2014 movie
Rating: 10/20
Plot: Hell if I know.
I want to make it clear that I did not watch this Godard movie in 3D like it was intended to be experienced. From what I've read, it's an even more mind-bending experience where the technology is used to fuck with the audience's heads more than anything. I read a description somewhere (sorry I can't cite the source) that talked about how studios are working hard to make 3D more comfortable for audiences but that Godard seems to be doing everything he can to do the exact opposite. I'm sure, if this alternate poster is any indication, watching this in 3D would have definitely improved things.
Yeah, look at that. I just can't imagine anybody seeing that and saying, "There's a movie I'd like to see." I don't think I've seen anything by Jean-Luc Godard that wasn't made in the 1960s, weird because I really like the stuff he did during that decade. Apparently, he's just as rascally as ever, even in his 80s. This is definitely what you'd call an adventurous endeavor, and Godard isn't doing anything--the storytelling, the cinematography, the music, the utilization of modern technology--traditionally.
The problem is that it doesn't feel like the work of an experienced avant-gardist. It feels like the work of a kid trying to impress his professors in film school. I know I should probably just trust Godard and assume that A) the story about a infidelity and doggies actually does make sense and B) he's saying something really really important, but I just couldn't crack the thing at all and really have no interest in making second or third efforts. If you eat pistachios at all, you know that every once in a while, you find one that is impossible to crack open. You look all around the thing for a tiny opening that you could use another shell or a fingernail to turn into a larger opening, but you can't. It's impenetrable, and eventually, you realize that you don't like pistachios enough to even bother anymore and just throw the whole thing away. That's kind of how I feel about Goodbye to Language.
Part of the problem is that it's just so cheap looking. Most of the movie looks like home video footage except a lot of it has the wrong colors. It has the look of a half-assed effort, and I know saying that is about as fair as me calling this whole thing pretentious because I didn't understand it, but I can't help it. There are individual shots that are artistically beautiful or artistically ugly, but most of what you see in this bloated 70 minute film will just make you wonder why it's there at all. It's the same with the numerous references to literature and history. Musical snippets start and stop abruptly, and it just feels like Godard is dicking around, like the whole thing is some sort of joke.
Yes, I'm aware that I'm probably just not smart enough to get this. But I couldn't take things seriously and even bother trying anymore after a scene where a guy poops. What the hell, Godard?
In the end, I suspected that Godard had nothing at all to say and just wanted to give his dog a starring role in a movie. His dog (Roxy Mieville) is pretty good, and I'm sure it had a stronger grasp on what this movie's about than I did. Here's Roxy, the Jaden Smith of dogs.
Yes, that's what a lot of the movie looked like. If only I could have seen it in 3D!
No comments:
Post a Comment