“Alphaville” inaccessible? I can see at least 3 other films on your list that deserve that title before “Alphaville” does.
Those who prefer to ‘feel’ a film before they ‘think’ it, will most likely get very little from a (G)odard film.
Kurt nuanced that thought well. He isn’t saying “either/or” he is saying “before”.
What makes Godard films great is the way in which he brings together thought and feeling.
Alphaville isn’t nearly as accessible as the other films on this list. Even with a film such as Passion there is a lot to keep the viewer occupied, but Alphaville is very confusing in a way that gave me little reward. But as I say, perhaps I just need to see it again
Watch it again. For me, it shares a place at the top of the canon of his 60s work.
“in which he brings together thought and feeling.”
“Godard gave this new sophistication a loud voice, without which….”
as i said, a lot have done so, it’s just some people like Godard got to be more popular, the word of “loud” mouth, if i may say, regardless of his position as a highly-skilled artist.
and don’t tell me you think Arnheim was much of a film theorist, please….
I love Alphaville, but it is full of academic/semiotic language that can definitely be confusing, yet it is still a genre film, albeit a highly creative one, which means it’s probably easier to follow than some of his later works.
need to see First Name Carmen.
Yes, “Alphaville” at heart is a genre film. It’s very poetic and also very comedic. If you watch it and let Godard wink knowingly at you, with his tongue planted in cheek, it might be easier to understand. The film should actually play as an attack on academic-semiotic language and what it represents. Emotion wins out in the end over intelligence.
and don’t tell me you think Arnheim was much of a film theorist, please….
I was surprised to find out he was ever involved with film – he was mostly about the gestalt of visual thinking
“If you watch it and let Godard wink knowingly at you, with his tongue planted in cheek, it might be easier to understand. The film should actually play as an attack on academic-semiotic language and what it represents. Emotion wins out in the end over intelligence.”
agree. emotion does break through the obfuscation of technical language—from memory, Orwellian style language—but it has been a while since i last watched it. It’s definitely a tongue in cheek exercise, and it helps to be familiar with the genre/s he is playing with.
It was actually the first Godard movie i saw, and it gave me the wrong impression because it’s really nothing like his other films, even if it’s definitely the product of the same mind. at least nothing like the films i saw next, like Weekend etc.
It is fairly unique within the canon of 60s Godard. Yet somehow consistent with his early attempts to rework genres.
Marcel Duchamp was crazy about “Alphaville.”
Then he was a smart man.
I like what Hannakat said, I think what she said is true.
i have not seen more than a 1/4 of Godard’s work but what i have to say in defense of an artist is that who gives a f*** what anyone else has to say about someone’s work? most people, in your lifetime of pursuing art, will call you a hack, a fake, a failure and more god awful adjectives than even hitler could handle. the problem with fake artists is that they will take that “criticism” in and use it to influence their next film, song, book, etc. those outsiders, who are always looking in, are the reason that being a true artist is one of the hardest professions in the world because the whole world is waiting for you to fail miserably. what’s so great about being an artist is never allowing what those “monday morning” filmmakers say change your vision of what you are ultimately striving to achieve. thus, Godard was an amazing filmmaker who did not compromise his ideas because of what the papers said about him. instead, he would turn around and make a film with an 11 minute tracking shot that would of made Hitchkock proud.
“Monday morning” filmmakers? Ha!
Marcus Killerby
My thoughts on the Godard films I have seen (he is one of my favourite directors)
Masculin Feminin:
This is my favourite Godard film. I absolutely love the construction of the film and Jean Pierre-Leaud’s character is extremely well developed. The woman who take’s Leaud’s fancy in this film is also very well developed and I, as with most of Godard’s characters, feel that these character’s are, in some way, real. As the old (however flawed) Turing argument goes “If it looks human, and acts human, it must be human” or something along those lines and Godard’s character’s are, in his early work, so realistic that I feel a very real bond with them. This is most true with Masculin Feminin
Vivre Sa Vie:
I am never ashamed to admit that this film had the effect of making me cry. This is, perhaps, Godard’s most mature film which is a shame seeing as it is also one of his first. Karina’s character is, again, very well developed to the point that you think of her as not only real, but as someone you’d desperatelly like to help. Godard’s heart is in this film… It is filled with a wonderful warmth and caring. This was my introduction to Godard and I’d recommend it as an introductory Godard film to anyone.
Contempt:
Slow building, I found myself getting bored with this film at first, but by the time the last half came around I was engrossed and it is a film that grows on you long after you finish seeing it. It is beautifully filmed and filled with great ideas. When I first picked up the DVD at my video store I read the blurb. It simply says “a man is shocked to discover that his wife has nothing but contempt for him”. Anyone who can make an engrossing film with that as the plot synopsis has to have something going for him.
Pierrot Le Fou:
A strange film in Godard’s filmography of strange films. This is, as others have said, a transitional film for Godard, but it is great. The colours are wonderful and indeed the colours are always wonderful with Godard’s non-black&white films. There is a lot to analyse in this film and it is also a great watch. I have seen it 3 times now and reading some of the hate for it on this thread confuses me. To the OP, definitely add this film to your collection.
Band Of Outsiders:
Great fun and I don’t know anyone who dislikes this film which is strange for a Godard film. This is when I really started to see the influence Godard had on today’s films and cemented in my mind the idea that he really is one of the most important director’s of all time.
La Chinoise:
Very politically motivated and does require patience but I really liked this film… Though I can’t say I enjoyed it as there isn’t much here to enjoy. This film stands out in Godard’s filmography and I wouldn’t consider it essential Godard viewing, but I liked it. The character’s are once again very real and their conversations interesting in their delusions. I liked this film much more after I had watched it than when I was watching it.
Passion:
Visually stunning and represents the pinnacle of Godard’s obsession with the connection between painting and film. This film is often considered Godard’s most pretentious, but I have never found Godard pretentious. I consider this essential viewing and all it’s so called flaws are intentional, which is something you have to keep in mind with all of Godard’s films. This is a must see Godard but I can’t guarantee you’ll like it.
Hail Mary:
Controversial, indeed Catholic’s were banned from watching it by the Catholic Church. It is a modern interpretation of the story of Mary and follows a mysteriously pregnant woman. I personally don’t understand why this film was banned by the church. It does not contain anything that will shake a catholic’s beliefs to it’s foundations and merely presents opinions on a topic that few people don’t have an opinion of “was Mary really a virgin?”. There is an intercut story of sorts, which may be confusing to the uninitiated, but if you are familiar with Godard and a fan of his films I feel confident you will love this film as much as I did.
First Name Carmen:
Very experimental, late Godard, this film requires patience and an analytical mind, this is a good Godard film, but not a great one. It is complex and confusingly filmed, albeit deliberately confusing. Do not make this the first Godard film you watch. Another thing about the film is that the character’s don’t seem as real as in his other films. I am in two minds about this film and I probably need to see it again.
2 or 3 Things I Know About Her:
Beautiful, unorthodox and requiring a lot of patience, this is a great Godard film but only for Godard fans. It is one of the most unorthodox films I have ever seen and the use of colour is brilliant. It is wonderfully complex and tackles some very important issues of Godard’s time. Only once you have seen and enjoyed other films such as Vivre Sa Vie, Masculin Femin, Pierrot Le Fou and Band Of Outsiders should you give this film a tackle.
Alphaville:
Highly inaccessible and one of the few Godard films I really did not enjoy at all. However, thisis still a complex work by Godard and many love it so, as with First Name Carmen, perhaps I just need to see it with hindsight.
Godard truly is an important and great director… To the uninitiated, start with Vivre Sa Vie and cry like a baby.
that is all.