Adieu au langage (Jean-Luc Godard, 2014)

[swo17]

Of course, the film also has lines like "Will society ever accept murder as a solution to unemployment?" so it's difficult to say how seriously to take all of it.

[Oedipax]

Of course, the film also has lines like "Will society ever accept murder as a solution to unemployment?" so it's difficult to say how seriously to take all of it.

Pretty seriously, I would argue. Just think of Weimar Germany, or what exactly brought America out of the Great Depression. The first part of the film is partly about tying the early 21st century into echoes of 20th century Fascist/Totalitarian phenomena, terrorism/The War on Terror as "Hitler's second victory," etc. It's a classical Anarchist discourse about the evils of The State, which 'we' ask to solve our problems.

[Numero Trois]

The problem with the above is it (inadvertently?) reuses a old snobbish prejudice, to wit that the real problem with [insert cultural product] is that it's now available to everyone.

Or he may be criticizing the blind faith that many people have in technology. Not that technology in itself is bad, but the widespread facile belief that technology is a defacto savior of humankind. Similar to his reaction to the student's question about digital cameras saving cinema in Notre Musique.

[swo17]

Here is a link to its upcoming dates.

Alamo Drafthouse just recently scheduled some new showings in a few cities across the country.

[Shrew]

Also going to be at Landmark theaters in Boston and Bethesda, MD March 20-26. I was worried it wasn't going to show up in Boston at all.

[D50]

Or he may be criticizing the blind faith that many people have in technology. Not that technology in itself is bad, but the widespread facile belief that technology is a defacto savior of humankind. Similar to his reaction to the student's question about digital cameras saving cinema in Notre Musique.

Thanks for that. Since I can't see Adieu au langage in 3D, I added Notre Musique to my queue.

[Michael Kerpan]

Also going to be at Landmark theaters in Boston and Bethesda, MD March 20-26. I was worried it wasn't going to show up in Boston at all.

In 3-D?

[swo17]

According to Kino's website, yes.

[Jeff]

This is a mostly fantastic cinematic experience that I don't expect to ever have again, though there are several shots I'd like to watch over and over. As reported, the film's sole appeal is its use of 3-D, in ways both refreshingly banal and absurd. As zedz suggested, the dialog is so goofily pseudo-profound that it would be an annoyance if not for the counterpoint of the brain-bending visuals. I'm glad to see Kino finally getting it out to some the more far-flung metropolises (it's currently running in both Denver and Boulder). This is the first movie I recall giving me the filmic equivalent of a hangover; I'm not entirely sure what happened and I've got a lingering headache, but damned if it wasn't worth it.

[Ribs]

Apparently being added to US Netflix Streaming April 17th. No word if it'll be the 3D version for those of us with the TVs to support it (does Netflix even offer 3D anymore?).

[Michael Kerpan]

Most of my family (4 out of 5) went to see this (we went right away. lest it disappear after a week) -- and found it a hoot. I can't begin to imagine how this would come across in 2-D -- as much of the fun came from playiong with the 3-D-ness. A million times better than gravity.

(I recognized -- and appreciated --the Clifford Simak "City" quote).

[ianthemovie]

Saw this today in Cambridge, MA, and greatly enjoyed it. The content of the film is, in many ways, as dense and tough to cut through as in most of Godard's other late-period work, but the use of 3D is so playful and exciting that it feels like Godard's most vital work in many years. He really does seem to be returning us to the very roots of cinema, when the very act of looking at moving images of people (and animals) was a novelty. So much of this film is about the fascination of "re-seeing" familiar things--flowers, dogs, naked bodies, etc.--which the cinematic image is able to make new again.

I wasn't as physically affected by the film as some people have claimed to be (no headaches, didn't feel drunk/hungover) but I did experience some eye strain. I noticed this during the (brilliant) moments when Godard plays with parallax. I particularly liked the use of this during one of the couple's nude scenes: close one eye and you can watch the naked woman, close the other and you can watch the naked man! This really did seem like a late 19th-century optical illusion.

I was amazed--and heartened--to see a crowd of about fifteen people there for a 1:45 showing on a Monday afternoon. No one walked out, either, though they didn't seem to much appreciate the movie's humor. In any case, very happy to have seen this. God knows when I'll ever have the opportunity to see this in 3D again.

[Ribs]

Saw this today in Cambridge, MA, and greatly enjoyed it. The content of the film is, in many ways, as dense and tough to cut through as in most of Godard's other late-period work, but the use of 3D is so playful and exciting that it feels like Godard's most vital work in many years. He really does seem to be returning us to the very roots of cinema, when the very act of looking at moving images of people (and animals) was a novelty. So much of this film is about the fascination of "re-seeing" familiar things--flowers, dogs, naked bodies, etc.--which the cinematic image is able to make new again.

I wasn't as physically affected by the film as some people have claimed to be (no headaches, didn't feel drunk/hungover) but I did experience some eye strain. I noticed this during the (brilliant) moments when Godard plays with parallax. I particularly liked the use of this during one of the couple's nude scenes: close one eye and you can watch the naked woman, close the other and you can watch the naked man! This really did seem like a late 19th-century optical illusion.

I was amazed--and heartened--to see a crowd of about fifteen people there for a 1:45 showing on a Monday afternoon. No one walked out, either, though they didn't seem to much appreciate the movie's humor. In any case, very happy to have seen this. God knows when I'll ever have the opportunity to see this in 3D again.

When something that has this much buzz and so requires a theater viewing and only plays for one week, of course it does drive a more atypically large crowd than usual.

I thought the sequence with the two naked where the camera seperates was also way more interesting than the shot that's been cited in most stuff I've read (the bench scene), as I thought it was an exercise in censorship, Godard almost inviting the viewer to decide which side (s)he doesn't want to see based on their own preferences and forcibly removing the other side from their vision. But maybe it was just me who felt that way.

[Michael Kerpan]

When we saw this in Cambridge on Sunday afternoon, the theater was at ;east half full -- more people than I expected.

[zedz]

I thought the sequence with the two naked where the camera seperates was also way more interesting than the shot that's been cited in most stuff I've read (the bench scene), as I thought it was an exercise in censorship, Godard almost inviting the viewer to decide which side (s)he doesn't want to see based on their own preferences and forcibly removing the other side from their vision. But maybe it was just me who felt that way.

I don't think censorship (or 'removing [one] side from their vision') is an appropriate metaphor for that moment, since this is in no way an 'exclusive' shot. The default option is to see both at once and most viewers, I imagine, will be doing that as well as alternating shots by blinking different eyes. An audience member would have to be extraordinarily homophobic (or heterophobic) and unimaginative to just unnaturally keep the 'offending eye' shut the whole time, and I certainly don't see that as being an option invited by the film, which is all about getting audiences to see things in new ways, not to shut down unusual visual possibilities.

[Michael Kerpan]

Did anyone else crane their necks to see if they could look behind the big red numbers? I guess we have to wait for true holographic movies to do this... ;-}

[ianthemovie]

Great post(s), David. What were the four instances of Godard using the "visual stereo"/parallax effect? I'm ashamed to admit I only noticed two (the bench scene and the naked couple at home).

[Michael Kerpan]

I'm afraid it will be a long time (if ever) before we will had 3-D capacity in our household.

I have to agree with David that this really was one of the most genuinely entertaining films I've seen in a long while. Not sure if it would be as entertaining (for me) with multiple repeat viewings or not. But it has a visual playfulness that reminds me a lot of Tati (though it is expressed far differently).

[Antarctica]

Based on previous posts, I see this film was made for 3D. Unfortunately, I am only able to see the 2D version. I've always assumed 3D was an additional feature not necessary to view a film, but Godard is bending it and changing my view.

When I first saw the low-resolution, high-saturated stills for this film, I thought they looked jarring. They looked like beauty being tortured.

Sometimes the audio would stop as if it had broken. A few times it sounded over-compressed (forgive me if this is not the proper term). Sometimes it would jump from the left to right channel. I wonder how the audio affected the 3D experience. I'm assuming it added to the strangeness.

Overall, I found the film jarring, but this made the experience exciting for me. I felt like I was viewing a series of corrupted files on a computer, some more corrupted than others. I felt like my brain was melting.

Somewhere, I read this film described as "Godard Gone Gummo." They both use many different types of cameras, from high to low quality, have a collage feel, and don't emphasize plot. I enjoyed Gummo when I first saw it, but I didn't find the experience jarring. Seeing Adeiu au Langage in 2D now gives me a better sense of what some audiences felt when they saw Gummo, at least in terms of presentation. I know the films have differences, though.

In an interview with Mark Maron http://www.wtfpod.com/podcast/episodes/ ... ony_korine, Harmony Korine mentioned he wanted Spring Breakers to feel like a drug experience. He said his next film, The Trap, is the closest he has come to making a film that washes through you -- he calls this liquid narrative. I think Adeiu au Langage did this. I'm excited by this type of film, and curious to see how the experience of watching The Trap compares and contrasts with Adeiu.

Also, what a great poster:

[zedz]

Do whatever you need to do to see this in 3D. It's the film's raison d'être.

[swo17]

Watching this movie in 2D is like breaking up with your wife of 30 years by text message.

[Jeff]

Watching this movie in 2D is like breaking up with your wife of 30 years by text message.

Whereas seeing it in 3D is exhilarating, like breaking up with her in person.

[knives]

The big pleasure to me with this film is the surprising joy for life and overall optimism with which Godard brings to the table. I can't remember if ever he has concluded, if in a pessimistic tone, such a positive view of the evolution to humanity. That the last symbolic image we see is a cover to a Null-A book along with the reoccurring image of Frankenstein is terribly suggestive that the breakdown of language is not man's death, but a rebirth into a new entity. I suspect this also plays into the pun of the title which Godard reminds the audience of continually. It doesn't merely say goodbye to language, but also that à dieu is to language. As usual I'm not terribly certain that this is a coherent message let allow well thought out in its delivery, but in Godard's own sort of academic wonk speak it at least comes across as an engaging idea of the future.

The philosophy conveyed through the spectacle, as usual, seems spoken on much more secure ground and is honestly the more compelling thought. The use of visual 3D really earns its automatic legendary status accomplishing things with the method that no one else would have thought of. I think that has a lot to do with Godard seeing 3D less a method in and of itself and more a way of delivering on many of the film centered questions of his previous feature. In this digital age when film has become fully socialized how does one accomplish classical techniques with these new tools in a way which is honest to these new tools? This film thus is sort of a rediscovery of cinema with much of the technique replicating techniques from the earliest days of cinema. For example the two shots where the 3D splits apart so that it is a unique shot for each eye ultimately is intended to be like the classical overlays which I was just talking about the other day in my La roue post.

Where I think Godard earns the 3D that is sometimes placed in the title is with the soundtrack. This is the most impressive use of filmic sound I've encountered since Melancholia with at least one sequence terrifying me that a plane was going to crash into my house (I live near an airport). Sound hasn't as dramatically been affected by digital cinema as the image, but it has to the extent that many amateur films feature truly terrible sound depending on camera mics. I don't know what effort lead to the final mix we have here, but Godard pulls out so many tricks with sound placement, level, and overlays that it should compel any filmmaker of spectacle or otherwise to do far better then they have been with digital tools. Going back to the point I made at the top of the paragraph many of these sequences give a sense of 3D sound. One of the most impressive 3D effects and sort of the opposite to the split in the images is the very simple overlapping soundtrack element. The best of these is the scene showing Mary Shelley writing with a very scratchy quill as some dialogue is spoken in english. Just an amazing effect whatever larger purpose it is supposed to deliver.