Addio al linguaggio

"Those lacking imagination take refuge in reality." (Beginning on-screen text)

Reality, equality, sexuality, conviviality, and more come from New Wave patriarch Jean Luc Godard in his newest exciting expressionistic mess, Goodbye Language 3D. It's a mash up of images that in the end add up to the master's take on the corruptions of communication, even his beloved cinema, and the challenges of loving while dealing with that very French "existentialism." The opening statement quoted above establishes the challenge of being your own person, your own creator, in the face of the world's sensory and intellectual influences. After all, for the existentialist it takes a lifetime to create a character, which in Godard's view of things, is shaped by forces outside the person, and inevitably doomed, except for the dog.

He is the avatar of uncorrupted essence, a Godardian motif whose sensory life is its whole life, with the exception of loving humans more than itself. The complicating factor of clashing characters, even those we communicate with daily, is expressed in a naked, adulterous couple. They seem to clash about staying with each other, having babies, and possibly the ennui of making love over an extended time.

As he sits on the "throne" like The Thinker, with accompanying scatological sounds, and naked she stares, he declares that "thought reclaims its place in poop." Well, life does become "s__t" for many humans, at least as Godard interprets life, but we share the crap together, equally, so to speak. On the TV screen, Godard places Ava Gardner and Gregory Peck mooning after each other in The Snows of Kilimanjaro. But that's the unreal movies, Godard's artistic medium, which is not the reality of the defecating lover.

In the end, it's about expressing us, as Godard ironically does in his title, emphasizing the participation of new technology like 3D. Images are his world, and seemingly he uses them to express his feeling of chaos in the film world. When he overlaps stereo images to confuse the audience, he is visually representing the fusion of contemporary conflicts in the image-communication grid. When a bookseller observes that Solzhenitsyn didn't need Google, Godard makes a powerful case for the non-technical world.

Goodbye to Language 3D is a sassy, subversive, disconcerting, sometimes humorous angle of vision from the infant terrible of French cinema and a cinematic prophet of doom. It's a long way from the carefree "Breathless" but close to the contemporary Babel of world dysfunction. Only a dog can see the world as it really is: We are getting things wrong all over the globe.

On 1st viewing of Godard's Goodbye to Language,you have no narrative, just a man and a woman,later a dog.There is repetition: the use of a new technique,3D,without rules,to show how a child or animal sees the world,with the use of primary colours in spring or autumn,or colours drenched ,bleeding out of the object.He uses heavy inter-titles like 'Nature' or ' Metaphor'.Godard wants to go beyond language,while paying homage to words at the same time.He quotes lavishly many writers,poets, thinkers,philosophers,painters,and plays the work of different musicians, where the music plays then goes dead. Alternatively, the screen goes black while people are speaking or music is still playing. Godard wants to have no preconceptions,just see through his lens the world nakedly, reflecting the world through these new techniques.We wander in forests,look up at trees,see the beauty of flowers, roam with a dog by a lakeside or as it rolls in snow,or in urban settings focus on a chair in the foreground. Subject: the idea is simple: a married woman and a single man meet.They love,they argue,fists fly.A dog strays between town and country.The seasons pass.The man and woman meet again. The dog finds itself between them.The other is in one,the one is in the other and they are three.The former husband shatters everything.A 2nd film begins:the same as the 1st, and yet not.From the human race we pass to metaphor.This ends in barking and a baby's cries.

Freud and the art of film began at the start of the 20th century,they both in some ways are parallel developments, exploring reality, based on new techniques.Godard shows us perception and consciousness,how an animal's eyes are unclouded by consciousness. Godard shows human beings weighed down by interpretations,needing interpretation.He uses 3D film in this baffling experimental drama,turning the technology on its head(no car chases,nor animated dragons or objects hurling towards the screen) by using his 3rd dimension to send contrasting images to each of the viewer's eyes or-in one particular haunting sequence-to add spatial depth to the sight of a man sitting on a toilet,pooping.This is a kind of equality we all share. The idea that existence is about trying to reconcile the "real" world with the subjective experience of the world, and the names and notions we use to catalogue and define the world--but the digressions are what make it sing. "I will barely say a word," says a voice on the soundtrack--maybe Godard?--adding, "I am looking for poverty in language." While the film is drenched in the rich sensual experience of Godard's visual language.An interesting motif is images of running water,water lapping shores of a lake,sea water,a river in full spate,rain falling,even the water of a shower:the importance of water in the origin myths of heroes, and dreams linked to childbirth.

He quotes Monet as painting what he doesn't see.We as human spectators, look at the observable universe.To scientists,numbers and the laws of science are real,independent entities,but they are constructions of human thought attempting to seize something of the universe.There is no transcendent perspective,we are dreamers.We can only really see ourselves when we are looking into another person's eyes.The camera captures everything it sees-we passively like the camera comply-and yet not seeing anything. As though Godard is making the movie for the camera and for the sake of the film itself.There are no conventions of plot or character.One of the characters says she "hates character". Density,compression,digression,montage are utilised freely.Lettered Texts are printed on top of each other or over images.We get ideas tossed at us like Hitler's rise to power coincided with the invention of TV,or will Russia ever be a part of Europe,without ceasing to be Russia?That a new Godard film is an event,something that may better be seen in an art gallery:as distribution in the UK by Studiocanal has folded and it's been rushed to DVD.This is a shame as the full 3D experience can only be gained in a movie theatre. in Goodbye, Godard's use of 3D is a matter of using the screen (with its illusory extra dimension of depth) as a multimedia space in the true sense: he's creating both a painting and a sculpture.Obscure,maddening,obsessed with history and cinema.In a word: awesome!

In this French-Swiss film, various vignettes are used to follow the lives of two couples and the dog of one of those couples as they occasionally philosophize.

Because this film is written and directed by Jean-Luc Godard, it is obligated to be as incomprehensible as possible to the average viewer. As I have seen many of his films before (some of which I have liked), I was prepared for an odd experience.

A synopsis on Wikipedia was helpful but it made me feel I had missed something. However, conventional plot is not a Godardian purpose.

If the intention is to create a dream-like experience to affect the subconscious mind, then the film does rather well. However, I still expect at least a minimal amount of understanding what I am watching. Luckily, the film was mercifully short at just an hour and ten minutes.

You know, it's always so common that people who dislike/hate films like this to call fans "pretentious", among other names, highlighting their reasons for liking films like these as having to do with self-importance. I do tend to like really out-there stuff so I know how it feels. But really, it just comes down to whether one enjoyed something like this or not. It's not about the "meaning", since one can like or dislike a film regardless of how well they understood it. Despite not knowing what the hell this was saying, I was actually enjoying it. I'm sure some hated it from the get-go and it was torture, but for me the first 30 minutes had me mostly intrigued. That fascination with it lessened as the film went on. I don't think something like this really works for more than 30 minutes, at most. I'm sure some would disagree, but while I don't hate it, I'm not a fan of it overall. I enjoyed it until I didn't, simple as that.

If you decide see this movie don't expect a big Hollywood blockbuster. It is shot with interesting angles and with different lenses. It is very abstract and philosophical. I already had an idea what it was about before seeing. And having taken a number of courses on film and literature I have sat through a number of these types of movies. Don't get me wrong I enjoyed the work, you just need to be in the proper frame of mind and ready to see it or else you will not get anything out of it.

If it sounds like it is too much work, perhaps this movie isn't for you.

If this sounds like a challenge, then grab a bag of popcorn turn it on and enjoy the art.