Hey Frank,
Thanks for the mini-lecture, a couple of Qs:
Did David Cook’s History of Narrative Film say this::
////…Rivette, Rohmer, Varda, Demy, Philippe de Broca, and others followed in the next year or two.\\\\
So would you say there is any POP in Godard? I read a good definition Danto’s After the End of Art, but I can’t remember it except it seemed to be joie de vivre
i think the definition of new wave is very simple, if we want to keep it so. its simply a new generation of young french directors who made their mark in the 50s and 60s, bringing a new freshness to film form and ideas. maybe thats more simple because its a historical definition. an aesthetic one would definitely be difficult terrain.
@ROBERT W.: David Cook’s history book (which I call the Cookbook) mentions all these directors as possibly in the umbrella category of the New Wave, yes. We don’t have to take David’s word for that inclusion, though.
As far as whether there is any Pop Art in Godard’s work, I would say yes, esp. when he started to shoot color. His bright reds, blues, and whites (colors of the French flag) betray a Pop sensibility, as does the end of 2 OR 3 THINGS I KNOW ABOUT HER, when he constructs a scale model of Paris out of consumer products — an obvious reference to Warhol.
@BOBBY WISE: Your strictly historical definition sounds reasonable. It would, however, include HUNDREDS of new French directors who got their starts in the wake of the pioneers. It would also certainly include Marcel Camus’s BLACK ORPHEUS (1959), which won the Cannes Award that year, but aesthetically and thematically doesn’t seem to fit the New Wave model.
It should not be forgotten that severla years prior to his death Godard and Truffaut had a MAJOR falling out. Godard, in an interview, claimed that Truffaut made “Day For Night” specifically in order to nail Jackie Bissett. Not that was truly uncalled for. But as I beleiev I’ve said here before Godard for all his genius is an exceptionally cold and cruel man. I regard him much as I do Richard Wagner — a great artists IN SPITE OF HIMSELF.
After Truffaut died Godard went into hearts-and-flowers mode re Truffaut.
Didn’t buy it for a nanosecond.
Truffaut was also more lyrical .
My brain favors Godard, but my heart favors Truffaut.
and my manhood favors Melville.
Godard is an animal of cinema — impolite, messy, angry, solitary, instinctive.
Well, it’s complicated. Truffaut made Jules et Jim, Tirez sur-le pianiste and Les deux anglaises et le continent. I love La nuit américaine, but they’re different. Godard wants to break and play, and Truffaut lost that interest after Jules et Jim, that is both sad and playful. My aesthetic as moviegoer is close to Godard: breaking the rules of filmmaking in order to create new movies, ironic, sometimes tedious and, as Manny Farber explained better in Negative Spaces, sometimes irritating. But I can’t watch movies the same way after À bout de souffle, Le Mépris, Vivre sa vie, Pierrot, Alphaville…until La Chinoise every movie is developing an aesthetic and a vision of the world more ironic, more creative and more unexpected. What should I say? Godard is better for my tastes and for my vision of a creator, but Truffaut made three or four masterpieces (and I don’t think the tender first movie of Truffaut was that good, just a continuation of the ideas of neorrealism).
It’s like choosing between Ford and Hawks. I think that Hawks deserves more respect because he has created a language that is unique but also defining of genres and stories and that’s why I prefer Hawks, but I can’t decide if I love more My darling Clementine than Rio Bravo.
Godard=head
Truffaut=heart
Godard=liver
Truffaut=pancreas
were there really hundreds of french directors making films in the 50s and early 60s that contributed to the new wave? i dont know the statistics, but that seems unlikely.
theyre not part of the new wave if they got their start in the wake of the new wave. unless they began making films in the 50s, and the early 60s, i wouldnt consider them of the new wave generation. the new wave was actually very short. it didnt last throughout the end of the 60s and into the 70s. by necessity of the definition of the term, the new wave was only new if it was so for a short amount of time.
i dont have a problem admitting camus to the ranks of the new wave, even thought i havent seen his films. he seems to fit the bill. but thats also why i refrained from discussing a prevailing new wave aesthetic or theme. i think its there, but cant be used as an absolute standard to disqualify certain directors.
Truffaut is, and I mean no disrespect, more mainstream and digestible than Godard. As for who’s better? Not a worthwhile argument.
This is really a question of a lesser of two evils. For my money, I’d rathaer not have either.
dude,enough with the Godard threads coming all over,enough already!
I love Truffaut, and I really like Godard. Frankly, when it comes to their movies, while I do think Godard puts a lot of himself in his films (or, more expressly, his ideas), I feel that Truffaut truly likes to reach and pull us into his life, and his love for movies.
Personally, I like Truffaut more.
Savvy
I always love Truffaut, but Godard is very polarizing. Some of his movies I love, and others I can’t stand, which is very puzzling to me.
Godard and Truffaut were friends until Truffaut made Day for Night, which Godard trashed for being an example of Truffaut “selling out” to the “system”. Truffaut then replied with a letter that attacked Godard for “acting like a shit”. The two never reconciled, even when Truffaut was dying of a brain tumor. I applaud Truffaut for putting Godard in his place. Unlike Godard, Truffaut was an enormously talented director that knew how to tell stories and rarely showed contempt for anybody. And Godard could not stand that because he had a profitable period from 1959-1967 and then sank it into obscurity by making impenetrable and inaccessible junk that no one other than his fan base (which accounts to 0.00001% of the human population) enjoyed while his contemporaries like Rohmer and Truffaut were able to enjoy success in both Europe and America. So, of course, when Truffaut finally died, Godard paid a classy tribute by deriding Truffaut’s skills as a filmmaker, proving why he‘s one of the biggest assholes in cinema. I wholeheartedly agree with David Ehrenstein that Godard was a cold and unexceptional man, although in terms of intellect, Godard, to me, is no more of a genius than a special-ed student. Godard could have been as respectable as Truffaut but instead he has reduced himself to being a senile, arrogant old man by turning back on his friends and the public.
Wow. Tell us how you REALLY feel!
Truffaut
under the cover of mainstream and accessibility
he is more complex than godard
godard is agression, visuals
much more experimental
but i agree that they are too different to be compared
in general if you look at the french nouvelle vague one can hardly notice
any similarities between the participants
except from cahiers du cinema past and cry fot renewal of cinematic language
Godard and Truffaut were friends until Truffaut made Day for Night, which Godard trashed for being an example of Truffaut “selling out” to the “system”.
No, their friendship ended many years earlier. It’s important to remember that Truffaut was Godard’s idol, both as a film critic (Truffaut’s criticism literally shook the cinematic world) and as a real non-bourgeoisie l’enfant terrible (Truffaut spent time in jail…which was a mere wet dream for the rest of the Cahiers du cinema crowd) When Godard went all crazy in the late 60’s, Truffaut was the first “father” to be thrown under the bus.
that ^
My absolute favorite film is Jules Et Jim so I’m going to have to go with Truffaut. I have only seen that, 400 Blows and Shoot The Pianist, I have seen a lot more Godard who I sort of love to hate, I find his films very hit or miss, (I really can’t stand Weekend at all). Truffaut’s work is much more consistent and I think generally a better film maker (in what I have seen).
The documentary “Two on The Wave” is a rather good examination of the entire Godard-Truffaut relationship. It estaboishes among other things that their rift was a kind of “custody battle” over their “spiritual son” — Jean-Pierre Leaud.
Truffaut “invented” Leaud. But the idealized character he created for him became stifling for the acotr, and so he turned to Godard — and Rivette and Eustache — for whom he gave his greatest performances.
Depends on my mood:)
But I’ve devoloped a lust for Godard’s early films up to WEEK END that (for me) outweigh Truffaut’s entire output…though Truffaut is more consistently enjoyable. If I had to give my final answer I suppose it would be Bresson.
I have only seen a few of each guy’s movies, but on the basis of Jules and Jim alone I would have to give my preference to Truffaut. I think it’s a brilliant combination of great characters and a setting that feels older and rustic, while still managing to cleverly use new wavish jump cuts, without detracting from the emotional power of the story.
I like Truffaut much more, haven’t seen a film of his that I didn’t love — and Jules et Jim is one of my 3/4 favorite films, and Day for Night is up there as well. Haven’t seen a whole lot of Godard — but the only one I really liked was Masculin féminin.
People never talk about Truffaut’s brilliant “The Soft Skin”.
Ok. Random pointless rant. I’m done.
Lotta good stuff here. I agree with those who feel it’s not the best thing to make this comparison….. but since they started out together, I suppose it’s inevitable.
As simply as I can think of it…… Godard never went soft.
An easy (and like anything easy, oversimplified) way I like to think of it is that Godard made movies about ideas, and Truffaut made movies about people.
Whichever you prefer depends on whether you ultimately prefer film as an academic or visceral medium (it’s telling that in Godard’s Pierrot le Fou, a character has a blase reaction when Sam Fuller describes cinema as being about emotions). I love ideas, but I prefer movies about people.
I can’t think of a director that I have more of a love-hate relationship with than Godard. I have plenty critical to say about him, but list him as one of my favorites.
Gringo Tex
Comparing the technical skill of Godard and Truffaut is nonsense- they were directors, not technicians, and they used the best cinematographers of their day. (Coutard and Almendros)