Thoughts on Godard

Ingmar Bergman on Godard: “I’ve never gotten anything out of his movies. They have felt constructed, faux intellectual and completely dead. Cinematographically uninteresting and infinitely boring. Godard is a f****** bore. He’s made his films for the critics. One of the movies, Masculin féminin: 15 faits précis (1966), was shot here in Sweden. It was mind-numbingly boring”.

Werner Herzog on Godard: “Someone like Jean-Luc Godard is for me intellectual counterfeit money when compared to a good Kung Fu film”.

I’ve added these two quotes because they are the negative scale of Godard’s reception. Maybe Bergman’s quote is quite rough but my point is: as much as his work’s admired, he’s also received a lot of dissent. Because the DVD of Pierrot le Fou (from the Criterion Collection) is going out of print, I’m planning to purchase that & a few others. Maybe I should feel ashamed that I haven’t seen any of Godard films; maybe I’m not the right one to start a topic on someone whose work I’ve never seen. But regardless, I’d like a voice on his work.

I’ve seen portions of the other thread, “Your Favourite Godard Film”, so I’m not asking about which movie of his is his best. What I’d like to know is why his movies have a mixed reception. Because he’s far too artsy? Because his films are in-accessible to normal film-goers except for the truly devoted? Does his work merit the reputation he’s received? Why are there are people who have no interest in his movies? Maybe there’s a specific example that defines his work’s ups & downs?

Lastly, does anyone think that Pierrot le Fou is a worthwhile purchase? If so, why?

Pierrot le fou is my favorite film of Godard, everything that Godard represent is in the film, it was his transition film, a mix between his early films, the likes of Breathless and his later, more radical and political films like La Chinoise.

If you are new to Godard, I would suggest watching Bande à part (1964), it is one of the few of his films that reaches the so called “broader audience”.

I think Godard is a great filmmaker but I don’t feel that his work merits the reputation he’s received.

I generally dislike Godard with a few reservations about the importance of his ideas, but in my experiences his execution of said ideas has come across as pretty vapid (I add the disclaimer that I haven’t seen any of his later, supposedly more complex movies). He strikes me as the John Cage of his medium: useful for comprehending and nothing else.

I watch his movies to make fun of them….

Those who prefer to ‘feel’ a film before they ‘think’ it, will most likely get very little from a godard film.

But those who believe that ‘thinking’ and ‘feeling’ are built into one another, should get along with a godard’s cinema quite fine.

^^ Well said, well said.

I loved A Woman Is a Woman, but not for being intellectual. It was, for lack of a better word, adorable. That’s my favorite aspect of Godard, I think – the playfulness. I like him not for making you think, but for being so damn unique.

Pierrot Le Fou is a quality flick, but I’m not big on dvd collections myself so I can’t say whether it’s worth the money to you.

For me Pierrot Le Fou was a complete waste of money. I felt like throwing it out the window after watching it. Hated it. From what I’ve seen I’m fully with Bergman and Herzog. Hate them and don’t get why all the adoration.

Godard in recent years has become more essayist than filmmaker maybe (not a bad thing)
a return to the didactic 70s work only a little less didactic (not that didactic is always a bad thing either).
his 60s work tho including pierrot far surpasses nearly anything in its intellect, wit and vitality

I don’t understand what is so special about Pierrot Le Fou either.

If nothing else, there is at least one thing I think most people should find special about Pierrot le fou, easily summed up in the credit: Cinematography by Raoul Coutard.

As for the rest of the film, I remain agnostic, I find a lot to like and dislike about it, but I’m willing to be convinced in either direction.

you won’t be all so confused about Pierrot once you’ve seen his post-90’s work…trust me, this is where the real swearing starts ;)

is this more ageism dim
in praise of love and forever mozart are fine films

not Forever Mozart my lad, Notre Musique and his short films too ;)

don’t throw ageism all the time.

dont attack old directors and I wont
Norte Musique is quite funny with Godard playing Godard and the literary references are on point
also his section on hell is beautiful

“Notre Musique is quite funny with Godard playing Godard”

this..what you just said is the biggest problem on all his post-90’s work….Godard self-repeating himself.

oh, and accusing capitalism like he always does only his pseudo-anarchic motto is old-fashioned to be true and profound anymore.

sorry, i cannot accept the fact that Allen’s and Godard’s recent periods are as superb as their first or middle, not all are Bresson and Pasolini.

well as Welles wrote in the 60s Most of Godard’s ideas could be written on the head of a pin.
I wouldnt go that far rather I would qoute the bartender from the film Barfly and say about Godard
“He’s as right as any of us.”
I do however think his attack on spielberg with In Praise of Love is quite fair

King Lear is certainly one of the most infuriating viewing experiences I’ve had.

really I find Mailers script and Godard’s deviations from it (to make it a film about a film) really lovely in parts

Pierrot le Fou. I’ve never seen such a provocative, intelligent, creative, fantastically hilarious and sad movie ever since from other directors including Godard himself. I could accept criticism of Godard from Jack Nicholson, for instance (although he was intelligent enough to avoid any blunt accusations). But look who’s talking! Some of Bergman’s and Herzog’s films are outrageously boring.

why Jack Nicholson?

I must say i have a blind spot with Godard from the mid 70’s onwards. It seems that when most talk about Godard, it’s about the 60’s. That was his big cultural moment. It’s arguable whether he has been ‘relevant’ since.

I really like ‘Hail Mary’ though.

Got the UK Studio Canal Collection blu-ray the other day – wonderful looking but admittedly does take a couple views before you ‘get’ it – once you do you’re hooked

JOKS, I agree about the blind spot and that Godard is mostly associated with his early films when people talk about Godard. And he’s packaged as a brand due to his early films. Jack Nicholson mentioned Godard’s movies in some interview, if I remember rightly, he criticised Godard’s approach in terms of how his films are percepted by mass audience, not cinephiles. But it was rather rational, gentleman’s criticism.

QUOTE: Kurt Walker
-——-
Those who prefer to ‘feel’ a film before they ‘think’ it, will most likely get very little from a godard film.

But those who believe that ‘thinking’ and ‘feeling’ are built into one another, should get along with a godard’s cinema quite fine.
-——-

Correction: Those who prefer to ‘think’ about feelings will be right at home with a Godard film.

He’s not worth the space his name takes up, and yup yup, his grandest ideas could fit on the head of a pin, but then, so could Welles’.

And above we have an old but persistent form of debate which relies on the notion that we don’t actually have to explain our opinions, but merely state them.

And above we have a selective reader that only recognizes a form of debate when the form is at odds with his own ignorant opinions, having proven this by failing to react in a similar way to the posts of Kurt Walker, quoted, Andrey Bazensky, Ozukardozy and Matt.

If his name is a waste of space, what do you think I consider a debate featuring detailed examples from his films to be?

At the very least, watching Godard’s 60s films (I haven’t seen anything by him since the late 60s) are essential viewing do to their influence on cinema. In each film, you’re bound to see a few things you’ve never seen before – and that’s the main thing I look for when I watch new movies these days.

None of us can tell you whether you’ll like his style, but I would definitely try his films out. For me, he’s as witty and clever as cinema ever got.

That being said, in most of his films he seems to throw a whole bunch of ideas at the wall just to see what will stick. There are almost always plenty of scenes, lines, techniques or ideas that I love in his movies, but there are also often segments of his movies that I don’t really care about. I think Band of Outsiders (’64) is the movie where he had the best ratio of successful witticisms/innovations: unsuccessful witticisms/innovations.

@Ly: If it’s such a challenge to muster up enough energy to discuss your own viewpoint, then why voice your opinion at all?