godard vs. truffaut
monsie...@hotmail.com
style in order to please the public, godard went along into a sort of
framing one could never have imagined possible.
see there's this drama truffaut comes up with, la peau douce, and it's
all really bout himself, about a supposed intellectual keeping to
timetables and not being able to escape them. it feeds from two
mediocre sources that purposely castrated their styles in order to
remain identifiable by the public and remain within mimesis/lack of
displacement, lack of freedom; hitchcock and balzac.
so the end result is not only mediocre, it is also idiotic and a
melodrama onthe figure of truffaut himself.
sorta lame just like who's that knocking on my door that acts as a sort
of melodrama of scorcese himself and of all the incisive? questions of
being a catholic... added to that are the mentions to ford, the later
60s and 70s being an amazing period in american cinema of freedom, this
is no time to go talking about mediocre and reactionary and
castrationary john ford. but he does it, so it winds up being
scorcese's personal melodrama on how one must castrate one's style (and
if that weren't enough, behaviours)
then day for night is the epitome of truffaut's career, carrying the
very meaning of the feud between godard and truffaut. in other words,
it was truffaut admitting by accident perhaps but getting an oscar and
prolly a cesar that he was prolly proud of, that expression must be
limited. simply lame.
godard now he went absolutely wild. up to 68 his movies are stunning,
weekend is amazing. the dziga vertov group movies have excellent
framing at least and numero deux is magnificient... then there are the
movies from the 80s like passion or soigne ta droite that are
absolutely stunning, and other ones like grandeur et decadence or
passion carmen that are also excellent. then there's in praise of love
and histoires which are stunning, and that's all i seen.
grandeur et decadence is apparently a response to chambre vert but i
aint seen no chambre vert so i dunno. however its a bit like numero
deux responding day for night. winning again i guess.
obviously my conlusion is precisely that.
dr. stranzhivago
monsie...@hotmail.com wrote:
> they had this feud right, and whereas truffaut decided to castrate
his
> style in order to please the public, godard went along into a sort of
> framing one could never have imagined possible.
there was nothing to castrate. truffaut was from the outset NEVER a
radical filmmaker. with his lyricism, he could seem fresh and original,
but he was essentially a classic storyteller. 400 Blows is a rather
straightforward movie. his most stylistically daring movies are shoot
piano player, jules and jim(his best), fahrenheit 451, and mississippi
mermaid. truffaut was best when he was being true to himself. two
english girls and wild child are very special. he was at his least when
just going thru the motions--stolen kisses, bed and board(though both
are pleasant)--or pretending to be something he's not.
godard's initial originality gave way to dogmatism of the mao period.
yes, godard sometimes did the unimaginable but was it worth imagining
in the first place?
>
> see there's this drama truffaut comes up with, la peau douce, and
it's
> all really bout himself, about a supposed intellectual keeping to
> timetables and not being able to escape them. it feeds from two
> mediocre sources that purposely castrated their styles in order to
> remain identifiable by the public and remain within mimesis/lack of
> displacement, lack of freedom; hitchcock and balzac.
'castrate their styles' is rather vague, and i'm not sure what you
mean. but, in defense of truffaut, he was very tolerant and supportive
of other artists, in france and abroad. so, if he castrated anything,
it was his own balls.
problem is godard not only castrated the emotions out of his movies
tried to castrate everyone else. he demanded that his collegues adopt
HIS politics and approach. he turned into a dogmatic and abusive
bully. truffaut had balls enough to tell godard to go to hell.
i think from '68 to his death, truffaut did much finer and more
consistent work than godard whose maoist films are disliked even his
admirers and whose films like 'detective', 'passion', 'tout va vien',
and 'numero deux' make sense only to his devotees. personally, i like
'first name carmen' because it, at least, has a self-mocking sense of
humor. godard was a great joker so when he got all serious with idiot
politics in the late 60s, he abandoned one of his greatest assets.
>
> so the end result is not only mediocre, it is also idiotic and a
> melodrama onthe figure of truffaut himself.
didn't see that one. yes, truffaut made some mediocre movies. i don't
much care for 'day for night' or 'man who loved women'. 'small change'
is nice but very minor. and 'love on the run', though affecting is a
real rush job.
>
> sorta lame just like who's that knocking on my door that acts as a
sort
> of melodrama of scorcese himself and of all the incisive? questions
of
> being a catholic... added to that are the mentions to ford, the later
> 60s and 70s being an amazing period in american cinema of freedom,
this
> is no time to go talking about mediocre and reactionary and
> castrationary john ford. but he does it, so it winds up being
> scorcese's personal melodrama on how one must castrate one's style
(and
> if that weren't enough, behaviours)
one can dislike ford's politics--he was an old-fashioned liberal, by
the way--and still admire his films. he was, without question, one of
the great masters though not one of my favs. the only ford film that i
love is 'searchers' but i admire all his films.
also, 60s and 70s american cinema--though fresh and daring--were
founded upon the works of men like ford and others. even
revolutionaries take inspiration from pre-existing ideas. crazy marx
got his idea of dialectics from arch-conservative hegel. crazy leftist
sartre got his ideas from crazy rightist heidegger. crazy homo-leftist
foucault owes a great deal to crazy proto-fascist nichie.
i think you're trying too hard to be like kent jones, a firebrand
socio-cultural critic. but, even kent jones wouldn't dismiss ford and
hitchcock like you're doing. on the other hand, perhaps you possess
wisdom all of us lack. in that case, i bow before thee.
>
> then day for night is the epitome of truffaut's career, carrying the
> very meaning of the feud between godard and truffaut. in other words,
> it was truffaut admitting by accident perhaps but getting an oscar
and
> prolly a cesar that he was prolly proud of, that expression must be
> limited. simply lame.
'day for night' is fluff. pleasant fluff but fluff. i saw it long ago
and don't care to see it again. but, if given a choice between 'day for
night' or any godard film of the 70s, give a fake night over a false
dawn. also, it's not like godard didn't make mediocre films himself
even during his peak. 'woman is a woman' is painful.
>
> godard now he went absolutely wild. up to 68 his movies are stunning,
> weekend is amazing.
weekend's message is synonymous with that of the khmer rouge. it is a
film of unremitting murderous hatred. it's also infantile.
if it was meant as a joke--like monty python--, maybe it's acceptable
as black humor. as manifesto for political action, it's far worse than
'birth of a nation'.
>the dziga vertov group movies have excellent
> framing at least and numero deux is magnificient... then there are
the
> movies from the 80s like passion or soigne ta droite that are
> absolutely stunning, and other ones like grandeur et decadence or
> passion carmen that are also excellent. then there's in praise of
love
> and histoires which are stunning, and that's all i seen.
... if you understand what some of them about, i'm all ears.
i think godard without humor is kinda pointless. yet his post maoist
films are, for the most part, totally humorless and indulgently
elliptical... like we're supposed to be able to read his mind.
it's a case of a filmmaker who doesn't believe in filmaking making
films. he's making films just to unmake them. maybe interesting as a
theoretical or intellectual exercise but not fun for the viewer.
i guess like modernist-formalists or abstract painters, godard has been
trying to focus our attention on the process than the product.
but, i know film is fake, already. do something with it is what i say.
derrida told us words distort reality and so we should play with words.
godard has told us film distorts reality and so we play with mechanism
of film and perception.
i thought this stuff thought-provoking til i was 20. then, i couldn't
help thinking i don't wanna watch movies which just tell me we should
communicate AROUND than THRU cinema. of course, despite godard's
pretentions, it's still coming THRU cinema.
anyway, if i want lectures on the nature of reality and art and
society, i'll read a phisophical text or a historical book. i don't
need it from a movie. for me, a book on the cultural revolution or the
killing fields tells me more about what i need to know about politics
than 'weekend' which is really dumb, even as propaganda.
monsie...@hotmail.com
dr. stranzhivago wrote:
> monsie...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > they had this feud right, and whereas truffaut decided to castrate
> his
> > style in order to please the public, godard went along into a sort
of
> > framing one could never have imagined possible.
>
> there was nothing to castrate.
ah but there was. there was 'identification' to castrate.
modernist/avant garde movies are watched 30 years on and their politics
have disappeared. they break the boring norm, even then. and godard's
finnegan wake will prolly do so, thou i've only watched 1 hour of it.
truffaut was from the outset NEVER a
> radical filmmaker.
yeah he lied with his auteur politics thing. we all know that.
then he changed.
with his lyricism, he could seem fresh and original,
> but he was essentially a classic storyteller. 400 Blows is a rather
> straightforward movie. his most stylistically daring movies are shoot
> piano player,
his best out of the 15 or so i've seen.
jules and jim(his best), fahrenheit 451, and mississippi
> mermaid. truffaut was best when he was being true to himself.
how cute.
two
> english girls and wild child are very special. he was at his least
when
> just going thru the motions--stolen kisses, bed and board(though both
> are pleasant)--or pretending to be something he's not.
>
> godard's initial originality gave way to dogmatism of the mao period.
> yes, godard sometimes did the unimaginable but was it worth imagining
> in the first place?
yeah well at that time radical politics appeared on each side. you
better shut up because your forefathers were ruining south east asia.
of course it gave way, but he quickly abandoned it. it only went from
68 to 72, so you dont have to much to go on with that.
yes of course he did the unimaginable, and that's why he stays.
>
> >
> > see there's this drama truffaut comes up with, la peau douce, and
> it's
> > all really bout himself, about a supposed intellectual keeping to
> > timetables and not being able to escape them. it feeds from two
> > mediocre sources that purposely castrated their styles in order to
> > remain identifiable by the public and remain within mimesis/lack of
> > displacement, lack of freedom; hitchcock and balzac.
>
> 'castrate their styles' is rather vague, and i'm not sure what you
> mean. but, in defense of truffaut, he was very tolerant and
supportive
> of other artists, in france and abroad. so, if he castrated anything,
> it was his own balls.
> problem is godard not only castrated the emotions out of his movies
oh of course he castrated *your* emotions out of his movies, because
you only find emotions in japanese fascist cinema, the cinema of the
samurai you get so emotionally entangled with.
> tried to castrate everyone else. he demanded that his collegues adopt
> HIS politics and approach.
didnt they all, and as for as you go, don't you too...
he turned into a dogmatic and abusive
> bully. truffaut had balls enough to tell godard to go to hell.
truffaut defended traditional storytelling and godard defended
modernist collage?
> i think from '68 to his death, truffaut did much finer and more
> consistent work than godard whose maoist films are disliked even his
> admirers
they began in 68 and ended in 72, so you're missing 10 years.
and whose films like 'detective', 'passion', 'tout va vien',
> and 'numero deux' make sense only to his devotees.
whatever you say.
personally, i like
> 'first name carmen' because it, at least, has a self-mocking sense of
> humor.
well thats the thing with you isnt. you always lurch out and try to
rescue movies of people who dont think like you when you find them
defeating themselves... how condescending
godard was a great joker so when he got all serious with idiot
> politics in the late 60s, he abandoned one of his greatest assets.
>
so you dont see anything in the passion or soigne ta droite, how cute.
> >
> > so the end result is not only mediocre, it is also idiotic and a
> > melodrama onthe figure of truffaut himself.
>
> didn't see that one. yes, truffaut made some mediocre movies. i
don't
> much care for 'day for night' or 'man who loved women'. 'small
change'
> is nice but very minor. and 'love on the run', though affecting is a
> real rush job.
>
>
it's all about truffaut's mediocre sensibilities.
> >
> > sorta lame just like who's that knocking on my door that acts as a
> sort
> > of melodrama of scorcese himself and of all the incisive? questions
> of
> > being a catholic... added to that are the mentions to ford, the
later
> > 60s and 70s being an amazing period in american cinema of freedom,
> this
> > is no time to go talking about mediocre and reactionary and
> > castrationary john ford. but he does it, so it winds up being
> > scorcese's personal melodrama on how one must castrate one's style
> (and
> > if that weren't enough, behaviours)
>
> one can dislike ford's politics--he was an old-fashioned liberal, by
> the way--
liberal for the time you mean? in the sense that what we have today as
conservative used to be liberal then?
and still admire his films. he was, without question, one of
> the great masters though not one of my favs.
i'm tired of hearing this one. i dont share many people's appreciation
for these earlier movies only because they got there first.
the only ford film that i
> love is 'searchers' but i admire all his films.
> also, 60s and 70s american cinema--though fresh and daring--were
> founded upon the works of men like ford and others. even
> revolutionaries take inspiration from pre-existing ideas.
of course they do, because there is nothing else to grasp onto.
crazy marx
> got his idea of dialectics from arch-conservative hegel. crazy
leftist
> sartre got his ideas from crazy rightist heidegger. crazy
homo-leftist
> foucault owes a great deal to crazy proto-fascist nichie.
> i think you're trying too hard to be like kent jones, a firebrand
> socio-cultural critic. but, even kent jones wouldn't dismiss ford
and
> hitchcock like you're doing. on the other hand, perhaps you possess
> wisdom all of us lack. in that case, i bow before thee.
says who, you? who's trying too hard to be like what? jerry falwell,
rush limbaugh? or what, michael medved or mel gibson? i can smell ya a
mile away, and besides you wouldnt know what its like being jones.
you'd read his stuff on hsiao hsien or bresson and make some phony
attempt at trying to convince us all that you dont understand what he's
saying.
and what is your worldview, then. you can't stand an inch of feminism,
from akerman to campion, you can't take it, you don't have the balls.
course jones wouldnt dismiss them, he's got a job to keep. i couldnt
care less what complaints he may have of reaganite
anti-intellectualism, it's what he contributes to film style, freedom
from being stuck in the same motions.
you wouldnt understand that, your 'vision' doesnt go beyond falling in
love with every move mishima makes in a kurosawa or 'the heart' in an
ozu.
>
> >
> > then day for night is the epitome of truffaut's career, carrying
the
> > very meaning of the feud between godard and truffaut. in other
words,
> > it was truffaut admitting by accident perhaps but getting an oscar
> and
> > prolly a cesar that he was prolly proud of, that expression must be
> > limited. simply lame.
>
> 'day for night' is fluff. pleasant fluff but fluff. i saw it long ago
> and don't care to see it again. but, if given a choice between 'day
for
> night' or any godard film of the 70s, give a fake night over a false
> dawn.
how cute. like the one in soigne ta droite, huh?
also, it's not like godard didn't make mediocre films himself
> even during his peak. 'woman is a woman' is painful.
>
no it isnt painful, its rather great.
see thats the reason you're so fond of rosenbaum. it's as if his
extremism validates yours, but you're wrong. quit playing the rosenbaum
other.
now what politics do you find in passion that bother you so much.
> >
> > godard now he went absolutely wild. up to 68 his movies are
stunning,
> > weekend is amazing.
>
> weekend's message is synonymous with that of the khmer rouge. it is a
> film of unremitting murderous hatred. it's also infantile.
what, all of it? when mike figgis praises it, its humour, is he being
khmer rougy? is the scene at the shrink khmer rougy? and the stuff on
cars and traffic jams and countryside and emily brönte and napoleon,
is that all khmer rouge? there are points, like at the end where they
really do seem to be preparing for the revolution when it spills into
khmer rougy, but so much of the politics still stand, the stuff on
consumerism, on shrinks, on traffic jams, but that's not something you
tolerate from anyone, anyways, so you jump to your usual hyperbole.
the film style is absolutely stunning, the continuous references of
from anything from homer to battleship potempkin are there and make for
a stunning aesthetic ride. and much to your chagrin, from the greek,
aesthetics means theory of perception, not theory of beauty. i.e.,
aesthetics isnt about politics, but rather about percieving in the most
directions possible.
continue trying to apply to the national review, but stop to think a
moment that a movie can be both leaning towards revolution and staying
within acceptable critique. but you wouldnt even accept any modernist
denunciation of automatism, now would you.
> if it was meant as a joke--like monty python--,
but you dont like monty python because of the politics, so whatya
talkin about
maybe it's acceptable
> as black humor. as manifesto for political action, it's far worse
than
> 'birth of a nation'.
thats the thing isnt it. lacking a frame of reference, without
historical hindsight, and in a hurry, they're bound to make mistakes
while getting many things right too. this is a counterculture that
however much you demonize produced stuff like mysteries of the
organism.
>
> >the dziga vertov group movies have excellent
> > framing at least and numero deux is magnificient... then there are
> the
> > movies from the 80s like passion or soigne ta droite that are
> > absolutely stunning, and other ones like grandeur et decadence or
> > passion carmen that are also excellent. then there's in praise of
> love
> > and histoires which are stunning, and that's all i seen.
>
> ... if you understand what some of them about, i'm all ears.
which ones you wanna talk bout?
> i think godard without humor is kinda pointless. yet his post maoist
> films are, for the most part, totally humorless and indulgently
> elliptical...
abstract, non figural, and lay primary importance on the soundtrack.
arent you into that? or you still lovin every moment of another samurai
movie?
like we're supposed to be able to read his mind.
what is that what you want, so that you can reduce and condemn him?
> it's a case of a filmmaker who doesn't believe in filmaking making
> films.
more like the case of a filmmaker that makes cinematograph movies, that
makes cinema, when traditional post classicist movies make anti-cinema,
hypertrofied things prolly like alexander or star wars.
> he's making films just to unmake them.
which is how they shoulda been all along
maybe interesting as a
> theoretical or intellectual exercise but not fun for the viewer.
interesting-theoretical-intellectual equals emotional. i'll tell you
what's ''intellectual'' and not emotional, all those nonsense japanese
samurai movies you love, or for instance diary of a country priest,
which *you* do dig emotionally coz being on the side you are you're so
into religion and believing over thinking, like our drunken priest
says.
> i guess like modernist-formalists or abstract painters, godard has
been
> trying to focus our attention on the process than the product.
le witt i believe said there is only an idea, the work of art is merely
the automatic result of that idea, theory.
> but, i know film is fake, already. do something with it is what i
say.
> derrida told us words distort reality and so we should play with
words.
>
> godard has told us film distorts reality and so we play with
mechanism
> of film and perception.
i dont give a fuck what godard's politics are up to, or when he calls
israelis nazis or engages in foolish anti americanism like in praise of
love. but when he does it, i merely equate him with you.
so godard plays with perception, he obviously gives us another sort of
perception. how you can engage over and over again in similar yet
slightly different movies baffles me. i'm fed up that shit. i want
radically different movies.
> i thought this stuff thought-provoking til i was 20. then, i couldn't
> help thinking i don't wanna watch movies which just tell me we should
> communicate AROUND than THRU cinema. of course, despite godard's
> pretentions, it's still coming THRU cinema.
godard, modernism and avant garde were doomed from the start. that's
the only thing that makes them valuable, their rarity. if we all made
movies and behaved- because the films you love are just hypertrofied
mimesis of ourselves- in hsiao hsien manner then there wouldnt be value
in them. dont you see? leave your extremist politics on one side.
> anyway, if i want lectures on the nature of reality and art and
> society, i'll read a phisophical text or a historical book. i don't
> need it from a movie. for me, a book on the cultural revolution or
the
> killing fields tells me more about what i need to know about politics
> than 'weekend' which is really dumb, even as propaganda.
and didnt you preach to us all about how you praise movies despite
their politics, like with battleship potempkin. admittedly though, your
boutade on eisenstein was just a bluff, not only because we all know
those politics are dead but also since reactionary film style has
tended to follow montage and despise mise en scene as modernist
goobledygook.
dr. stranzhivago
monsie...@hotmail.com wrote:
> dr. stranzhivago wrote:
> > monsie...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > they had this feud right, and whereas truffaut decided to
castrate
> > his
> > > style in order to please the public, godard went along into a
sort
> of
> > > framing one could never have imagined possible.
> >
> > there was nothing to castrate.
>
>
>
>
> ah but there was. there was 'identification' to castrate.
> modernist/avant garde movies are watched 30 years on and their
politics
> have disappeared. they break the boring norm, even then. and godard's
> finnegan wake will prolly do so, thou i've only watched 1 hour of it.
it's a matter of individual taste. for some, jules and jim has more
lasting value. for others, it's breathless. to each according to his
tastes.
>
>
>
> truffaut was from the outset NEVER a
> > radical filmmaker.
>
>
> yeah he lied with his auteur politics thing. we all know that.
> then he changed.
>
he didn't lie. he was being very french in reducing complex reality
into dogmatic theories. in this regard, he had once been very much like
godard. it's a good thing truffaut mellowed and grew less dogmatic and
judgmental. godard, on the other hand, turned cinema into pure theory.
>
> > godard's initial originality gave way to dogmatism of the mao
period.
> > yes, godard sometimes did the unimaginable but was it worth
imagining
> > in the first place?
>
>
>
> yeah well at that time radical politics appeared on each side. you
> better shut up because your forefathers were ruining south east asia.
no, it was radical left vs anti-radical america. america wanted south
vietnam to have a chance like south korea, taiwan, japan, hong kong,
and singapore. it was not left radicalism vs right radicalism, but
totalitarian radical leftism vs pragmatic authoritarian conservatism.
i'll take the latter, and history has proven the latter to be for more
amenable to economic progress and democratic movements.
south korea is paradise compared to north korea.
capitalist hong kong, taiwan, and singapore were far saner places than
mao's china or khmer rouge cambodia.
>
> of course it gave way, but he quickly abandoned it. it only went from
> 68 to 72, so you dont have to much to go on with that.
>
> yes of course he did the unimaginable, and that's why he stays.
his gave up extreme maoism by mid 70s. but, he never came clean. he
never admitted he'd adopted an evil philosophy. we expect riefenstahl
to face the past, not just bury it.
so, why bury godard's shameful past?
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > see there's this drama truffaut comes up with, la peau douce, and
> > it's
> > > all really bout himself, about a supposed intellectual keeping to
> > > timetables and not being able to escape them. it feeds from two
> > > mediocre sources that purposely castrated their styles in order
to
> > > remain identifiable by the public and remain within mimesis/lack
of
> > > displacement, lack of freedom; hitchcock and balzac.
> >
> > 'castrate their styles' is rather vague, and i'm not sure what you
> > mean. but, in defense of truffaut, he was very tolerant and
> supportive
> > of other artists, in france and abroad. so, if he castrated
anything,
> > it was his own balls.
>
>
>
> > problem is godard not only castrated the emotions out of his movies
>
>
> oh of course he castrated *your* emotions out of his movies, because
> you only find emotions in japanese fascist cinema, the cinema of the
> samurai you get so emotionally entangled with.
he castrated his OWN emotions. up to his maoist period, he could be
charming, poetic, even romantic as well as sardonic and satirical.
but, he repressed all the lighter qualities for the morbid darkness of
radical politics.
also, if yojimbo met a bunch of leftist guerillas, i'm gonna cheer for
mifune over leftist miscreants.
>
>
> > tried to castrate everyone else. he demanded that his collegues
adopt
> > HIS politics and approach.
>
>
>
> didnt they all, and as for as you go, don't you too...
no. the other new wavers were tolerant.
as for myself, i separate art from politics, at least when it comes to
moral judgment. i don't care if eisenstein was a commie. he's in my
top ten all time greats.
still, if we are to discuss politics, we must discuss politics.
what godard did he demanded everyone's art conform to HIS politics.
i may bash mike leigh's politics, but i still admire much of naked and
all of topsy turvy.
i detest the politics of 'two or three things' but i still think it's
fascinating as filmmaking. but 'weekend' is just obnoxious. it's
godard blowing his nose and tossing us the snot. it's marxism as
scatalogical rubbing the bourgeoisie's nose in the shit.
>
>
> he turned into a dogmatic and abusive
> > bully. truffaut had balls enough to tell godard to go to hell.
>
>
>
> truffaut defended traditional storytelling and godard defended
> modernist collage?
>
if all godard did was defend an existent tradition--albeit in other
forms than cinema--then he wasn't so innovative either. rather, he
applied high art principles to a popular art form. also, feature film
cinema is almost always necessarily narrative. godard would have done
better with inherently abstract forms like painting or sculpture. the
fact those forms freeze time renders even the most realistic works
unrealistic. music, with its constant and overflowing fluidity is also
inherently abstract.
cinema flows in natural time. also, cinema can ONLY be seen in the way
the author intended. with a sculpture, you can see it from any angle in
anyway you wish. film have a beginning, a progression, and an ending;
its perspectives are fixed by the director/cameraman. to pretend
otherwise is to invite trouble. granted, one can play with
time--chronological ordering or slo-mo--in cinema but it still deals
with blocks of progression of time.
later godard's attempt has been to connect the camera to the circuirtry
of his brain or make cinema record his brain waves. he wants to express
his feelings and thoughts before they are formulated concretely into
film language. i guess this is linked with derrida's distrust of
language as distortion as well as expression of reality.
so godard wants us to experience a cinema on the edge of formulating
into expression.
well, interesting as theory. not much fun as practice of filmviewing.
>
>
>
> personally, i like
> > 'first name carmen' because it, at least, has a self-mocking sense
of
> > humor.
>
>
>
> well thats the thing with you isnt. you always lurch out and try to
> rescue movies of people who dont think like you when you find them
> defeating themselves... how condescending
godard defeated himself thru condescension. he considered himself and
his cinema so far ahead of everyone else--with his devotees egging him
on slavishly--that he made himself irrelevant except to film geeks.
godard's later films have almost nothing to do with cinema or reality
but only his private fetishes and conceits.
godard's later films ought to taught in classes on phenomenology or
deconstructivism or some such.
as cinema or expression of reality, they offer little.
>
>
>
>
> godard was a great joker so when he got all serious with idiot
> > politics in the late 60s, he abandoned one of his greatest assets.
> >
>
>
> so you dont see anything in the passion or soigne ta droite, how
cute.
i think his maoist films are crap. his later stuff... i suspend
judgment for the most part. i can't really condemn stuff i don't even
understand. but, i know that for me and most people, they aren't much
fun.
his earlier stuff like 'masculin feminin' and 'les carabiniers' are not
only thoughtprovoking but fun.
>
>
> >
> > one can dislike ford's politics--he was an old-fashioned liberal,
by
> > the way--
>
>
> liberal for the time you mean? in the sense that what we have today
as
> conservative used to be liberal then?
>
>
yes, it's always relative.
to some, gorbachev was a commie to the very end. to some, he was a
traitor to marxism. perspectives determine political categories.
by today's standards, ford would be a conservative. heck, FDR would be
a conservative.
>
>
> and still admire his films. he was, without question, one of
> > the great masters though not one of my favs.
>
>
> i'm tired of hearing this one. i dont share many people's
appreciation
> for these earlier movies only because they got there first.
his films have quiet dignity and purposefulness.
>
> crazy marx
> > got his idea of dialectics from arch-conservative hegel. crazy
> leftist
> > sartre got his ideas from crazy rightist heidegger. crazy
> homo-leftist
> > foucault owes a great deal to crazy proto-fascist nichie.
> > i think you're trying too hard to be like kent jones, a firebrand
> > socio-cultural critic. but, even kent jones wouldn't dismiss ford
> and
> > hitchcock like you're doing. on the other hand, perhaps you
possess
> > wisdom all of us lack. in that case, i bow before thee.
>
>
> says who, you? who's trying too hard to be like what? jerry falwell,
> rush limbaugh? or what, michael medved or mel gibson? i can smell ya
a
> mile away, and besides you wouldnt know what its like being jones.
> you'd read his stuff on hsiao hsien or bresson and make some phony
> attempt at trying to convince us all that you dont understand what
he's
> saying.
>
> and what is your worldview, then. you can't stand an inch of
feminism,
> from akerman to campion, you can't take it, you don't have the balls.
falwell as critic. that would be entertaining.
>
> course jones wouldnt dismiss them, he's got a job to keep. i couldnt
> care less what complaints he may have of reaganite
> anti-intellectualism, it's what he contributes to film style, freedom
> from being stuck in the same motions.
>
> you wouldnt understand that, your 'vision' doesnt go beyond falling
in
> love with every move mishima makes in a kurosawa or 'the heart' in an
> ozu.
i great admire ozu. can't say i enjoy his films much except for ohayo.
kurosawa is widely admired by all except the french--who prefer
mizoguchi, ozu, and even naruse--, and having vision is better than
having anti-vision. i prefer guys like welles, eisenstein, kurosawa,
tarkovsky, etc who have grand visions to flakes or grumps like ackerman
or dumont.
>
>
> also, it's not like godard didn't make mediocre films himself
> > even during his peak. 'woman is a woman' is painful.
> >
>
> no it isnt painful, its rather great.
>
> see thats the reason you're so fond of rosenbaum. it's as if his
> extremism validates yours, but you're wrong. quit playing the
rosenbaum
> other.
EVEN rosenbaum thinks poorly of woman is a woman. trust me, i
generally like godard up to 67. even so, woman is a woman is painful,
for me at least. everyone has his likes and dislikes.
>
>
> now what politics do you find in passion that bother you so much.
>
passion isn't offensive in that way. indeed, it's philosophical than
political... but what in the hell is going on? i can barely stay awake.
godard was best when working with cute women like karina. and even
funereal contempt came to life with bardot. but, his later movies have
no real characters. of course, that was intentional
but i need people in movies.
it's like the zoo. no matter how well-designed the cage, it needs
animals.
a movie is nothing without people to make it. it's nothing without
people to watch it. it's not much without people to inhabit it.
> >
> > weekend's message is synonymous with that of the khmer rouge. it is
a
> > film of unremitting murderous hatred. it's also infantile.
>
>
> what, all of it? when mike figgis praises it, its humour, is he being
> khmer rougy?
mike figgis is one of the worst ever.
>is the scene at the shrink khmer rougy?
yes, it says bourgeois mind is subhuman pigshit. there's nothing worth
knowing or exploring. bourgeois skull is only worth crushing or washing
totally with maoist detergent.
> and the stuff on
> cars and traffic jams and countryside and emily brönte and napoleon,
> is that all khmer rouge?
yes, it says capitalism and technology are ENTIRELY corrupt and
corrupting and must be wiped out.
it says high culture is irrelevant, and history should be understood
and practiced as toys. revolutionaries must play as children in
ransacking history and the bourgeois world.
indeed, in cambodia, young khmer rouge kids killed as though playing
games.
>there are points, like at the end where they
> really do seem to be preparing for the revolution when it spills into
> khmer rougy, but so much of the politics still stand, the stuff on
> consumerism, on shrinks, on traffic jams, but that's not something
you
> tolerate from anyone, anyways, so you jump to your usual hyperbole.
godard did all this in his previous films with insight, balance, and
wit. also, with skepticism about simple radical solutions. but, in
'weekend' it's nothing but absolute condemnation of the bourgeois and
absolute embrace of radicalism.
>
> continue trying to apply to the national review, but stop to think a
> moment that a movie can be both leaning towards revolution and
staying
> within acceptable critique. but you wouldnt even accept any modernist
> denunciation of automatism, now would you.
godard didn't intend 'weekend' as a critique. he meant it as a
manifesto to action. VIOLENT action.
it has moments of brilliance and originality. but, it's comparable to
the communist manifesto or triumph of the will. it IS propaganda.
>
>
> > if it was meant as a joke--like monty python--,
>
>
> but you dont like monty python because of the politics, so whatya
> talkin about
i love python. they were always funny.
>
>
>
> maybe it's acceptable
> > as black humor. as manifesto for political action, it's far worse
> than
> > 'birth of a nation'.
>
>
>
> thats the thing isnt it. lacking a frame of reference, without
> historical hindsight, and in a hurry, they're bound to make mistakes
> while getting many things right too. this is a counterculture that
> however much you demonize produced stuff like mysteries of the
> organism.
'mysteries of the organism' is crap in my book.
i'll take kusterica over dusan.
also, if you defend 'weekend' as mere counterculture, couldn't one
defend skinhead rock or charles manson family in the same manner?
granted, history and culture are often shaped by lunatics and
mavericks. but, it's the job of regular folks to be sane about insane
works--good or bad.
>
>
>
>
> >
> > >the dziga vertov group movies have excellent
> > > framing at least and numero deux is magnificient... then there
are
> > the
> > > movies from the 80s like passion or soigne ta droite that are
> > > absolutely stunning, and other ones like grandeur et decadence or
> > > passion carmen that are also excellent. then there's in praise of
> > love
> > > and histoires which are stunning, and that's all i seen.
> >
> > ... if you understand what some of them about, i'm all ears.
>
> which ones you wanna talk bout?
any of his later ones. write long essays on them and i'll read them.
i'm all ears.
>
>
>
>
> > i think godard without humor is kinda pointless. yet his post
maoist
> > films are, for the most part, totally humorless and indulgently
> > elliptical...
>
>
> abstract, non figural, and lay primary importance on the soundtrack.
> arent you into that? or you still lovin every moment of another
samurai
> movie?
>
post-modernist samurai movies are as absurd as godard films. you should
dig them.
>
>
> like we're supposed to be able to read his mind.
>
>
> what is that what you want, so that you can reduce and condemn him?
my point is if he has something urgent to say, just say it. why does he
pretend that he possesses some profound truth yet is unwilling to lay
it down straight?
of course, one can argue godard's most profound message is the danger
of expressing messages itself. therefore, he makes us focus on the
means of expression than the expression. but enough already.
if he's gonna go on and on about yugoslavia or israel, lay it to me
straight. i don't wanna be waiting for godard.
'weekend' as loathesome as it is, lays it straight. i can condemn it
for what it is.
as for his philosophical works, i guess it's okay to be vague about
philosophy.
but whenever godard talks about politics today, he should do it
straight. don't get elliptical about issues where people are getting
killed.
>
>
> > it's a case of a filmmaker who doesn't believe in filmaking making
> > films.
>
>
> more like the case of a filmmaker that makes cinematograph movies,
that
> makes cinema, when traditional post classicist movies make
anti-cinema,
> hypertrofied things prolly like alexander or star wars.
>
come to think of it, godard sees himself as a jedi knight in exile from
the clutches from the Evil Empire. he is yodard, so despite all his
pretensions he too is part of the star wars universe. there's obi wan
kentjonesobi. and you are luke blobtalker.
>
>
> > he's making films just to unmake them.
>
>
> which is how they shoulda been all along
i just hope godard assemble machine tools or prepare food.
>
>
>
>
> > but, i know film is fake, already. do something with it is what i
> say.
> > derrida told us words distort reality and so we should play with
> words.
> >
> > godard has told us film distorts reality and so we play with
> mechanism
> > of film and perception.
>
>
> i dont give a fuck what godard's politics are up to, or when he calls
> israelis nazis or engages in foolish anti americanism like in praise
of
> love. but when he does it, i merely equate him with you.
>
> so godard plays with perception, he obviously gives us another sort
of
> perception. how you can engage over and over again in similar yet
> slightly different movies baffles me. i'm fed up that shit. i want
> radically different movies.
but, godard's film have also become formulaic.
godard's films from the late 70s to the present have essentially been
repetitions of the same formula. in this regard, godard is more a
perfectionist like ozu than a permanent revolutionary.
i like originality too, but it has to work. it's like evolution. most
mutations are harmful or useless. only a small fraction advances
evolution.
i don't care for newness for newness sake. i'll take vanilla ice cream
again and again over garlic ice cream.
>
>
> > i thought this stuff thought-provoking til i was 20. then, i
couldn't
> > help thinking i don't wanna watch movies which just tell me we
should
> > communicate AROUND than THRU cinema. of course, despite godard's
> > pretentions, it's still coming THRU cinema.
>
>
> godard, modernism and avant garde were doomed from the start. that's
> the only thing that makes them valuable, their rarity. if we all made
> movies and behaved- because the films you love are just hypertrofied
> mimesis of ourselves- in hsiao hsien manner then there wouldnt be
value
> in them. dont you see? leave your extremist politics on one side.
okay, but if everyone decided to the godard thing, would you still find
it precious? the reason why so few are doing the godard thing is
because it's not worth doing. i'm glad we have A godard. we need at
least one. but, please, i don't need a 1000 godards playing that
radical game. walk inside a museum of contemporary art and you'll soon
be bored than excited. the new is already old in art.
also, i think you're practicing an aesthetic dogmatism. the way i see
it, the most important thing for an artist is to be true to himself.
however i feel about godard, i think he has done what he wanted to do,
felt comfortable doing.
but, one can say the same for kurosawa, lean, ford, ozu, suzuki,
truffaut, etc. long live the difference.
if a blues artist wants to sing the blues, so be it. if a rock n roller
wanna stick to classic rock n roll, okay. if pink floyd loved doing
their weird stuff, fine too. it's like that song 'act naturally'.
the problem is you dislike most directors because they are not
'radical', 'original', or whatever enough for you. i think, in his own
way, spielberg is as much a personal artist as godard or rivette or
bergman or kubrick. he does what he feels comfortable with. and if
most people prefer spielberg over godard, what can you do about it?
it's democracy, isn't it? you respect the tastes of others, don't you?
or, do you expect all artists to be like godard, to like godard over
all others?
it'd be foolish for godard to make 'saving private ryan' or 'la
strada'. but equally stupid for spielberg to make 'first name carmen'
or 'helas pour mois'. or equally absurd for fellini to make 'late
spring' or 'celine and julie go boating'. in the case of ackerman,
it's absurd she should be making any movie at all.
anway, there you have it. let everyone make what they feel comfortable
with. as for the rest of us, we can like or dislike what they produce.
but, it's misguided to demand that all other filmmakers be like godard
or some other radical filmmaker.
you may prefer french cooking over others but should everyone do french
cooking? shouldn't others prepare japanese, italian, chinese,
american, or spanish dishes? or whatever they believe in?
the new wave was great because of its diversity. rohmer, rivette,
truffaut, chabrol, and godard all brought something different to the
table. same with the greats of jazz and british rock. beatles were
not the stones were not the who were not the floyd were not the
yardbirds were the kinks.
some are more orignal than others. some are more masterful than others.
some are more soulful than others. some are more perfectionist than
others. some are more spontaneous than others. long live the
difference.
>
>
> > anyway, if i want lectures on the nature of reality and art and
> > society, i'll read a phisophical text or a historical book. i
don't
> > need it from a movie. for me, a book on the cultural revolution or
> the
> > killing fields tells me more about what i need to know about
politics
> > than 'weekend' which is really dumb, even as propaganda.
>
>
>
> and didnt you preach to us all about how you praise movies despite
> their politics, like with battleship potempkin. admittedly though,
your
> boutade on eisenstein was just a bluff, not only because we all know
> those politics are dead but also since reactionary film style has
> tended to follow montage and despise mise en scene as modernist
> goobledygook.
i really think weekend is a bad movie. not entirely bad but tiresome
and sloppy.
battleship potemkin is an outstanding piece of filmmaking however you
look at it.
David
>it'd be foolish for godard to make 'saving private ryan' or 'la
>strada'. but equally stupid for spielberg to make 'first name carmen'
>or 'helas pour mois'. or equally absurd for fellini to make 'late
>spring' or 'celine and julie go boating'. in the case of ackerman,
>it's absurd she should be making any movie at all.
LOLaLOL!!
I'm glad I read down this far, Tony.
--
Pas de lieu Rhône que nous.
monsie...@hotmail.com
more enormous than those insanely massive posts of yours on fascism :-)
dr. stranzhivago
became less 'innovative' but the innovativeness of the new wave became
tired pretty fast.
you have to remember that there were over 200(!!)new wave directors in
the first few yrs of the movement. most of them were forgotten but the
moment godard and truffaut got the ball rolling in '59, innovation
became name of the game. everyone was doing jump cuts, weird editing,
unorthodox camera placements and movements, playing with plots and
charaterization, etc. new wave became an old hat very fast. very
soon, it became pointless to stake your reputation on originality.
even the brilliant resnais of hiroshima mon amour and last year at
marienbad settled down to telling than playing with stories and
characters.
so naturally, truffaut didn't see much point in emphasizing originality
of style beyond his first movies. so, he settled down to storytelling.
he didn't care about style or originality with films like 'wild child',
'two english girls', 'story of adele h'. truffaut decided he'd
aldready made his name as a stylist. having been there and done that,
he wanted to tell stories and put the focus on characters as much as on
himself, the auteur. in a way, he became a more generous director
appreciative of other members of the crew. he no longer emphasized the
Auteur uber alles.
expecting an artist to be new and original at every turn is asking him
not to grow up and develop. some artists tend to be more innovative
throughout their career than others--altman was always inventive. but,
others like to settle down to or perfect a style or and stick with
it. when truffaut began making films, he didn't really know what he
wanted to do. up til jules and jim, he was experimenting. afterwards,
he settled down with a style befitting him most naturally, one he felt
most comfortable with.
this is also true in rock music. dylan was innovative up to blonde and
blonde. his later works were essentially interpretations of
established musical forms. he made his name as an original and he
realized there were a 1000 imitators trying to do something 'new'. so,
he went back to the basics of country, blues, gospel, etc.
by the way, same could be said for godard. during his career up to 67,
he developed and 'perfected' a style that was recognizable and had its
rigid grammatical rules. there was no crucial development between 63 to
67. he expanded on some of his brechtian techniques here and there,
but 'godardian' was a very recognizable label.
during the maoist period, he went nuts.
in the post maoist period, godard has essentially made one movie over
and over. just as truffaut settled down to storytelling--what he truly
felt comfortable with--godard settled down to
cine-journal-essay-writing, what he felt most comfortable with. the
notion that godard is doing something new with every movie is entirely
false. he's been reusing the same 'anti-filmic' formulas he'd perfected
in the late 70s.
you have the dark rooms, the sparklers, the stately tracking shots, the
long takes, the still characters, the elliptical voice over narration.
you can recognize the style or method from a mile away.
this is what happens to artists. they grow tired of newness for
newness sake. they either settle down domestically or artistically.
your fav japper is ozu. now, there is a man who pared cinema down to
what HE felt most comfortable with. he was unique but consistently
himself. he made the same movie over and over. in no way was he
innovative, at least not in the sense that others could imitate him(the
phony aesthetes who've tried--such as hou hsiao hsien)have fallen flat
on their face.
so comparing godard and truffaut in the manner that you're doing leads
nowhere.
besides, why just pick on truffaut when chabrol and rohmer basically
developed and stuck to recognizable styles also?