Que no me toque un alto delante
What a piece of crap! A great filmmaker has the luxury of an experimental delirium. I found no connecting thread, nothing to follow, loose dialogues, meaningless phrases .... I could not tell what it is about. There seems to be a couple talking about something at times ... and a dog (?). The director uses sequences interrupted by different images, with a lot of distortion and saturation of colors, white and black, noise ... Maybe it's only for connoisseurs. If someone wants to explain it to me....grateful will I be.At least it's short (just over 1 hour). Do not watch it! Nothing more to say.Visit: quenometoque.wix.com/unaltodelante
rupertmanband
Worst. 3D Movie. Ever.Quite possibly the worst French film I have ever seen and I have seen quite a few, An SNL parody would have been better. This is the kind of movie that makes Ed Wood seem an Orson Welles by comparison. I am perplexed that the AFI would include this in a 3D movie festival but apparently the name Godard counts for something,.Best line - "the dog looks depressed," No kidding. Everything about this movie shows contempt for whoever watches it. The 3D is a textbook example of things one should never do with 3D, too close and too far and too jerky with parallax shifts for no apparent reason and for some reason intentionally shifts the parallax from left right to up down while rotating the image. The audio has intentionally annoying cuts and gaps adding to a sense of discontinuity that needed no help what so ever.Literally, the best part of the movie was the frequent pooping.Notable, Fritz Lang's Metropolis appears on the TV screen in the room where the man and woman do their best to hone ennui to a dull edge while Rotwang and Maria add some gravitas that goes nowhere.MERDE!
tangojazz
Oh my God, what did I just see! What was the point of Godard showing us a guy using the restroom four or five times? And hearing it too! Gross!!! Yuch!!!! Previously, Godard had been one of my favorite film makers, the man who made such Science Fiction classics like "Alphaville". I had previously seen Godard's previous film "Film Socialism" which I thought was very abstract, but had a good point to it. But this movie, "Goodbye to Language" I would say, literally, should be flushed down the toilet. This movie is ridiculous. Until the gross parts came along, "Goodbye to Language" had some really excellent and metaphorical ways of describing the condition of our world today. I will say Godard showed us a different way of using the 3D special effects that I have never seen before. But, you see, the "restroom" parts ruined the whole movie for me. Godard must be really "losing it" in his advanced age. Is Godard trying to say "life" is full of crap or what? Or is he just full of crap now? I walked out of the movie after about an hour. I just couldn't take it anymore. Don't see this movie unless you need a refresher in "toilet" training.
jon1410
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!
