Only a dry theorist or an auteur-worshiper could be "entertained" by this meandering, pallid mess which Godard intended to bomb.
tv & film votes http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=9422378
it was meandering. it was loathsome. it was tiresome. it churned my stomach.
however, it was beautiful and worthy of respect.
**Vote DEMOCRAT '08. Register Easily at Votepoke.com**
[deleted]
[deleted]
I quite enjoyed the film, didn't find it a moment boring, but the couples constant and repetitive arguments got a bit annoying.
--
Please check out some short reviews by me:
http://filmandtv-reviews.blogspot.com/
Why don't you go look for entertainment in a form of cinematic representation more suited to your very sophisticated tastes, and leave this pallid mess for the dry theorists to digest.
share"Why don't you go look for entertainment in a form of cinematic representation more suited to your very sophisticated tastes, and leave this pallid mess for the dry theorists to digest."
In other words, if I happen to like this film, it's a reflection of my personality? Care to elaborate on what my thinking this film was actually quite good says about me?
Thanks.
There, daddy, do I get a gold star?
Gnolti, I was making a sarcastic reply to the original post made by empire_clash_nexus, who wrote: "Only a dry theorist or an auteur-worshiper could be 'entertained' by this meandering, pallid mess which Godard intended to bomb." Unless you are empire_clash_nexus using a different name, I don't see your purpose replying to my post as if I had extended my lascivious (but affectionate) hands to fondle your mother's lusciously matured breasts.
Regardless of whose mother's breasts are being handled, if you believed this film was quite good, I would first have to hear why you believed it was quite good. I can easily imagine some person commenting on the glory of Godard without really understanding his successes and his failures. Godard is French, made art films, and is therefore chic; a good name to drop to demonstrate your own sophistication (*beep* whatever he actually said or how he said it; those sunglasses, those cigarettes...)-- So before I can attempt to elaborate, you'd have to give me a hypothetical situation, "if you actually liked it" and so on...
Thanks.
Yeah, beeping dry theorists and auteur-worshippers, worse than kiddy-rapists and despotic rulers! Turd.
shareYeah, beeping dry theorists and auteur-worshippers, worse than kiddy-rapists and despotic rulers!
shareYou're trying to be entertained by a Godard film? He is a follower of Brect and was interested in maii g films that challenged Hollywood conventions.
Whe you go to q museum, do you expect to see alot of escapist entertainment? No, while you don't expect to be bored you approach it in a different manner.
Same with Godard, he's making something more complex than simple escapist fare(while, as Contempt demonstrates, even simple escapist fare isn't "simple" or "natural") so don't approach his work with the expectation to be "sucked into the story"
Brecht practiced techniques to achieve e opposite, a kind of state where one realizes one is perceiving an artificial construction and actually begins to look inwards to his/herself rather than being trapped in another bourgeois hwood filmmakers ludicrous fantasy.