|
Originally Posted by atsonicpark
I am currently going through my entire Godard collection again, starting from his first film to his last and skipping the shorts and collabs, just focusing on his main films (i.e., the ones listed on wikipedia as "The Films of Jean-Luc Godard")...
What I find really interesting about Godard, having just finished reading the 700 page EVERYTHING IS CINEMA: THE WORKING LIFE OF JEAN LUC GODARD, is how successful he was -- I mean, he was a fucking CELEBRITY, the most well-known living Frenchman in the world at a certain point. Which is interesting, because a lot of his early films are pretty damn weird, even by today's standards. So, in 1960-ish? Geez... I think they just had a lot of themes that people could relate with at the time, but even so, the way he shot things is still pretty damn odd. Though I actually find his use of sound as the most jarring and bizarre element of his work, watch A WOMAN IS A WOMAN for example -- only his 3rd film and he already has abrupt musical elements that do more than act as simple background music. Also, I've noticed that he'll seemingly-randomly (though I doubt it's random at all) insert music in his early films to break up the flow... some of the music seems really out of place in Contempt, but then I thought about why it was included in this scene or that scene. It really makes you aware of its presence. The most bizarre use of music has to be in Week End, though. I can't even explain it, how it just APPEARS. It's very strange.
His films have a very freewheeling quality, very energetic, and I think -- to some people -- this appears "amateurish". I read a lot of IMDB posts saying Godard's films were poorly-shot, but I've yet to see a poorly-shot scene of his. I think they're just very NOTICEABLE, with the camera movements and all. They all seem very meticulously-shot, following characters around and around.
I also like how Godard seems to just pick up elements and throw them in without any explanation. This inspires me a lot in my work and is something I do frequently.. pick up things as I go along and just throw it in somehow because I find it interesting. Look at A MARRIED WOMAN -- the small segment where the black and white footage is completely negative. Where did that come from? How did that happen? It's one scene I'll always think about, though, so it works.
Godard, I think, proved that you can do anything, because.. yeah.. everything is cinema. A movie can be just quotes, can be just references, can be just editing trickery.. and still be an interesting film, with no plot at all. However, I think Godard's films, at least his early ones, do have a lot of heart. There's a lot of focus on the more monotone aspects of his work, the more... robotic.. aspects. But I dunno. Even a lot of his later works are pretty damn emotive -- Slow Motion and Hail Mary come to mind.
This guy is, technically, a brilliant director, and he's not afraid of being abstract, not afraid of being disliked, not interested at all in adhering to the studio system. A lot of directors can say that, but a lot of those directors never achieved any fame. Most directors regress, instead of progress, they might make some interesting, even experimental, early works (Sam Raimi, Peter Jackson, etc etc etc) but then get increasingly "normal" throughout their careers. Godard started out pretty damn out there.. and then his later stuff is even MORE out there.
But I do like his later work a lot better. It's more meditative, beautiful, stationary. Contemplative. Like a great painting. It doesn't have the urgency and energy of his early works, but he already made those films. You know? Why would people want him to return to that? I think the thing is, I like darker, moodier, grimmer, bleaker films, and that may be one of the main reasons I like his late works better -- but it's not like any of his early works were happy-go-lucky. Even a film like A WOMAN IS A WOMAN has a lot of quiet darkness underneath it all.
My favorite thing about Godard is that all of his films really make me think, once they're said and done. Once they're over, I feel like I have so much to think about, to contemplate, and I can't say that for most directors... most directors, I will watch their movie, it's over and I'm like "That was nice." and that's the end of it. I feel completely inspired and invigorated and I feel like I've actually learned something after watching a Godard film. And yet, still, after watching so many of my movies, I can't completely wrap my head around everything that he does. I've never seen anything like it.
|