The Criterion Collection

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by filmmusic

now about Godard:
I think many people could argue that Godard films are like atonal music.
Atonal music destroys the conventions of music and to many casual listeners it may seem like a cat walking on the piano.
And although Godard destroys the conventions of cinema too, I think his purpose is just to impress and not for another reason.
It's like seeing music students today, that always write atonal music thinking they're writing a masterpiece and that if you write a piece that most people don't understand it will be considered high art. But if you tell them to write a simple melody (that doesn't sound simplistic) chances are it would be extremely difficult for them.

Of course I could change my mind if I had studied cinema, i don't know.

but there's nothing atonal about a lot of Godard's work. (and I should remind anyone reading here that I haven't seen anything post-Weekend.) its a lot closer to the way that The Beatles used interesting chord changes that violated the rules of the keys in which the songs were written.

the ideas are a lot more grounded than many people are willing to acknowledge. I didn't think much of Pierrot Le Fou on first watch, but once I accepted it for what it is not - a relatively more conventional noir-ish crime story about two lovers on the run, I appreciated it a heck of a lot more.

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by Polaroid

Never seen this film, that scene is so beautiful! Need to get myself a copy to view!

indeed it is. and given the plot of the film and the timing in which the scene plays itself out, it is absolutely wonderful.

[filmmusic]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

but there's nothing atonal about a lot of Godard's work.

Sorry, I was constantly editing my post. (not being an English native speaker doesn't help either, and I am not sure if I'm always clear)
i added some other stuff in my post above too. (the rhetorical question about a possible conventional Godard film. Or maybe has he done any? I don't know)

i added later that it is atonal because it destroys the conventions of cinema, like atonal music destroys the conventions of music.

I haven't seen Alphaville and I'm not sure I should watch that scene out of context.
I've seen Breathless, Pierrot le fou and Weekend.

[Ray Jackson]

Godard is an acquired taste, like caviar or head cheese or some funky gourmet restaurant food.

It's not supposed to be for everybody and therefor you can't really knock someone for not liking it. I didn't like Pierrot Le Fou the first time I saw it--matter of fact I HATED IT. Even now, it's not exactly the kind of film that I'd want to watch more than once a year, when I'm in a special kind of mood.

I can't even really articulate why I like it or what I think is so brilliant about it. It's simply a visceral reaction I have to something that's so genuinely different from 99.9% of the all the movies I've ever seen, that it unlocks these hidden doorways in my mind that I didn't even know where there.

Godard is a mixed bag for me. Even in films of his that I really like or even love, such as Vivre Sa Vie, there are scenes that I find to be wildly pretentious or over the top absurd. As in, it feels like Godard is trying too hard to be different.

Ultimately you just have to accept that you're watching something that runs counter to the natural rhythms of your brain and leave it at that.

[filmmusic]

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

there are scenes that I find to be wildly pretentious or over the top absurd. As in, it feels like Godard is trying too hard to be different.

Yes, this is exactly what I felt in each of the 3 movies I've seen.
Not for the whole of a film, but for certain scenes.

And of course, as a musician, I was very sensitive to the film music spotting matter. (music starting or ending abruptly, inserted in unneeded places or not having any sense at all for its placement etc.)
I understand it was meant to destroy the convention of the soundtrack, but again it seemed to me it was done just for the sake of it.
This is what I don't like.

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by filmmusic

Sorry, I was constantly editing my post. (not being an English native speaker doesn't help either, and I am not sure if I'm always clear)
i added some other stuff in my post above too. (the rhetorical question about a possible conventional Godard film. Or maybe has he done any? I don't know)

i added later that it is atonal because it destroys the conventions of cinema, like atonal music destroys the conventions of music.

I haven't seen Alphaville and I'm not sure I should watch that scene out of context.
I've seen Breathless, Pierrot le fou and Weekend.

PLF and Weekend are pretty challenging, especially Weekend.

Band of Outsiders is relatively more conventional. Alphaville would certainly hold up under heavy thematic analysis. If somehow you get a chance to see those two, I'd rewatch Breathless at that point.

[Ray Jackson]

Originally Posted by filmmusic

Yes, this is exactly what I felt in each of the 3 movies I've seen.
Not for the whole of a film, but for certain scenes.

And of course, as a musician, I was very sensitive to the film music spotting matter. (music starting or ending abruptly, inserted in unneeded places or not having any sense at all for its placement etc.)
I understand it was meant to destroy the convention of the soundtrack, but again it seemed to me it was done just for the sake of it.
This is what I don't like.

I believe the random music cues that begin and end so abruptly are meant to have a jarring effect on your brain.

He's trying to get the viewer to think differently--to question conventional cinematic realities and perhaps even the realities of life itself. When you hear music or see jump cuts start and stop at the beats when you're not expecting it, it's like exercising a muscle in your body that rarely gets used. It's painful at first, but takes your body to a higher level.

But he's also a bit of an attention ***** who loves to tell the audience, "Look at me! Look at me!...I'm so different!...I play music at a certain point during the movie for no apparent reason!!!!"

...that's just Godard.

[Scottie]

If anyone is looking for Howards End on BD, PM me.

[filmmusic]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

Band of Outsiders is relatively more conventional.

i just watched the trailer and it looks ideal for winter viewing (after I finish my Christmas films list until New Years day)

[Ray Jackson]

Dammitt!!!!

The guy on the Criterion trade thread who had Pierrot Le Fou on sale for $60 took it off his list!!!!!!

Which one of you dirty, rotten sons a *****es did it?!!

...SHOW YOURSELF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Polaroid]

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

Dammitt!!!!

The guy on the Criterion trade thread who had Pierrot Le Fou on sale for $60 took it off his list!!!!!!

Which one of you dirty, rotten sons a *****es did it?!!

...SHOW YOURSELF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Show spoiler]wasn't me, just wanted to use that gif.

[DaBargainHunta]

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

Dammitt!!!!

The guy on the Criterion trade thread who had Pierrot Le Fou on sale for $60 took it off his list!!!!!!

Which one of you dirty, rotten sons a *****es did it?!!

...SHOW YOURSELF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Show spoiler]

[Show spoiler]Okay, no, it wasn't me. But that would be delicious irony, especially since our posts are probably what motivated someone to buy it.

[Ray Jackson]

Originally Posted by Polaroid

[Show spoiler]wasn't me, just wanted to use that gif.

Originally Posted by DaBargainHunta

[Show spoiler]Okay, no, it wasn't me. But that would be delicious irony, especially since our posts are probably what motivated someone to buy it.

[ShellOilJunior]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

I take it you are not a fan of poetry or anything that requires interpretation. Is that correct?

Godard does have some misses. To me Made in the USA is pure rubbish. Looking at Anna Karina only goes so far when the film blows.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by DaBargainHunta

Or, let's face it, the people who did see Tree of Life didn't care for it. I found it to be a very powerful and interesting experience, but it also felt like being in a daze after drinking too much cough syrup. It was not an "enjoyable" movie, and while I can recognize and appreciate its other merits, it's also something I quite frankly have no desire to ever revisit. It was $2.88 at Big Lots recently (and may still be), and I couldn't bite even at that price.

But your post was about cinematography. The lush setpieces and visuals of Hugo were a lot more interesting to me than the boring Americana neighborhood in Tree of Life, though the latter had some interesting and beautiful scenes. If your argument is that it's harder to compose beautiful shots, scenes, etc. when you're limited to a pedestrian house and neighborhood, and that is what makes Tree of Life more deserving, I'll grant you that. I still disagree, but I understand the argument. Not only were Hugo's environments more creative, so were the way they were shot.

I found Tree of life immensely enjoyable. Best film of the year.

And Hugo's "cinematography" was half CGI, whereas Tree of Life was mostly shot natural light and for real. That's why is should've won. Several recent cinematography winners have all been CGI creations more than traditional photography (Hugo, Gravity) of actually capturing an image in camera.

[Polaroid]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

I found Tree of life immensely enjoyable. Best film of the year.

And Hugo's "cinematography" was half CGI, whereas Tree of Life was mostly shot natural light and for real. That's why is should've won. Several recent cinematography winners have all been CGI creations more than traditional photography (Hugo, Gravity) of actually capturing an image in camera.

Tbh for Gravity they did create an entire new technique in film making to make it so from a technical view, no surprise it won! and well deserved I would say! Buttes I think the more natural rather than CGI film should win :P

[Namuhana]

I just rewatched The Great Beauty. What a marvelous film, and quite beautiful too.

[WonderWeasel]

Originally Posted by jw007

I detest the films of Jean-Luc Godard.

There, I said it.

Blasphemy.

The movie gods are angry at me.

Lightning and thunder.

I'm sure I'm going to get eaten alive by going against Godard, but I honestly cannot stand this man's technique. I just watched Every Man for Himself last night and felt something I haven't felt in a while while watching a film: Alienation. These ridiculous editing techniques he uses, with the slow motion and sound editing drove me crazy. Why the hell would someone do that to a movie throughout the film? It was a total artsy fartsy maneuver. Maybe I'm not used to that but I was livid. Godard is NOT a director in my top 10, nor my top 20, or top 50 for that matter. I don't care if he made one of the greatest films of all time (Breathless) and invented French New Wave singlehandedly. I just don't like his movies!

Every Man for Himself alienated and distanced me. I didn't care whatsoever for this film. I'm ashamed for even buying this film for 50% off a while back during a sale.

Maybe I just don't get Godard, but I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Ingmar Bergman on Jean-Luc 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 ****ing bore. He’s made his films for the critics. One of the movies, Masculin, Féminin, was shot here in Sweden. It was mind-numbingly boring.”

Orson Welles on Jean-Luc Godard:
“His gifts as a director are enormous. I just can’t take him very seriously as a thinker — and that’s where we seem to differ, because he does. His message is what he cares about these days, and, like most movie messages, it could be written on the head of a pin.”

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

Aside from my friends Ingmar, Orson and Werner, does anyone else have a problem with Godard besides me?

Originally Posted by WonderWeasel

I think the thing that turns me off of some of the new-wave is the attitude it tries to portray. 'Breathless', for example, comes off as trying too hard to be cool, from the disjointed jazz used in the soundtrack, to the sunglasses, and so much damn smoking. It's like a beatnik's wet dream.

Yeah, I'm not a huge Godard fan, either.

[llj]

Godard was best when working with Raoul Coutard as cinematographer.

But I don't mind Godard as much as the posts I'm seeing so far. I actually prefer watching his stuff at home as opposed to in a theater, though. When seen on the big screen, his self indulgent ironic attitude doesn't come off as amusing to me.

To be honest, some of the negative reactions in here sound like exactly what Godard was probably originally trying to provoke. "What is up with the editing, sound cutting off, etc,." He is not here to simply "entertain" you, he has to troll you a little bit too.

Pierrot Le Fou, which seems to be getting some hate in here, is actually quite a lovely travel film, with Coutard's wonderful cinematography and its easygoing, improvisational rhythms. I find that I pretty much prefer any Godard film that features "a girl and a gun" over his other ones.

[jmclick]

I just finished watching The Three Colors Trilogy by Krzysztof Kieslowski, and found it to be an absolutely amazing experience. I screened Blue on Saturday, White on Sunday and Red today. All three were brilliant pieces of filmmaking, featuring fascinating performances, inspired direction, jaw-dropping cinematography, and impeccable art direction and set decorations. And the stories and themes! ... I vaguely recall that several reviewers had issues with at least one of the transfers, but quite honestly, I got so involved in the characters that any flaws sailed right over my head unnoticed.

If pressed, I would have to say that White was the film that most captivated me. I had never seen a film starring Zbigniew Zamachowski, and he was superb as Karol Karol. His performance held me spellbound. On the distaff side, Juliette Binoche in Blue was almost as compelling; I've never seen her look more beautiful or come across as so utterly vulnerable. Although it was more difficult for me to connect to at first, Red proved to be the perfect finale to the trilogy; I love the way Kieslowski tied all three films together during the closing scenes. Bravo!

In true Criterion fashion, the supplemental materials illuminated the films and filmmakers, and heightened my appreciation of the main features. I especially liked the short films and documentaries that were included on the Blue and White discs. Now I'm anxious to move on to The Double Life of Veronique, and could kick myself for not picking up Blind Chance during the recent Barnes & Noble sale. Ah, well, it won't be too long until Criterion's flash sale in February!