturally I say he’s weak. Do you watch Evil Dead 1 and 2 and say Raimi is unimportant, or do you actually go and watch his whole canon? Be realistic. Your agenda against this habit is futile, it exists and I am damn sure you are guilty of it. As far as ‘dumbing it down to my LCD lvl to please me,’ you are being as ridiculous as my intentionally farcical opening post.
There is something fundamentally wrong with you for not liking broccoli.
@Filmy Andy My respect for Godard lies exactly in what you listed. This thread was mainly for humor, my own personal enjoyment for ppl to try to argue why I’m incorrect. Which I’m not, least not to myself, I don’t like any of the work he has made on the whole, except Le Mepris. [Who knows, I’m just beginning my serious interest in film, so opinions may change.]
You were completely right about this being a waste of time.
It’s appropiate to quote RUS here: “To paraphrase Milan Kundera: It is almost impossible to reconcile fundamental aesthetic differences.”
Long live STL!
‘By the way, when referring to STL!, do not ignore the punctuation at the end. This is critical.’
Xtian, makes me wanna give you a tittie twister!! :)
Godard’s post 1967 films, for the most part, don’t resemble anything from his so-called ‘highlight years’ so I’d certainly watch a few films from later on to be comfortable with my Godard is Weak assertion. Just as I wouldn’t write off Sam Raimi after Evil Dead 1&2 but go and watch A Simple Plan first.
But in the end there are so many great directors and films out there. Most likely there are more films out there that you’ll love than you could ever possibly watch in your entire lifetime. Nobody need “point you in the right direction” and tell you why you should like something you don’t (but I will try cheese sometime, only once mind you).
Who would write off Sam Raimi by watching the Evil Dead films? That’s just being contrary. A better example would be writing off Sam Raimi by watching the Spider-Man films.
Anyway, I wouldn’t go so far as to say that “Godard is weak”, but I know I’m not as big a fan of his work as a lot of people on here, though I still think him to be an incredible filmmaker, certainly with “vision.” Vivre Sa Vie is my personal favourite (as I’ve mentioned several times on this forum), and Made in U.S.A. is flawed but brilliant. Check those out if you haven’t already (if you have and still think he’s weak, then who am I to argue).
His best moments (the Karina monologues, the posed love scene in ‘Alphaville’, the color party in ‘Pierrot’, the minute of silence and run tru the Louvre in ‘Bande’, etc.) are brilliant inventions coming out of early Godard’s youthful, ballsy, studio-free, in-your-face Attitude with a capital A, and just for those moments alone his name is justifiedly important and early work great.
But Attitude doesn’t always add up to a film, all the more in the later (post-1966) stultifying, amateurish, incoherent, self-satisfied Maoist rantings, where the Attitude itself is worn out and clichéd.
But to be fair, I haven’t seen his more recent stuff.
Highly recommended: ‘Histoire d’Eau’, a 1958 short, an impressive, clear sign of the brilliance to come (a bonus on the French “Vivre Sa Vie” DVD, hopefully it exists on some US editions).
Godard has a lot in common with Bob Dylan : iconoclastic early-mid 1960’s cultural gods having narrowly escaped death on 2-wheels and continued tirelessly to produce for decades afterwards while knowing that this work will always be dwarfed by their early burst of genius.
Same thin, mute, stone-faced, dark-glasses-and-cigarette look, circa 1965, it is quite striking, like separated twins or something.
Dylan gets better with age though….
“Help me out”
TAKE THE GAS PIPE!!!!!!
Why do we get threads like this 24/7 in here? If you have a seriosu question woth discussing about Godard (or anyone else) please advance it. Otherwise quit wasting our time.
i think those days are just about over. this site is officially overrun. finding an interesting discussion to join in on that has some serious thought to it is a rareity now.
David you’re amusing.
Bravo, David — I wholeheartedly agree. If someone finds Godard’s 60s films “weak” or anything of the kind, then I think they’re not really interested in the spontaneous lyric power of films that are made personally, with ideas and emotions and quotations and, yes, sometimes, ravishing colors.
Miike has made more than 100 films, none as bad as Godard, Gozu is way better than Band of Outsiders.
““Help me out”
TAKE THE GAS PIPE!!!!!!
Why do we get threads like this 24/7 in here? If you have a seriosu question woth discussing about Godard (or anyone else) please advance it. Otherwise quit wasting our time.” —David Ehrenstein
“If someone finds Godard’s 60s films “weak” or anything of the kind, then I think they’re not really interested in the spontaneous lyric power of films that are made personally, with ideas and emotions and quotations and, yes, sometimes, ravishing colors.” —Justin Vicari
Pretentious: Claiming or demanding a position of distinction or merit, esp. when unjustified. —The American Hertiage Dictionary
Pretentious: attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed. —The New Oxford American Dictionary
It’s not unjustified. There’d be no modern cinema without Godard.
“There’d be no modern cinema without Godard”
I’m pretty sure there would be.
“There’d be no modern cinema without Godard.”
Berjuan is right, of course there would be. It would just be different.
I don’t think that’s right — so many of the techniques filmmakers use (and have used until they have become standard operating procedure) were invented by Godard. And anyway, even if you can imagine modern cinema existing without him (which I can’t), It wouldn’t be as good.
I think that even if Godard wouldn’t have been alive and invented those techniques, someone else would have stumbled upon them. Film is such a collaborative medium. Did Godard have tremendous influence? He did. But there are so many coincidences in modern invention and discovery (simultaneous creation/discovery of the telephone, radio, DNA helix, etc.) that I can’t say that Godard is the be-all and end-all of modern cinema.
“And anyway, even if you can imagine modern cinema existing without him (which I can’t), It wouldn’t be as good.”
that’s completely unsupportable.
as I had just said, it would exist, but it would be different (which can’t really suggest anything about quality).
Not necessarily so, because by “modern” one doesn’t mean contemporary. It’s not that Godard is or is not influential, it is that Godard has singularly questioned the way cinema and images work in society, thereby ushering in a different understanding of those art and commercial forms. This is the “modernity” meant.
^ Daniel is right.
“But Attitude doesn’t always add up to a film, all the more in the later (post-1966) stultifying, amateurish, incoherent, self-satisfied Maoist rantings, where the Attitude itself is worn out and clichéd.”
I guess the real question one needs to ask when someone makes a statement like that is… how much have you seen from Godard post-1968 to completely dismiss his career after this completely arbitrary date?
so did the neo-realists and the other members of the new wave.
suppose Godard stayed a critic and never made a film, would the entire movement have been inside a vacuum (other than the parts that were)? Do you really think the argument can be made that those other directors didn’t question the way cinema and images work in society?
of course it would be different without godard, but he didn’t “singularly” address those topics in his films.
i wish there was an ignore function so i could ignore everyone in this thread
Justin Vicari :
Well, you think wrong. Nothing but your unsupportable, suspect opinion.
In the immortal words of a little filmmaker that made “personal” films : ."Godard is a fucking bore.One of the movies, Masculin féminin: (1966), was shot here in Sweden. It was mind-numbingly boring.”
Another little maker of “personal” films : “Someone like Jean-Luc Godard is for me intellectual counterfeit money when compared to a good kung fu film.”
In Bergman’s words, essentially every filmmaker except Tarkovsky, including himself, were terrible filmmakers.
Exactly, Law. And I don’t see either of those opinions backed-up by anything other than the clout of the filmmaker that said them. They’re as suspect as you say Mr. Vicari’s opinion is in this instance.