criterionforum.org

Max von Mayerling wrote:And while I am a slave to Godard.

Michael wrote:Geez, Pierrot le fou has to be one of the most terrible films in the whole Criterion collection. Another reason why I still don't like Godard. I just don't get him I guess. Pierrot starts off very strong - with the color lens, and the nice shot sweeping through Marianne's apartment as her husband gets killed.. but then afterward, it falls into one long blah. No feelings, just plain nothing. The lovers died, I didn't care and couldn't even wait for the dynamite to explode.

I'm sorry, domino harvey, to be shitting on Pierrot, your favorite movie of all time. I simply don't see what's so special about it so I'd say to be able to appreciate the film, you have to be a Godard fan. And I know I'm not one. I rented Pierrot simply because I like to keep up with the CC
.

Well I finally gave this a try last night, and Michael, I know you revised your orignal opinion, but you sum up my feelings about the film in a nutshell, as does Ebert's review.

I guess Godard and I just don't click. Maybe if I encountered him when I was in my late teens or twenties (or before I'd digested way way way too much cinema) his little goofs and machinations-- some of which I liked quite a bit (particularly the mindless advertising/product talk in the party, which reminded me a bit of Marienbad)-- might have assimilated with my youthful thumb-in-the-eye anger, and I'd have liked this stuff more.

Godard strikes me as the most intelligent, ambitious man with absolutely no talent whatsoever (I know, I know, but I mean it sincerely.. I see little craft here beyond a man-- with an excellent cinematographer-- who's digested a lot of other people's work, weaving the thinnest story with an endless compendium of his personal library). These hodgepodges of cinematic and literary and visual art references, the mocking/toying with cinematic conventions and self-conscious application of aesthetic conceits are interesting here and there but for me grow thin realllllly quickly. They fail for me as avant garde and they fail as engaging melodrama and just don't interest me as entertainment. Simply burying references to high art in your piece along with quotations (visual and literary), and creating thematic associations between them and the original story in the narrative isn't enough. Every time I watch Godard I get the feeling that the man thinks that this is enough... to create a pasteboard mosaic of references to past masterpieces, put up posters, strew books left & right, bring in directors he admires, insert musical quotes, literary v/o's of quotes, etc.. But if you strip all that away you're left with very little of interest. Referencing cinema to the nth degree doesn't, alas, make this a piece of cinema. At least for me.

To me there's just no art to it. The references don't set anything off on the surface text, they're a conceit all of their own, which feels like laziness or a huge deficit of talent to me. To me the guy just has no bedrock of cinematic chops or narrative understanding on which he builds his experiments-- he just jumps right to these ragged pastiches.

Take a guy like Jean Epstein. He very quickly evolved into a radical filmmaker, and actually began as a film writer like Godard-- "film theorist" is what he called himself. He began in the early 20's crafting beautifully executed melodramas, and demonstrated a mastery of narrative composition and technique of melodrama with masterworks like Coeur Fidele. Then he moved into visual and narrative abstraction-- and demolition of cinematic conventions via further development of his mad scientist theories-- with works like La glace a trois faces, Usher, Finis Terrae. Even in his most abstracted pieces, there is a rootedness, a sense of skill and working and reworking. An understanding of how a film functions (I can see Godard fans chuckling reading that, because that is the point of Godard perhaps-- but I merely see that as the route that so many half-assed artists take: they lack the discipline to put in the hard work and skip straight to the 'toying with conventions', 'experiments', etc, but I find the act of toying with conventions that are above your technical ability to be extraordinarily arrogant and self-indulgent, not to mention lazy; Matisse, Picasso, van Gogh all learned the bedrock conventions of their craft before breaking them. So did Joyce, which may be more relevant, since Godards works resemble Joyce's in their extreme use of quotation). Every Godard I've seen feels like it's the first film he's ever made. They feel extraordinarily sloppy. I always picture him thinking more about what he can add to his film, and do with his film, than what his film is about. A mosaic that is more about the putting than the final unity and effect. Doesn't gel.

I've read over the comments here by everyone and (I know my comments will be disagreed with strenuously by many, but let's keep this amicable and try and avoid a Contempt-style meltdown) and I've read a lot of blanket statements of affection for the film "My favorite Godard" or "Best film ever", but very few detailed personal statements of what the film is actually doing for them on an intimate level. There are acknowledgements of the things Godard is "doing" in the film, and statements how the film must be revisited to "get" what he's doing and for those elements to synthesize... but could someone render for me what exactly the film does, not within itself, but for them.. i e what it's significance is for you on an emotional level (could be anything from "it is the perfect Fuck You to narrative convention, to Madison Avenue, to contemporary life," to "The way the film ________ speaks to my feelings about _______", etc).

Over and above all that technical stuff, the film was, like-- well-- embarassing, I guess is the way to put it. It was corny... the "look at me look at me" flitting nature of the characters and the narrative.. it was so representative of the excesses of that particular time and place, where the behavior and mannerism of excessively self-conscious bohemianism found in-the-moment examples that existed almost sheerly for the sake of themselves... it was like looking at the most embarassingly excessive alfalfa-sprout munching, poncho-weaving, indian-bead wearing, gluten-burger broiling, bike-with-a-bell-and-basket riding, old hippie couple pulling a muscle while trying to tribal dance to a Phish album.

Again, I respect those who love the film, and know some of you on this forum as folks who are genuinely obsessed with cinema and wouldn't reflexively like a film because it's canonical or because they think they're "supposed" to. But I'd love to hear some emotional praises sung for the film, a la some of Michael's comments on other films (like 3 Women, or Mala Noche, etc) or Colin's, as opposed to assessements of what he's "doing".

On an intimate level i was just blown away by this artistic post modern masterpiece - something that had an immense impact on me in seeing the world we live in i.e. a world directed/influenced by images and sound more than the theatre/play. Maybe its worth to add - i came to Godard on a total autodidactical level in a time where there was no internet etc. and i never saw his films in terms of upgrading my intellectual self confidence so on first viewing(s) i was of course not aware of the fact that this had something to do with post modernism high art or whatsoever ... i thought it was a hella cool flick!
I can hear the Sartre argument in Shreck as well, that there is too much art in Godards films but not in the man himself.

It's interesting that you compare Godard to Epstein, as I consider the latter an amateur whose reach far exceeded his talent.

You claim that Godard has not mastered the conventions he breaks, but this is only a surface reading. That's why so many only find the emotional core of Godard's films on subsequent viewings. He both undermines cinematic conventions and reinforces them at the same time. The undermining is what viewers are going to notice first because it is so different. The brilliant reinforcement of conventions (which Godard HAS mastered) is where the power of his films reside.

Pierrot le fou is the most intensely and tragically romantic movie I've ever seen. All the genre conventions he uses (musical, slapstick, noir, suspense, war, melodrama, adventure) are dripping with a single, emotionally-sated realization: the impossibility of love between the two lead characters. Take the first musical number, for example. Godard could easily have dubbed in voice and piano in post. But he chose to shoot live sound with Karina singing and someone actually playing a piano on the set. This results in jarring sound-level bumps in the song between shots. This is is the breaking of the convention. But the rawness and immediacy of Karina's voice completely in tune with the camera movements made possible by the live sound recording is the convention reinforcement: it results in one of the most beautiful musical numbers I know of.

Is one permitted to enjoy Godard's films (or anyone else's) even if one does so without any (perceived) need to analyze them first?

I first encountered his work when I bought Les carabiniers -- purely on a whim. I liked it (and most subsequent films I've seen -- still only a small fraction), but I'm not entirely sure why I liked it then (or now).

The mention of sound just reminded me of something else I intended to say-- this audio quality of the film is horrendous! I don't know what kind of mics he was using, or what mixing tools, but there is just relentless distortion on the high end of the audio, as though the audio levels of the speakers had to be brought up to clipping level to become intelligible.

Gringo, although I had no plan to have an interactive discussion with those who provide personal appreciation of the film (least of all debate someone's specific loves.. I want to do the opposite.. appreciate appreciations), I'm having trouble getting what you mean here:

But the rawness and immediacy of Karina's voice completely in tune with the camera movements made possible by the live sound recording is the convention reinforcement

what convention is there, and what specifically is reinforcing it? The rawness and immediacy? The belief that her voice is in tune with the camera movements? And what specifically is made possible by the live sound recording?

Michael Kerpan wrote:Is one permitted to enjoy Godard's films (or anyone else's) even if one does so without any (perceived) need to analyze them first?

Well, this is what I've been doing for quite a while, and it's worked out for me so far! In fact, I feel ill-equipped to talk about Pierrot on anything higher than a purely emotional level. I do agree that it feels a bit sloppy, haphazard...but that's what I love so much about it. It's a pure cacophony of hues, moods, emotions, and song, and it dazzled me from the very first moment I saw it. And it's so funny, too...the Laurel and Hardy bit at the gas station, the "Est-ce que vous m'aimeeeeez?" interlude with the sad sack on the pier...I just have a grin ear-to-ear every time I watch this. Purely because it makes me blissfully happy and tragically sad at the same time. The last poetic lines always cause the backs of my eyeballs to prickle and seize. Of course you could analyze the hell of out of this, but I prefer not to.

Agree with MK, at least with regards to this Godard, in that my positive reaction is primarily emotional rather than intellectual/analytical. While it does seem that Godard is sort of saying farewell to the Hollywood-inflected filmmaking he'd been indulging in up to that time (although he did make Made in the USA after this), and there is some interest in how he parallels that with the relationship of Ferdinand and Marianne, that ends up mattering less to me than their relationship in itself.

For once, Godard seems to have tunnel-vision on his central characters, being much more concerned with them than any of his other ideas that he typically overloads his films with. And despite the zaniness and absurdities in the movie, the characters feel real. Ferdinand's disillusionment with society and impulse to run off with Marianne, Marianne's betrayal of him, his reaction to the betrayal -- they all pulsate with genuine human emotion despite Godard's trademark idiosyncrasies. And it climaxes with the ending, which is one of the most intensely beautiful I've ever seen, jumping from cartoonish hyperbole into tortured lyricism with the blink of an eye.

HerrSchreck wrote:

But the rawness and immediacy of Karina's voice completely in tune with the camera movements made possible by the live sound recording is the convention reinforcement

what convention is there, and what specifically is reinforcing it? The rawness and immediacy? The belief that her voice is in tune with the camera movements? And what specifically is made possible by the live sound recording?

The convention of the musical number, which is built on emotional reaction. What Godard sacrifices in sound quality in this scene with live recording, he gains in emotional immediacy. So his intent was not to deconstruct the conventions of the musical number but to embrace it as an emotional tool.

edit: The scene I'm referring to is on youtube

I'd actually be very interested, knowing the extent of his appreciation for Godard and this film, to read Domino's thoughts on Pierrot. Like a number of you here, I enjoy this film on a primarily emotional level, and see it as a kind of extension of the relationship dialectic Godard works with in Contempt, i.e. what happens when a "thinking man" and a "physical woman" butt heads in love. Belmondo, the male half of the equation, is definitely played like more of a Godard mouthpiece than Piccoli in the earlier film (he feels distinctly less actual -- he spits quotes and hops from mood to mood like the most wonderful, near-impossible man I've never met), but I think the comparison stands. I know there are a lot of ideas about the power/potential of cinema working themselves out in the editing and everything, and I'd be interested to read an elaboration of all the deliberating that very probably preceded all of the cuts, but my basic understanding of Godard usually frames all of that as a means of revealing the conventions at work while simultaneously inviting you to jump in and revel in the dream (consciousness of the filmic conventions is like consciousness of the stage in theater..it doesn't necessarily detract from the play). This may only hold for the pre-radical 60s work.

Anyway -- I'm interested in Domino's thoughts because (forgive me if I'm wrong, Domino) he always seems to reject appreciation of Godard on an emotional level. I sometimes get the impression reading his posts that he detests it. He said earlier in this thread to Michael that we aren't supposed to care about the characters of this film. Does that mean we should turn our eyes only to all of what's at work in the elaborate quotation and distinctive editing? Godard's films are essayistic, but should we read them purely as essays on film craft? Etc etc etc.
You love Pierrot Domino. I'm interested in your thoughts.

A certain peerpee said it well on another thread for another film (Tenenbaums):

It smacks of "winking to film critics" in a vain attempt to be referenced alongside those he's borrowing [cough] stealing from.

I don't get high from spotting allusions/tributes to other filmmakers in films, but I know many people who do. It makes them happy.

I want to see things I've not seen before, not bits of other films grafted together into some grand Frankenstein theft jigsaw, held together tenuously with a bravado seemingly gained from listening to Laserdisc commentaries. Such an approach elicits inconsequential Where's Waldo responses from boring fans, and little else. Maybe someone who's never seen a film before thinks it's the dog's bollocks.

I'd rather watch a filmmaker who doesn't rely on others (so shameful!).

This is a perfect elucidation of why I wanted to hear emotional appraisals of Pierrot-- not that I doubt they exist, but because I find so little left when I strip away all the noodling and referencing in Pierrot. And for me, and appreciation of "what godard is doing", does not tie in to the sum experience as a piece of cinema. The act of taking note of the compendium of formal aspects of a director's efforts has little to do with the film's overall impact & effect as a work of art.. at least for me, and that's all I can speak for.

This is why I wanted to seperate the latter-- the sum of impact upon the person-- from the former.. i e what the person thinks about the ideas & schema of the film. One can be interested the ideas that went into the construction of a truly uninspiring end result.

I completely understand how Schreck feels about Pierrot. It's not a film I could pick up anytime, watch it and love it no matter what, like I do for Meet Me in St. Louis (for example). With Pierrot, it depends on the mood I'm in. I do get easily annoyed by the unapologetic smugness of everything the film reaks but there is definitely a stream of emotions spreading throughout the film, you just have to work harder to find it through the films thick, exhausting stubborness, its vinyl wallpaper of annoying pop references. Whether it's worth the work or not, it's up to the viewers.

I wanted to think about this before posting, because like LQ, I don't feel particularly well equipped to really "discuss" Pierrot Le Fou. That being said, I saw the film in it's theatrical run earlier this year and one thing that hasn't been touched upon, is that my emotional reaction to the film (I really liked it, though I would have to be in the right frame of mind to watch it again) was largely based on watching Godard throw all his ideas up on the screen. I would agree they don't all work, and certainly can be abrasive, and I can definitely see how someone could react to the film in the way that HerrS has. But for me, one of the joys of watching Godard's films is seeing his audacity, warts and all, up there, because like him or not, there are few like him. That said, it certainly helps that he gets magnificently iconic performances out of his leads. I don't think they get enough credit for really carrying the viewer through a minefield of ideas and (for me) still making me care about them.

justeleblanc wrote:It's not worth creating a new thread for this, but for those who may have missed my post on the Lionsgate Godard box, according to Lionsgate, Criterion holds the rights to these films:

Made In U.S.A.
La Chinoise
Le Petit Soldat
Les Carabiniers

Isn't there some copyright issue that's been keeping Made In U.S.A. from ever getting on Region 1? Has that changed?

Made in U.S.A. is most definitely being released by Rialto (it premieres at the Film Forum next week), so I doubt there are any outstanding rights issues.

The Fanciful Norwegian wrote:Made in U.S.A. is most definitely being released by Rialto (it premieres at the Film Forum next week), so I doubt there are any outstanding rights issues.

Rights issues/clearances for theatrical and home video release are very often two different things.

I've never heard of a case of adaptation rights being granted for a theatrical release but not for a video release. It's theoretically possible, but it beggars belief that the rights holder would cave on a theatrical release after 40 years (assuming this is what actually happened) but would hold out on a video release.

Stranger things have happened. And often with rights issues, it's often weird things like music clearances that often cause problems, especially when ownership has changed hands or when the song is now valued at a ridiculously high cost. All said, I'm sure Made In USA will see the light of day on Criterion, but my main point was that theatrical and home video rights are necessarily tied together.

Yeah, music rights for a DVD release can be much more expensive than those for a limited theatrical release (which is different from a general theatrical release, like Hollywood films get).

According to this article in the L.A. Times, it was Westlake who held up the release of the film:

Godard's "Made in USA," which uses the Stark novel "The Jugger," about Parker looking into the death of a safecracker, as a jumping-off point, was still close enough to the book that the film was legally tied up for decades over a permission dispute. Despite being the first Westlake adaptation, the 1966 film is only just now -- thanks to the author's agreement -- getting an American release.

The story behind Made in USA is to my knowledge that the producer came to Godard and said that he had some (1 Million Dollers?) cash left and needs a product real fast and that the only person being able to do that would be Godard. JLG left to the nearest bookshop and "just" grabbed the first book available (american author), scratched of the cover, went back to the producer and showed his final script…and shot the film.

Sweet Jesus, this thing is monumental. I just started watching it for the very first time, and I need a breather after 15mins.

I know I'm going to love this. I know you are going to hate me for this pathetic post. But Pierrot Le Fou has me on the floor, gasping for air, already. It's so strange and beautiful.

Did you feel this kind of euphoric bewilderment on first viewing? Anyone? No previous Godard prepared me for this.

I felt the same way during the first 40 minutes.. and while I got back into it at the end, I felt it dragged and lulled for 20 or so minutes in the middle.

I gotta keep taking breathers. That "let's fake an accident" scene is incredibly disturbing and surreal..........a piece of superhighway in a field? Death and mutation all isolated and lonely?

This film is going to scar me for life.

Pierrot is one of Godard's finest films. However, a lot of people - me included - only realise that after repeated viewings. There's so much in it that nobody can totally grasp it on the first viewing. Scenes that originally seemed to be dragging start to make sense when seen again.