criterionforum.org

domino harvey wrote:The unease of everyone on camera in that piece is nearly matched by the German interview with the two cinematographers, neither of whom look pleased to be participating (especially Berta).

Do they say anything of insight tho? This extra was one that I greatly anticipated especially due to Lubtchansky's recent passing.

Yes, they do actually, it just looks like they're kind of annoyed with the interview process (I thought at times it looked like they were caught in the middle of a personal fight, so maybe that's why). They share a really funny anecdote (seemingly refuted by the Karmitz interview) about how Godard allegedly put the decision on whether the film should be shot in 16mm, 35mm, or video in the hands of the crew. He polled the crew and they voted for video so Godard did the total opposite of what they all wanted and shot it on 35mm. Classic Godard!

I didn't detect that they were annoyed, but yeah, something was off. Maybe the experience wasn't all that great considering how they felt around Godard (or at least how they felt Godard felt about them) but the interview was great, I thought.

And yes, that stupid "short film" or whatever the hell it was was absolutely unbearable. I'm glad to see it wasn't just me. I actually shut it off 12-minutes in because I couldn't do the full 17. It was such BS and though I know Godard probably didn't have any idea what they were going to do I got a sense he didn't really want to be there. I can't fault Criterion for including it, but I would skip it.

I've been enjoying the Cavett interviews that Criterion has been digging up even if they're not all top notch interviews, but man did he seem really off his game with the interview here, as though he was really unsure how to do it. He admits frequently he doesn't entirely understand Godard's films, so maybe that's why he seemed apprehensive at times. I was stunned at some of the questions he would ask, particularly what Godard's opinion on--of all things--why Jerry Lewis is so popular in Europe. But what felt like what was a generally frivolous question was turned around by Godard into something much more interesting. Yet despite Cavett maybe being unsure of himself here, I thought it still managed to be a very good interview. Godard was an especially good sport I must say, coming off pretty open and quite funny. Maybe he was nervous, too, I don't know. But I thought it was a decent interview that made up for that other thing.

I have to admit I completely forgot about this release and came back across it last week so I just got through it on Saturday. It's an impressive release on the whole.

Did you get to the part in the Wollen piece where Godard answers one of their dumb and mildly insulting questions with a typically cryptic and somewhat nonsensical Godard answer and they actually press him to explain himself and he just looks bewildered and repeats what he said while looking at them like they're idiots? That's when I was full-on cringing on behalf of everyone involved.

Good God, yes. I laughed at it, but the look on his face was priceless and I got the feeling he was completely fucking with them. It was shortly after that that I turned it off. I should probably finish it but I can spend those 5-minutes doing something constructive, like lying on the couch and watching "Who the *Bleep* Did I Marry" reruns.

domino harvey wrote:Yes, they do actually, it just looks like they're kind of annoyed with the interview process (I thought at times it looked like they were caught in the middle of a personal fight, so maybe that's why). They share a really funny anecdote (seemingly refuted by the Karmitz interview) about how Godard allegedly put the decision on whether the film should be shot in 16mm, 35mm, or video in the hands of the crew. He polled the crew and they voted for video so Godard did the total opposite of what they all wanted and shot it on 35mm. Classic Godard!

I was just today reading the chapter on Every Man for Himself in Brody's book on Godard, which spends some time on the extensive pre-production phase and reaffirms the anecdote told by the two photographers.

According to Brody, Godard had originally intended to shoot the film with three DPs on hand, the third being Vilmos Zsigmond, but Zsigmond quickly priced himself out of the project. Thus, Godard went ahead with Lubtchansky and Berta, who he had hoped would conceive some sort of unified look for the film, when in fact the two had completely different philosophies on lighting. The result was that, for each scene, one photographer would have to submit to the other's preference and more-or-less take on the role of an assistant. Apparently, the role of the dominant photographer was primarily determined based on which of the two happened to be on speaking terms with Godard on the given day.

There was another anecdote in which Lubtchansky's camera ran out of film during the shooting of a scene in which Godard was feeding lines to Baye from under a table. Lubtchansky at first hesitated to inform Godard of this for several minutes. When he finally rapped on the table at let Godard know, Godard chastised him for interrupting the scene, exclaiming that the sound recording itself would be of significance with or without the image.

Lubtchansky resolved never to work with Godard again after his experience on the film, so that would explain why he seems so uncomfortable during the interview.

FakeBonanza wrote: According to Brody, Godard had originally intended to shoot the film with three DPs on hand, the third being Vilmos Zsigmond, but Zsigmond quickly priced himself out of the project. Thus, Godard went ahead with Lubtchansky and Berta, who he had hoped would conceive some sort of unified look for the film, when in fact the two had completely different philosophies on lighting. The result was that, for each scene, one photographer would have to submit to the other's preference and more-or-less take on the role of an assistant. Apparently, the role of the dominant photographer was primarily determined based on which of the two happened to be on speaking terms with Godard on the given day.

That's actually pretty much what they said in the interview, though I don't think they mention who the third DP was. They suggest that Godard was always annoyed with them and that they basically had to set up everything and then take off if I'm remembering correctly (I don't have my notes with me).

Chris' high grade to this disc PQ surprise me since it's quite obvious there has been grain management (as usual per Gaumont). It certainly not as bad as other Gaumont titles (outside of Madame de, Bande à part in France is quite bad regarding grain management) but still quite clear.

<resolved>

I finally got around to watching this. I then gave it a re-watch after watching all the supplements. It's something I like doing with Godard films. There is an "ah, I get it" aspect to Godard's subversive playfulness on extra viewings that could be missed in first viewings, at least for me. That might be true for Cavett as well. Cavett seemed to do a lot of smirking during the interview. Needless to say I liked the film and always appreciate Godard's poetic visual style

Domino, the link from your post of March 15, 2015 goes to a 404 page. You got something else to link to?

FrauBlucher wrote: Sun Mar 15, 2015 5:06 am Definitely something I'm looking forward to when I get the disc. Especially the Cavett stuff.

11 years! Was it Canada Post?

That’s the way of my kevyip

FrauBlucher wrote: Sun May 10, 2026 1:50 am
Domino, the link from your post of March 15, 2015 goes to a 404 page. You got something else to link to?

Not up on the Wayback Machine, so it’s prob lost forever. Sorry to say I don’t remember the content of the link

Possible updated URL?

This talk will focus on a little-know aspect of the genesis of Jean-Luc Godard's monumental investigation of cinema and history, Histoire(s) du cinéma (1988-1999): the series of talks on film history that he delivered in Rotterdam in 1980-1981. For one of these talks, he created a ‘special edition’ of his then most recent film, Sauve qui peut (la vie) (Every Man for Himself, aka Slow Motion, 1980), in which he interspersed extracts from his own film with clips from four others: Eisenstein and Alexandrov’s The General Line (1929), Cline and Keaton’s Cops (1922), Visconti’s The Earth Trembles (1948), and Wajda’s Man of Marble (1977). He called this remarkable compilation film Sauve la vie (qui peut); it was shown once (during the 1981 Rotterdam Film Festival), and has since been almost completely forgotten. Michael Witt has produced a digital reconstruction of Sauve la vie (qui peut) drawing on archival research, including examination of the original reels of film that Godard used. This talk will consider Sauve la vie (qui peut) though reference to Godard's wider historiographic project.

I wonder if it had anything to do with this 2015 essay by Witt? Either way, it's well worth a read for anyone interested in this film:

https://necsus-ejms.org/in-search-of-go ... -qui-peut/

FrauBlucher wrote: Sun May 10, 2026 12:45 pm That’s the way of my kevyip

Did something similar in the Polish DVDs thread recently.

Voyage à travers un film (Sauve qui peut (la vie)), 1981, viewable for free until June 9:
https://www.cinematheque.fr/henri/film/ ... dard-1981/
Includes online article by Michael Witt. No English subs.

Shorter version of the same film, no English subs:
https://www.rts.ch/play/tv/special-cine ... eo:9923322