wheresjoeysmovie
This movie was an experience I will never forget. It is a movie that would be cheapened to describe too much. It is about so many things to those who will let it mean something. As for what it meant to me? I will give you a little to go on. For me, it was about how guilty we all are of being so haunted by guilt for everything- unlike the imaginative, loyal dog who has no idea what guilt is. For me, It was about how many things are lost in translation between people- even those who are quite intimate with one another. It was about how our feelings have became the Hitler to our humanity. It was also about how the only language we all know (even the dog) is our bowel movements. However, they don't mean **** to the dog as he goes on to experience more- never worrying where he left his waste or if you saw him drop it. It is also about how lost we all are in artificial means of communication- even film. IF you think I have cheapened it too much, you need more imagination. This film has so much to give- just be open to listen. But it is not an easy watch let me say. It is only a little bit more than an hour of your time. It meant a great deal to me. Godard was 84 when he made it and his wisdom is as memorable as every color (or lack thereof sometimes) in this potential swan song. If it means nothing to you, all you have lost is an episode of "The Voice" or some other magic trick. This is a director's poem about his life and his reminder to you to write yours.
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
Steve Pulaski
Four years after French auteur Jean-Luc Godard's Film Socialisme, he comes back in full-force, toying with the 3D medium along with sticking to his vague methods of storytelling and development with Goodbye to Language. Godard continues to break down every cinematic convention, even over fifty years after revolutionizing just what cinema could be with his barrage of films from the French New Wave period. With this film, he bids farewell to language, focusing explicitly on the beauty of images and the erratic tonalities editing and visual manipulation can bring, continuing to play with the medium he hasn't kept his hands off since the 1950's.Goodbye to Language is more of a video essay than a conventional film. The bare basic plot follows two young lovers who share sexual intimacy, disjointed, philosophical conversation as if they've just been greeted with Enlightenment principles, and your usual monogamous quibbles. Interjected in the chronicles of this love story are the random adventures of a stray dog named Roxy, who comes between this young couple as the seasons fade into one another and as she wanders through different locales.The film could be summed up as an analysis of dualities in the world. Godard explores the idea of nature vs. metaphor, dividing the film into two segments of each. He explores the contrasting positions of male and female, European influence and Middle Eastern influence in modern day France through use of symbolic representations, man and nature, man and animal, and even idea and metaphor in one particular scene. This focus on dualism in every day life sets Goodbye to Language apart just a tad from most of Godard's contemporary offerings, which have been even more opaque and difficult to define.At a certain point, I ceased taking notes on the film from a critical thinking point-of-view and simply begun taking notes on what I saw. Goodbye to Language features some of the most striking imagery I have yet to see in a Godard film. Seeing it in 2D, however, for the first time ever, I felt like I was robbed of something. Godard's interest in 3D filmmaking in the last couple years stems from his interest in technology and its timestamp on culture and culture's progress. He claims that 3D has yet to really be defined in purpose, and that, like cinema, calls for rampant exploration and manipulation. While most use 3D as a flash-in-the-pan gimmick, Godard seemingly uses it as a way to manipulate the viewer in terms of perception and visual order. One particular scene is said to go from one single shot to two separate ones, which could be viewed clearly through the left and right eye, before assembling back into a single 3D shot. I assume that wasn't the only subversive use of 3D in the film, and I feel had I been fortunate enough to watch the film with that added benefit, for the first time, I would've had an experience that really would've affected the film and not just alter the medium I used to watch it.As is, in its 2D state, Goodbye to Language is still as frustrating as any Godard film. At the end of the experience, I find myself simply going over specific scenes rather than attempting to subscribe a meaning to the film entirely. The film is littered with fascinating shots that say more than narration ever could, with one particular shot being captured on a canted angle, showing the hands of three people at a small stand, two of which playing with their smartphones, the other paging through a book. Welcome to information gathering in the present day. So rarely has the current world been summed up so cleanly and elegantly in one unconventional shot. Another scene is just fascinating to look at, going from a canted angle showing the aforementioned couple naked before slowly panning to the right, readjusting itself to be a more traditional, straight-on full shot, before tilting itself again, this time to the right.Many videographic changes are present here too. While some scenes are saturated with so many unique colors, movement, and almost psychedelic visualizations, others are presented like soap operas, with very dark and almost artificial sets and moody color schemes to match. Stray musings coming from scattered, mostly unidentified characters like, "soon everyone will need an interpreter to understand the words coming from their own mouths" are heard on a frequent basis, showing that Godard is constantly thinking and feeling rather than showing or telling.The final Godardian principle Goodbye to Language adheres to is the fact that it's a lot more interesting to discuss than it is to sit through. Ambiguity is too specific to define the project, for not only does it barely qualify as a film but it's so indistinct that it can hardly be assigned any defining term. Beautiful visual poetry and scattered quotes of brilliance lurk all around this film, and my lower star rating is more out of compromise and downright uncertainty rather than an absolute truth. This is a work that can't accurately be defined nor accurately rated. It's far beyond the stars, some would say.NOTE: Finally, consider one of the most striking musings on the duality between imagination in reality, which comes at the very beginning of the film in form of a title card, a true Godardian convention if there ever were one. It reads, "those lacking imagination take refuge in reality." If Goodbye to Language proves anything, it's that Godard has found purgatory between those two locations.Starring: Héloïse Godet, Kamel Abdeli, Richard Chevallier, and Zoé Bruneau. Directed by: Jean-Luc Godard.
socrates99
As far as treats are concerned, Héloïse Godet is it in this maddeningly annoying 3-D movie. We men get to enjoy seeing her naked. And for the ladies there's a little bit of male full frontal nudity as well.But there's no doubt the man is outshone by the resplendent Ms Godet who attended a screening at Roger Ebert's Film Festival this April 15th. She was gracious and as attractive as she is in the movie, but she related a surprising tale of never having seen the dog that shares a lot of footage with the actors in this movie. Add a couple of the other oddities here that I will keep to myself as they border on being spoilers and Godard's intent is clear.I've never been to Paris, but I've heard again and again that people there don't pick up their dog's droppings. This movie is a clever and effective answer to those who wonder why dogs are allowed to dirty the city's streets with so much impunity. I can't say I'm not a bit swayed, but if it were up to me I'd have people love their dogs AND pick up after it.Godard's argument is more substantial than you'd expect, but judging by the discussion of his film tonight, his attempt to educate us cretins is likely to be a wasted if audacious effort. Still, if you insist on seeing this movie, and if you will try to follow his argument, you just might enjoy it enough to not feel insulted.
