Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Dec 10, 2005 14:41:08 GMT
Week-end Weekend Jean-Luc Godard 1967 France / Italy A bourgeois couple travel to Oinville, but their journey is hampered by an endless traffic jam and forest-dwelling savages. Godard's vision of Hell is depicted with brutal force at the expense of middle class consumerism. Full of new images, with the director creating some of his most visually arresting work, but also notable for its interesting use of music as a distancing tool, seen at its most effective in three key sequences: one in which a woman sits on a table and relates a sexual experience to a lover; one in which a pianist plays Mozart as the camera pans thrice round a courtyard; and the image of a butcher cracking eggs over a woman's parted legs, to the sound of a drummer in a forest. Essential viewing; it is quite clearly made by somebody disgusted with the world.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jan 20, 2006 21:04:01 GMT
After watching this last night, I felt utterly exhausted. The film is so full of energy, so many things going on, that I almost lost interest in it. That fascinates me, in a strange way. But it's definitely a film which renders most reward with a lot of time inbetween each viewing. I doubt I'll watch it again this year.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 21, 2006 0:41:43 GMT
I lost interest in it after the 3rd viewing as well. Got old to me for some reason.
I don't think I'll ever watch it again.
|
|
|
Post by Vercetti on Feb 13, 2006 4:56:08 GMT
I began downloading it a few days ago after reading about it. It sounds similar to the film idea I posted which makes me both excited and somewhat sad. I was supposed to download Breathless, which I've been wanting to see for a long time, but it was corrupted. Can anyone find me a site online that has subtitles for this film? subscene.com/ doesn't have it.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 13, 2006 21:42:18 GMT
I was supposed to download Breathless, which I've been wanting to see for a long time, but it was corrupted. Same thing happened to me.
|
|
|
Post by Vercetti on Feb 14, 2006 2:15:42 GMT
After watching this last night, I felt utterly exhausted. The film is so full of energy, so many things going on, that I almost lost interest in it. That fascinates me, in a strange way. But it's definitely a film which renders most reward with a lot of time inbetween each viewing. I doubt I'll watch it again this year. I also think it's fascinating, and disturbing. I really doubt I can watch that scene with the pig again.
|
|
|
Post by svsg on Jul 4, 2009 23:58:15 GMT
At best: A puppet-show/slide-show of political ideas, featuring some coolbutunwarranted technical feats and tedious voice-overs.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Jul 5, 2009 1:23:37 GMT
At best: A puppet-show/slide-show of political ideas, featuring some coolbutunwarranted technical feats and tedious voice-overs. Did you know that Capo owns a gun? ;D
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Jul 5, 2009 1:26:33 GMT
And all you need to make a movie is a girl and a gun.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Jul 5, 2009 18:35:13 GMT
And all you need to make a movie is a girl and a gun. I would be rather surprised if Capo ever heard that quote.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jul 7, 2009 16:40:20 GMT
At best: A puppet-show/slide-show of political ideas, featuring some coolbutunwarranted technical feats... Such as? I don't think the left-right panning is unwarranted. It denies us that most bourgeois of technicalities: the close-up. And the extremity to which Godard uses it (inducing almost boredom through surrealism) draws our attention to the fact we're watching a film, an artificial construct. I used to know the significance of that but no longer do. Same with the apparently random music. There aren't any actual voice-overs in the film, are there? This film's pretty blunt. Life under capitalism is an inert traffic jam of self-interest.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Jul 7, 2009 16:41:07 GMT
"Life under capitalism is an inert traffic jam of self-interest. "
Indeed.
|
|
|
Post by svsg on Jul 7, 2009 18:27:42 GMT
Tracking shots, even a circular one at that!! Cool. But to what end? Nothing interesting is going on in the screen, other than people standing in their respective places or someone occasionally walking. All the stuff that goes on is in the voice-over: about music, Mozart, popular culture and whatever else political. I don't think the left-right panning is unwarranted. It denies us that most bourgeois of technicalities: the close-up. bourgeois as in "mediocre" or "non innovative"? I find it troublesome when people dismiss useful practices as bourgeois. Like in one (don't recall who) of the members' signature, where an umbrella and a watch are degraded as bourgeois objects. come on!! But anyway I am ranting before even knowing your definition. And the extremity to which Godard uses it (inducing almost boredom through surrealism) draws our attention to the fact we're watching a film, an artificial construct. To the extent that he had a line in the film where the characters declare that they are in film and not in real life. Hmm... I don't know what to make of it. A little subtlety would help. There aren't any actual voice-overs in the film, are there? One example I gave above. Another one is a lengthy political rant about exploitation of Africans by west and other collective capitalistic forces, as two characters eat bread. Why, the whole film could have been narrated, with the same shot/visual - after all it is one political rant after another with no dramatic context whatsoever. It is like Godard had some views on God, capitalism, music, etc and he created scenes to just put them all in. This film's pretty blunt. I agree. okay, that was clever. I wonder if he knew what the alternative offered and if all the malady can be simply attributed to capitalism. From the DVD specials I understand Godard was kind of stuck in a self contradiction after he realized that his films needed capital to make and distribute. In other words, he didn't really think through the whole thing, but that is not of much concern to me. I also learn that he was a particularly asshole-y guy to work with and he used/abused his actors (even in weekend) to establish his quirky POV. Don't have much respect for the guy anyway.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jul 12, 2009 15:58:59 GMT
bourgeois as in "mediocre" or "non innovative"? I find it troublesome when people dismiss useful practices as bourgeois. I mean it to the extent that the close-up privileges the individual, it manipulates the viewer into certain emotive responses. There's a finality to it, a closure. An exclusivity to it. (The exclusion of context, and thus lacking truth.) In Weekend as in La Chinoise (and Sympathy for the Devil and Tout va bien!), there's a flat spatiality to the action; it's very Cubist. It denies us emotional access; as a starting point, it's why some Godard films are often formally difficult to sit through for newcomers. It's an attack not only on consumerist society as a whole, but consumerist cinema. Transparent escapism with little conscience. Hence why Weekend is self-reflexive: it draws our attention again and again to its own artificiality. It's very interested in its own form. Yeah, this is what I thought you meant. Those examples are more off-screen dialogue exchanges (or monologues) than non-diegetic voice-overs; it might be nitpicking, but I thought I'd make the distinction. The dramatic context is that two bourgeois lovers (each of whom wishes to elope with another) are trying to get from A to B in order to fulfil their self-interests; along the way, they treat their fellow people as expendable. In filmic terms, Godard employs another American product - the Road Movie - to undercut bourgeois genre filmmaking. Godard seems to have been very quick to attribute all sorts of social injustices to life under capitalism, though I've become dubious, of late, as to how and why he goes about it in the way that he does. He's a cynic, it seems. And his cynicism is lifted by a certain charm in his early films, which then becomes glib and elitist towards 1967 - though for me his films are highly enjoyable because of formalistic set-ups, such as the traffic jam here and the the supermarket scene at the end of Tout va bien!, which are brilliantly choreographed set pieces at least. His Eighties films are messy, quite abstract; his camera becomes static and stubborn, the framing very crammed. With a revisit, I might prefer these films more; they're still quite difficult, in terms of ideas to wrestle with. I'd be interested in how quentincompson and Anasazie might respond to this thread.
|
|
|
Post by svsg on Jul 12, 2009 18:00:45 GMT
I mean it to the extent that the close-up privileges the individual, it manipulates the viewer into certain emotive responses. There's a finality to it, a closure. But so is tracking shot or a hand-held shot. It is manipulative anyway. An exclusivity to it. (The exclusion of context, and thus lacking truth.) I never looked at the close-up like that. Very interesting perspective. Off topic, I don't understand where this notion of concentrating on the individual became synonymous with right-wing/capitalism/evil/irresponsible. I pointed out this in the Sokurov thread as well. All the reviews that wetdog referred to from wsws* seem to target directors for not elevating enough the social context. I would like to see your response to the criticism of Haneke from the website that wetdog posted in the Cache thread. * Don't even know if I should be reading those reviews, we could as well read music reviews by Al Queda (Osama thinks that any {non-god-praising I suppose} music is devil's work ) The dramatic context is that two bourgeois lovers (each of whom wishes to elope with another) are trying to get from A to B in order to fulfil their self-interests; along the way, they treat their fellow people as expendable. In filmic terms, Godard employs another American product - the Road Movie - to undercut bourgeois genre filmmaking. How does Godard's views on God or Africa's exploitation fit in this dramatic context? Treating fellow people as expendable on a road trip is closely related to turning a blind eye towards Africa? That's a huge leap of context. BTW, I was expecting you to respond to my criticism of the circular tracking shot being vacuous and I am still interested in it
|
|