Film socialisme

Can we all get over the "challenging" provocations that this Film attempts to offer. Forgive a potential Agism, but in the spirit of class conscious critique: This is a sign of late Godard, complicit in his Bourgeois canonization, making ineffectual meditations on a a medium already robust, ubiquitous and politically affective. I'm speaking of course about Video. A previous reviewer mentioned Ryan Tracartin - This film is at least 20 years behind Ryan Trecartin's most trivial undergrad work. Godard mobilizing the distancing, alienating politics of a pseudo-left closeted Eurocentrist in order to promulgate a consistent dominance over "Art House" cinema. Honestly what the blood is this film? a further denigration of the kinds of education received in low income areas of the United States, Northern Africa, Southeast Asia and Eastern Europe? Who is this this film standing up for? and if it stands up for no one then why is this nihilism necessary? The fractured subtitles are absolutely insulting - There is no transformative translation ala Benjamin, no generative deconstruction, no Stein, no Saurraute , no performative language at all - we are left with nothing but masturbatory sloganism (and not a kind of sloganism which implodes on itself in order to critique a contemporary state of language, rather a sloganism which, with full self awareness, alienates all those accept for the most privileged, most geographically/economically/culturally entitled). This film is no "challenge" to its audience as the audience for late Godard is ALREADY educated, already leftist (or at least conventionally Liberal) already enlightened as to the ornate delicacies of high cinema and already aware of and experienced with cultural forms outside of the myopic mainstream. Therefore, this film seems unnecessarily difficult, a poorly informed cloying attempt at relevance in a digital age. The Film says nothing about its medium other than a tired Brechtian breaking of verisimilitude at the beginning (a fruitless technique, as video implicitly points to its own making(s) given its unmistakable and highly recognizable fidelity) and is years behind even the most the primitive works of contemporary video art. It seems Godard did not realize the impact that Histoire(s) du cinema had on the rest of the world, and that the rest of the world has taken something he helped to pioneer and ran far far away from beyond it. I can't help but feel that Harun Farocki already made this film in the 80s and it was far more innovative, "challenging", inclusive and all around less insulting than this ultimately apolitical irreverency. There is nothing about identity in this film and an absolute disregard for the filmmaker's own place of power in the discursive grid (ie, heterosexual, white, wealthy, Western, mutilingual, gendered male).

to the reviewer who in response to the fractured subtitles said "you should learn French!" - maybe in another lifetime free of inhibitory systemic inhibitors, financial constraint and economic-racial-historical determinism we could all take up this task of Eurocentric cultural Enlightenment, but for now I'll settle for at least a concession of legibility.

Jean-Luc Godard is a reference in cinema and changed the art fifty years ago with a unique challenging style that defied current esthetics and etiquette.

His latest work can be described more as an eclectic experiment than any enduring piece of cinema, but it serves to show his mastery of the art and his ability to dissect it in its most basic components before trying to create a different, distinct experience for the viewer. He plays with themes, locations, styles and intermingles with little restriction photos, videos, ambient sounds, silence, music, narrations, monologues, dialogues to delves into a dream-like undefined cinematic discussion.

The film does not quite work as a whole, precisely from this lack of focus, but some of the imagery (some sharp and some out of focus, some old and some new, some seemingly meaningless and some full of allegories, etc.), dialogues (existential, simple, social, revolutionary) and intertitles do reach a cord and will be remembered subconsciously or consciously. It's lack of clear content or continuity should not take away from it's task of deconstruction and desire to destabilise our current comforts. In that aspect, Godard grabs the rug under conventional cinema and pulls very hard to make it topple over dumbfounded and confused.

There are three segments, each shorter than the previous, but besides being glad to finally leave this seemingly derelict boat and to briefly know a fictional philosophising family, there is not enough distinction between the segments to warrant further feedback at this point. Only that as Godard's life perhaps, and exemplified in the crafty ancient time-telling device in segment #2, time is getting shorter...

Maybe we'll get it right some day, may be one of many messages of this remue-méninges.

A Jean-Luc Godard double feature for me this evening. The first was Alphaville. This film, reported to be Godard's last, is a far cry from that.

It was shot entirely in digital, and the colors are breathtaking. It was meant to be seen in the theater, according to Godard, but I had to settle for video. There are numerous technical "glitches" in the film, and they were meant to be there.

Most of the film's text is in French with a smattering of German, Russian, Arabic, Hebrew, Latin, and Greek. Godard added subtitles in what he termed "Navajo English" at the bottom of the frame, which were as unhelpful as they were meant to be. The film is about a failure to communicate.

This is one of those films where the critics are far more enamored than the general populace. It is considered one of the top films of 2011 - almost the top ten. The people would disagree.

I'll admit that I've only seen a handful of Jean-Luc Godard's movies. "Film socialisme" is the latest. Very bizarre movie. In fact, it doesn't really emphasize a plot. It's hard to tell what the movie's emphasis is supposed to be, with the focus on a group of people aboard a cruise ship in the Mediterranean. Maybe Godard wanted to address the use of certain places as tourist meccas, but I couldn't be certain. With current events in the world, it's probably significant that the movie includes Palestine.

I'd like to see the rest of Godard's movies, but I doubt that I'll ever be able to truly understand what sort of point he was trying to make with this one.

Watch for singer-songwriter Patti Smith in a brief appearance.

It was eagerly awaited for years,the trailer which was the whole film in fast motion looked ravishing, and it seemed as if in this,perhaps his last film,Godard would deliver his final testament,a summation of all the themes which have run through his work for the last fifty years.From the beginning it looks absolutely stunning.In its high def cinematography the colours are gorgeous,the Mediterranean setting recalling that of Le Mépris ,but whereas the latter film was a profound meditation on European culture and civilisation,here the characters spout banal platitudes about politics or philosophy as the ship sails along past various cities; in the Spanish section there is a scene of a bullfight,in the Italian section a clip from a Rossellini film,it's that predictable.

In the final section the film switches to one of Godard's favourite subjects,the daily routine of a family with young children who run a petrol station and have for no apparent reason a pet llama.Here finally the film shows some kind of rapport with its characters but it is already too late.Yet despite its faults it still exhibits all the hallmarks of Godard's style,the brilliance of his framing and editing,the crucial way sound plays against image,but the feeling persists that perhaps he has no longer anything to say.