By Chlotrudis Independent Film Society
Rating: 3.8 cats
Director: Jean-Luc Godard
Starring: Christian Gregori | Héloïse Godet | Jessica Erickson | Kamel Abdeli | Richard Chevallier | Zoé Bruneau
Country: france, switzerland
Year: 2014
Running time: 70
IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2400275/combined
Jason says: “My second impulse where Jean-Luc Godard’s GOODBYE TO LANGUAGE is concerned is to write nothing at all about it. That’s in large part because my first is to cry that the emperor has no clothes, but I think I’ve got just enough awareness of what I know and what he’s done that recognize that I’m in no position to make such a sweeping accusation. Still, he’s made a film that seems to offer very little to those who do not look at
cinema as a primarily academic pursuit.
“There’s a bit of a story, a woman leaving a violent husband and a dog wandering about, and plenty of time for characters to discus history, philosophy, and art. The film alternates between ‘Nature’ and ‘Metaphor’ segments, although they are not necessarily told in order, and much of the action happens off-screen. If you are coming to this film looking for a story, you are going to have to work for it, and likely come away disappointed.
“But, I gather, nobody goes to Godard films for that reason any more, nor have they had reason to do so for decades. Instead, the likes of GOODBYE TO LANGUAGE are best approached as a sort of lecture, with Godard demonstrating different types of structure, speaking briefly about ideas that interest him, and experimenting with ways to shoot a scene that may, in their unconventional manner, tell the audience something not evident from a simple direct shot. Godard also cuts to clips of other works, archival footage, and home movies, creating something that while slow moving is undeniably dense with information.
“It’s arguably an unfair density, though, one that puts the onus of making an idea clear onto the listener rather than the speaker, demanding recognition of obscure film clips, the books characters briefly examine, or the scholars various characters discuss. And while there is nothing wrong with a filmmaker making works that target an audience better-read or schooled than myself, there are times when it feels like Godard does nothing but reference, stringing together brief quotations or rephrasing a question but doing nothing to investigate. He demonstrates how certain types of characters are used in movies, but does little to make the particular iterations individually interesting. It often seems like a great deal of rigor to say very little new.
“Some of what has been hailed as new involves how Godard and cinematographer Fabrice Aragano use the third dimension. Unusually, GOODBYE TO LANGUAGE is only playing theatrically in 3D (and thus having some trouble finding screens), and may very well only be released that way on home video. It’s certainly unusual in how it is used, shooting at a lower resolution and in many ways ignoring the lessons that mainstream filmmakers have learned in terms of how to use the technique. Godard likes to put things in the extreme foreground or have them jut out from the screen, making it difficult for the audience to focus on what they really want to see further back. Provocative, but not particularly useful unless one wants to stretch it into
meta-commentary. There’s also a bit where he separates the two camera lenses, allowing one to pan while the other holds still, that invites the audience to edit the scene by alternately closing one eye and then the other behind their glasses, but that may not be immediately obvious and requires the viewer to know the film as well as the director in order to get much of a result.
“That is in some ways GOODBYE TO LANGUAGE in a nutshell – it takes a great deal of effort and likely repeated viewings to get much out of it, and I have my doubts that it has enough new or interesting to say to make the investment worthwhile. At its best, it plays like Godard’s notebook of things that might be interesting to do in a movie, but not an actual finished film. Many scholars will be interested in Godard’s notebooks, but I cannot say I’m among them. 2.25 cats
“Seen 17 November 2014 at IFC Center #2 (first-run, Dolby 3D)”
Kyle says: “The international cinematic importance of Jean-Luc Godard’s latest film is quite clear. It is the preeminent film of our time, proven by the prize it shared with Xavier Dolan’s MOMMY. Here is the paragraph from an omnibus article I am writing for Chlotrudis on the entire NYFF 52.
“The U.S. Premiere of Jean-Luc Godard’s 3-D GOODBYE TO LANGUAGE (French and English with English subtitles) was hailed by The New Yorker critic Richard Brody thus: ‘His 3-D technique is the first advance in deep-focus camerawork since the heyday of Orson Welles; it lends the settings a sumptuous intimacy as it restores the astonishment of sheer perception to the art of the cinema.’ I will long remember a hilarious scene of two men actively engaged with iPhones while a woman alone slowly looks through a pile of books. Others thrilled to Monet-like scenes of Godard’s dog wandering the splendors of nature. Godard has been making prophetic pronouncements on film for more than 50 years. Here is his latest: ‘Soon everyone will need an interpreter to understand the words coming from their own mouths.’ A gorgeous, essential film. 5 cats
“Saturday, September 27. 2014, NYFF 52 at Walter Reade Theater, Film Society of Lincoln Center, New York.”
Chris says: “You can’t say Jean-Luc Godard doesn’t give the viewer a lot of bang for his or her buck with his latest film—in just seventy minutes, he packs in enough imagery and information to sustain at least three or four features. Not much of a departure from his recent work, it has all the Godard-isms you’d expect: flashing intertitles, monotone narration, repetitive use of classical music pieces, clips from old Hollywood films, and an endless number of conversations between un homme et une femme. Every shot bears the stamp of its octogenarian iconoclast; cineastes that worship the man wouldn’t have it any other way.
“Still, GOODBYE TO LANGUAGE 3D offers some divergence from the usual template, most notably (and obviously) regarding the last word of that title. Godard utilizes 3D for the same simple reason directors from Martin Scorsese to Michael Bay have—to create cool, visually ravishing, how-did-they-do-that special effects. However, Godard takes it a step further, weaving this technology into one of the film’s multiple theses by questioning what we see and how we perceive it. In the most talked-about moment, he superimposes one image on top of another, but as the two images simultaneously occur, they also overlap at ever-shifting angles. On paper, it sounds like morphing, but it’s much harder to describe how it actually appears. I can best describe it as a cubist painting come to life, but even that doesn’t really suffice. It made my head hurt to think about it while watching it, and yet I wanted
to see more of it.
“You might as well apply that last sentence to the whole film. Godard’s ‘narrative’ here is even more cryptic than usual, yet it moves at such a rapid pace I had trouble keeping up. Of all the dialogue spoken between two sets of male and female characters, it figures the one that stuck with me was, ‘I talk about equality and all you talk about is poop.’ Perhaps that sentence is not so much an anomaly, as this is the most explicitly playful film Godard has made in ages. In its second half, the central focus moves from the couples to a (rather cute) dog named Roxy, whom Godard seems to be using as a catalyst for demonstrating why the spoken word is losing relevance in the modern age (or something). The problem with writing about a film so deliberately opaque (especially weeks after one has viewed it) is that you can only absorb and retain so much on a single viewing. For what it’s worth,
although intellectually exhausting, it’s the first late-period Godard I anticipate seeing again (preferably on a large screen) as soon as possible. 4.25 cats
“(GOODBYE TO LANGUAGE 3D screened at the 2014 Toronto International Film Festival.)”
Brett responds: “Great review. I felt the same way; so I was very relieved to read this take on the latest Godard film. The pace was a bit hard to keep up with, like Chris said. I know/knew not to expect anything linear or easy. To its credit, there was a novelty factor of ‘I don’t know exactly where this is going, but I am enjoying it thoroughly.’ After 40-ish minutes, I found myself wanting a mulligan and a chance to start over so I could catch up to the point we were at in the film. That is, the novelty wore off a bit, or I lost touch after being hit with so much.
“I felt the same way about the metaphorical use of the dog, so I did at least follow that all the way to the end. As I got deeper into the premise otherwise, however, I found myself missing part of the ‘possible’ irony in the playful ‘language’/sound bites scattered throughout. Not that it was a knee-slapper, but the cryptic nature of the film requires a second viewing for me so I can find that happy medium among director manipulation, playfulness, and philosophy. It’s something I am a bit ashamed of, because I try to always get a good read on everything in one screening. So, well played, Godard. And
again, great review. I’m on board with everything Chris said.”