chaos-rampant
Having pursued the political chimera that failed him in the 70's, Godard turned inwards. Having pursued, upon that realization, the reality of the mind, he discovers that only illusions inhabit it, and that it cannot be our saving grace nor can we truly know the world with it.I come into these last few films in my Godard quest, with all its frustrations and rewards, for the last, transcendent leg of the journey beyond mind.The answer by this film is no, and it further shows the limitations of what Godard had to deal with.It's not that his creative powers, indeed his stubborness despite everything to exact moments of rare beauty out of nothing, have abadoned him or that he has outlasted his problems and inner demons because what was relevant in the 60's is very much relevant now and can still haunt as it it did then, but that as a matter of course he appears here uninspired.So we get the old adagios on love and memory, the mind's annoying old habit of seeking truth or meaning, which we've heard elsewhere in his films in better form and proved to bring us not one step closer to a liberating awareness. We get "Every thought must recall the debris of a smile", banalities like he quoted in films like Pierrot, when he didn't know any better whereas now he does.These things, which had led Godard earlier to realize the mind's impotence in the face of the great questions, are now mechanically, habitually repeated. Having lead nowhere then these ruminations, earlier a Socratic tool by which to interrogate the mind, now become tiresome, a purpose unto themselves. And more, the realization that wonderfully closes the Histoire(s) films, that only when life is lived in full, with all the powers available in our body, only then can life accept itself as the true answer, turns out to have been only reasoned, not truly felt. Instead of using it then as a tool of departure and reinvention by which to create a new cinema, Godard gives us more Nouvelle Vague, now mired in stagnation.There's one marvelous touch in the film though: that present time is given to us in black and white, and the prolonged flashback that follows in the second half in garish colors. This is not a simple flashback then but memory, reality relived, which exists after the fact, always a step ahead of real life if we permit it. That is to say, if we never have memories of having remembered, memory can only take place "now", by assuming the place of reality.Be sure how to express all that is communicated by silence and immobility, he quotes this by Robert Bresson as he did in the past. Yet he takes little from it, judging by this film. Little silence in which to meditate on the world as it is, instead more of the same old intellectual conundrums which, having been posed earlier in his work, by now should have been accepted or declined.
Fudgefinger
This film was incredibly slow and boring! It attempted to ask profound and deep questions to stimulate the audience, however, it failed! I spent the majority of my time checking my laptop to see how much time had elapsed whilst praying the film would hurry up and end. There is no identifiable major plot. However, if I was forced to define the plot I would say it was about a man who was looking to fill a role in his "project" (film). He thought he knew the perfect woman but she wasn't all he thought she'd be. Most probably because he didn't know her at all, he'd met her 2 years ago and they'd spoken for approximately 10 minutes.Although I completely hated this film, it did start well. It is so beautifully shot you can't help but stare at the screen. Every shot is like a beautiful photograph. The first half is in black and white and has a lot of frames are close-ups of faces and shots that resemble photographs. Goddard also experiments with light and dark and entraps some amazing moments such as the movement of water (I think a river) as a light shines on it. However, this does get a bit boring, as some shots seem a bit pointless and unrelated to the dialogue or "plot".The colour shots were HIDEOUS and looked as thought the film had been dyed to heighten the colour. This was unnecessary and UGLY!I think Goddard's talents are wasted on movies he missed his calling and should have been a photographer.Don't watch this film. If your going to ignore my advice only watch the first half and switch it off when it changes to colour.
starring-1
I couldn't make it through the whole thing. It just wasn't worth my time. Maybe one-fourth of the dialogue would have been worth listening to (or reading -- since I don't understand French) if the pseudo-profundity and pseudo-wittiness of the other three-fourths of the film were deleted. Then it could be made into a short maybe 13 or 15 min long and then it might be all right.I don't know why this movie even pretends to utilize actors. Actors are used as narrators of the script and little more. I could swear a whole 20-30 minutes of the film went by showing actors from behind while they talked and from across the street while they walked or sitting in low lighting close up but so that you could not see the expressions on their faces nor their eyes. There was little or no interaction between the actors on the screen except the most superficial for the most part.Some of the lines were as profound (or lame, depending on your viewpoint) as those in Forest "Life is like a box of chocolates" Gump. Other pseudo-profundities were simply sad or dumb or poetic (depending again on your viewpoint), but singularly uninspiring.Visually this film is INCREDIBLY boring, especially with the lack of actors. In fact some minutes of this film showed simply a black screen with the white subtitles and French audio. Altogether sophomoric. Don't waste your time.If you like GOOD movies that are stimulating and profound just from listening to conversation while enjoying good actors, check out RICHARD LINKLATER's "Before Sunset" -- or make a double feature of it and watch "Before Sunrise" first. At least these films are interesting and enjoyable, which is much more than I can say about IN PRAISE OF LOVE (Éloge de l'amour). I give this film 2 out of 10 stars. Not quite offensive enough to rate 1 for "awful" (such as "The Devils" with Oliver Reed and Vanessa Redgrave). If you still want to watch it, go ahead. But don't say I didn't warn you!!!
rmeans-3
"I see a new landscape, and it's new to me because I compare it to an olderlandscape." (from "In Praise of Love")It's aesthetically a beautiful film which shifts from the most vivid monochrome to a sublime wash of oranges and blues. The film is concerned with history, love, aging, and pop culture. Godard successfully remakes himself with each of his works, while maintaining his familiar tendencies. I feel sorry for those viewers who expect all of his movies to be "Breathless." These individuals have missed out on witnessing the evolution of cinema's most eclectic genius.
