MCN Blogs
Ray Pride

By Ray Pride Pride@moviecitynews.com

DVD: Godard’s FILM SOCIALISME

Eighty-one-year-old Jean-Luc Godard’s Film Socialisme is a disarmingly beautiful rash of video imagery that ranges from HD in gleaming blues on a luxury liner late at night to cell-phone images that stutter, blanch and bleed, accompanied by murmorous dialogues turning over familiar political idées fixe and the crisp musique concrète-style sound mixes of his work of the past three decades. The electric charge of the colors is splendid on Kino Lorber’s Blu-Ray edition, released January 10. (The ship, the Costa Concordia, ran aground on January 13, killing several passengers and crew members; see image below the fold.)

Godard hectors and cryptographs, finding an expressive character for his digital video palette with a more refined touch a decade ago, as in his 2001 Eloge de l’amour, but with less engagement than in the recently-reissued Sauve qui peut (la vie) (1980), shot on 35mm film, which works its metaphors of self-loathing, prostitution and misogyny with grave intentness. Film Socialisme is more like sketch comedy for a certain straineof cinephiles, far less dense than the obsessive and potted essay Histoires du Cinéma (also now legally available on video in the U.S.), those who react to colors and edits and gestural repetitions and thematic fixations, but not those who struggle to cipher a story from fragments. Godard’s latest fractured fairytales are also filmmaking as sculpture, expressive through collage and not the verities of theater and text, film as a corrupted dream. (Oh! The nineteenth century!) While spoken in French and German, among other languages, Godard’s bad-faith subtitles for American audiences consist mostly of nouns, and he describes the translation as “Navajo,” or an emulation of how Native Americans were made to speak in Hollywood Westerns. (Koch-Lorber’s edition offers a choice between full subtitles and “Navajo.”)
It’s fantastic essay-making, sometimes dotty in its spotty reasoning, but formally savoryl. Who’s it for? Ending the film on two cards—a defaced FBI copyright warning and the words NO COMMENT—Godard blatantly does not give a fuck.

The distributor offered an interview with Godard from “Sud Rail Magazine” by one “Renaud Deflins,” who may or may not exist. Excerpts:

Q production, distribution, exploitation?

A since the end of the big studios, after the Second World War, the order was inverted, with the aristocracy henceforth coming first, and the ” third estate ” last.

Q cinema and films – the difference?
A the same, cinema is not necessarily to be found in films.

Q 3D?
A very quickly, the dimension of time has disappeared and space flattened, cinemascope, l6:9

Q and copyright?
A we forget that Beaumarchais’ real problem wasn’t retaining ownership of “The Marriage of Figaro “, but simply getting his share of the receipts.

Q blogs and SMS?
A in a way, behind this young thinking similar to an earthworm, one thing matters to all these passionate Phoenixes: to survive and find in the depths of chaos a chance to resurrect (cf. Prigogine).

Q politics again?
A yes, as modern democracies, by rendering politics a domain of separate thought, are predisposed to totalitarianism.

Q and images?
A the old magus Bachelard spoke about implicit and explicit images. We might cite Jules Renard’s image of silence: snow falling on the water.

Q a vision of the future?
A even with Final Cut, the most humble or most arrogant of editors is in prison, bound to the past as to the future and must deal with it for the present. Only cinema reproduces this human work.

Q a last film?
A nothing more than a title: “Farewell to Language.”

One Response to “DVD: Godard’s FILM SOCIALISME”

  1. witherholly says:

    I hope he will be a good character reference for Francesco Schettino, the ship’s captain. CEOs walk, captains pay.

Leave a Reply

Movie City Indie

Quote Unquotesee all »

“Any time a movie causes a country to threaten nuclear retaliation, the higher-ups wanna get in a room with you… In terms of getting the word out about the movie, it’s not bad. If they actually make good on it, it would be bad for the world—but luckily that doesn’t seem like their style… We’ll make a movie that maybe for two seconds will make some 18-year-old think about North Korea in a way he never would have otherwise. Or who knows? We were told one of the reasons they’re so against the movie is that they’re afraid it’ll actually get into North Korea. They do have bootlegs and stuff. Maybe the tapes will make their way to North Korea and cause a fucking revolution. At best, it will cause a country to be free, and at worst, it will cause a nuclear war. Big margin with this movie.”
~ Seth Rogen In Rolling Stone 1224

“Yes, good movies sprout up, inevitably, in the cracks and seams between the tectonic plates on which all of these franchises stay balanced, and we are reassured of their hardiness. But we don’t see what we don’t see; we don’t see the effort, or the cost of the effort, or the movies of which we’re deprived because of the cost of the effort. Paul Thomas Anderson’s Inherent Vice may have come from a studio, but it still required a substantial chunk of outside financing, and at $35 million, it’s not even that expensive. No studio could find the $8.5 million it cost Dan Gilroy to make Nightcrawler. Birdman cost a mere $18 million and still had to scrape that together at the last minute. Imagine American movie culture for the last few years without Her or Foxcatcher or American Hustle or The Master or Zero Dark Thirty and it suddenly looks markedly more frail—and those movies exist only because of the fairy godmothership of independent producer Megan Ellison. The grace of billionaires is not a great business model on which to hang the hopes of an art form.”
~ Mark Harris On The State Of The Movies