One of the things that made me reconsider the worth of his films was seeing Breathless again. I was hit by the vacuity of it - like most of his films, it isn't saying much of anything. His supporters argue that he doesn't want you to get caught up in the narrative, he wants you to appreciate his technique... Well, the jump-cut wasn't even a self-conscious invention - it was accidental. The film was too long, so they cut it down, resulting with what you see on screen. This doesn't seem like innovative to me, it reeks of laziness.
And for someone whose films are purported to be very dense and complex, when a critic attacks one of his films, any intelligent argument that may arise devolves into childish name-calling. How DARE you criticise Jean-Luc? Isn't he supposed to be a polemicist, anyway? Doesn't that mean there's meant to be debate?
I have seen reviews and essays that are critical of Godard which are far more insightful and well-argued that those who defend him. While I have seen very interesting essays which explore the meaning behind his films, just a quick look through IMBD or Amazon and you'll find reviews that roughly say "Yeah! Jean-Luc is great! He is such an artist! So deep!"
His later work in particular is very dense indeed. I am at a loss as to what is the exact meaning/messages behind these films, but the thing is that I am yet to see an article which boldly describes what the film is saying. This article for instance is an adamant defence of Godard's later work - http://www.popmatters.com/pm/feature/137070-godards-invisible-cinema-the-neglected-genius-of-late-period-godard - but nowhere can I find in this piece am I convinced as to how Godard is 'redefining' the 'grammar' of film.
This just leads me to the conclusion that most people intellectualise things that aren't even there. Besides, in 'cult' and 'trendy' circles, most people need a guru to latch onto; for hardcore cinephiles, Godard is just that.
1 comment:
What comes to mind is a statement Harmony Korine said in an interview about JLG; that he is cinema. something like that. I haven't seen enough of his films to buttress a sufficient argument, but his films have an air of pretentiousness. Though I will thank him for the beauty of Pierre Le Fou.
Breathless has some good moments, such as Pierre-Melville's cameo and the tracking shot of Belmondo holding his guts and hitting the street. Jean Seberg is also a plus, but the majority of the film collapses under all of the cultural and scholarly weight stacked upon it.
Personally I would have to choose Truffaut over him, but that's besides the point.
Post a Comment