Review of Malle's Elevator to the Gallows

I am currently reading a book about the French New Wave and I came across Louis Malle as one of the progenitors of the Nouvelle Vague. This is his first film. And it is great. I enjoyed it immensely, especially the ending. The use of still photographs developing in the basin to reveal the devastating evidence of the heroine's affair with Tavernier was heartbreaking. Her voice over made it so bitter. So hard to swallow.

From a narrative perspective it developed nicely from a short film about infidelity and murder to a twisted plot that involved young lovers and German tourists. Those excruciating minutes in the elevator without music or voice over were executed well. I could feel Tavernier's desperation. Yet, surprisingly he never showed much desperation. I thought he might be frantically trying to escape from the elevator. Ripping everything apart, trying to squeeze himself out through the opening, but the most he did was bang his hand against a wall. It led me to consider what I would do if I was in that situation. How would I write it? Perhaps it's French trait to remain calm under excruciating circumstances. Je ne sais pas!

The rest of the film roles of the tongue like a well read verse of poetry The end starts when Mrs. Carala is taken into custody. From their the descent is into the resolving of all the conflicts. The major conflict is whether Tavernier is going to be found out and the conspiracy revealed to kill Monsier Carala. Eventually the police get their men with women in tow. I really like the detectives lines when he is weighing how Mrs. Carala will fair against a jury. That is a great montage of the detectives voice, Mrs. Carala's inner voice, and the photo which is slowly developing in the chemistry. And the fact that the young crook goes there and finds himself easily implicated with the photos is so classic. A criminal making a dumb and fatal error. It all wraps up tidily with some suspense and relief.

This film is considered, like it's director, to be New Wave by some, and not by other Film Historians. It does have a Nouvelle Vague sensibility to it. There are numerous street scenes which were totally New Wave. Yet it does have elements of classical cinema in it. For example the plot deals with infidelity and conspiracy which could be akin to a Hitchcock thriller. The driving scenes are also very New Wave. The shot of the big French highway was totally modern, and New Wave. I was really impressed by the shot of the highway. Completely different from those old scenes of people driving with fake road in the background passing them by. And the editing worked well. Two stories diverged and the editing allowed them to be spun together and meet at an end point where everything was resolved.

Great movie!

Review of Mishima by Schrader

This was the third time I've seen this film. It went by very quickly this time. I have been studying Paul Schrader's works as a filmmaker so I'm sure that contributed to the brevity which this film was comprehended. This might be Schrader's best film or his Magnum Opus as they say. It sure reaches to high points of cinematic expression. The film's scenes are practically flawless. I really enjoyed the scenes based on Mishima's novels. They were incredibable. The narrative was also uniquely structured. The excepts from his fiction mixed well with his life story.

Reviewo of Madame Bovary by Chabrol

This was a big dramatic production. Not like the French New Wave films. I don't know the history behind the film, but I'm suprised to see Chabrol directing it. Yet, it was still really good. It had the feeling of a nineteenth century painting. Every shot was tinted by darkness and shadow. It was a very well shot film.

Yet, I thought it was a little over determined. Once Madame Bovary's lover appeared I knew right away who it was. A little bit of a let down. It could have been more suprising. It did have a convulsive effect though. Her lover was handsome with dark features which was a dead give away. It did add to the build up of dramatic tension. The film suffers from too much voice over. I suppose it could have had a lack of voice over which might have made it confusing and utterly misunderstood. I think it could have worked without the voice over. It really struck me as something that was made for French television. Good, but not great.

The man who played the pharmicist was great. I like him and the roles he played. I saw him in Indochine which is also a great film which he plays a great role. The other characters play well, but nothing too memorable. Madame Bovary is played well, but could have used a little more emotion. The same for Doctor Bovary. I suppose it's part of the quality of restraint that they represent being country folk. Their emotions are restrained to the point of pain.

I liked this film. The performances were good. The techniques of the film were good. The story was compelling. I have not read the book so I can't make a comparison between the film and the book. I suspect a good job on behalf of the book was done by Chabrol. I will have to read the book.

Review of Last Year at Marienbad by Resnais

This film is a traditional one. It is unlike French New Wave films and stands for the tradition of quality French films stood for in the years before the Nouvelle Vague revolutionized French Cinema. I enjoyed the film. It aspires to Cinematic art and literary pretensiousness which I love in films. It is also a non-linear film. The narrative structure is disjointed and goes back and forth between the present and the past. The story follows a man who tries to convince a woman that they had an affair last year. She objects the entire film. Until, finally, photographs reveal that she was had committed adultery with the mysterious man.

The style and tone of the film are very high-class. Everyone is wearing tuxedos and formal dresses. The mise en scene of the film is very structured and symmetrical too. There are numerous scenes where the action is frozen. It is a very creative way to depict the action in the film. The voice over does most of the exposition. Initially I found it hard to hear the narrator, but eventually I caught on and listened to his voice.

The script was written by Alain Robbe-Grillet who is famous for leading the new french literary movement of the 1950s and early 60s. So the script takes on more of a literary quality than a typical film. A typical film this is not. I have scene Hiroshima Mon Amour as well by Resnais. The two films are similar in the way they present images and action with voice over. In both films it works and comes off as avant garde in it's presentation. I'm often telling myself to show don't tell, but Resnais shows and tells. Perhaps it works in his films because narrators in films were more acceptable in the time this film was made. I don't know if a filmmaker would be able to get away with it in today's Cinema. Which is too bad. Resnais' films are excellent.

The setting in Last Year at Marienbad is tres grande. I almost thought it was the palace of Versailles when they showed the hotel at night. The grande jardin also reminded of Versaille. I didn't know any of the actors, but I thought they played their roles well. The woman particularly. Perhaps my favorite scene of the film is when she is dressed in her white feathered outfit and the camera repeatedly does a close up of her. It was hysterical. Similar to a Hitchcock film. I was totally mesmerized.

Review of Brideshead Revistied Chapters 3 and 4

These chapters show the slow decline of Sebastien. His drinking becomes more serious. He doesn't want to interact with anyone, not even Charles who is his steadfast friend. Sebastien's heavy drinking leads to scandal and being sent down from Oxford. Charles decides to become a painter and moves to Paris. There are reasons given for Sebastien's descent into alcoholism; his father did the same; he drinks because he is ashamed to be unhappy. It is a sad depiction of a person with so much taken with drink so badly. I couldn't help myself from thinking how Sebastien had so much but felt so unhappy. Where he lives looks like a museum and he has hereditary status as a British Lord. How can one be unhappy? I guess the next episodes will delve deeper into why Sebastien became such a mess.

Review of Leviathan by Zvyagintsev

This was the second film I've seen by this director. Leviathan caused an uproar in Russia when it was released. It was not allowed to be shown in wide release in Russia because it was so critical of Russian government. So, I was very interested to see the film that was causing such an uproar. And true to the gossip surrounding the film it was a depressing film about the reality facing Russians. The hypocrisy was deep. Corrupt government officials receiving the benediction of Orthodox priests while possibly framing a man for the murder of his wife.

The film begins with a court trial of a man who is being legally removed from his house by the mayor of a Russian city. The motives for the removal seem unjustified and vague. The man being removed speculates that the mayor wants to build a palace where his house stands. He hires a lawyer and it seems like the system is working. Yet, a big twist comes in. The lawyer is sleeping with the man's wife. So he is morally compromised. The mayor takes him hostage and threatens to kill him. In a scene reminiscent of Sopranos the mayor takes the lawyer to be executed, but spares him. The lawyer returns to Moscow fearing for his life. I got the sense that this was not something uncommon in Putin's Russia. This film only shows the deep corruption that pervades Russia and the social discord it causes.

If the mayor had not wanted this man's house the lawyer would have never come to the city and nothing would have ever happened. The director is making a statement about the corruption and hypocrisy that are deeply ingrained in Russia. I understand why this film caused such an uproar in Putin's Russia. I can only imagine that problems like the ones depicted in Leviathan are widespread. Recently the murder of an opposition figure brings to light the violence that is such a part of Russian politics.

This film is a testament to how Russia is. Was it better under the Communists? Was there less corruption and murder? Those are questions that this film brings up. Those are questions the Putin regime seeks to answer with proclamations that the fall of the Soviet Union was the greatest disaster of the 20th century. It's recent seizure of Crimea and support of separatists in Eastern Ukraine are clear displays that Putin wants to lead Russia to renewed international prominence. Yet that requires further questions, how many dead bodies must there be before Russia seeks to change itself? How much corruption can be tolerated until there is a need for renewal? How long will Putin last?

Perhaps I'm overestimating the ideas this film evokes. Yet it is a clear portrayal of Russia. It's characters reveal the lives of Russians and the problems they face. I couldn't help noticing how much everyone drank. I also noticed how the Orthodox priest was in alliance with the gangster mayor. This is a far cry from the Stalinist Soviet Union which expunged Russia of religion. The character of the man who was removed from his home was particularly interesting. He drank and smoked and stated his opinion frankly. In the end he was imprisoned for the murder of his wife. The trial was not shown so I thought he may have been convicted under false pretenses. By that time I felt a deep sympathy for his character. I thought the director or writer developed his character arc very well.

Yet it was the theme of the house being taken away from him that stood out to me. At the end of the film the house is destroyed. I suppose the house could be a symbol of Russian individual rights. In the age of Putin Russians have little say against a regime that uses gangsterism and intimidation to get what it wants.

A great film from a great director. It is too bad it didn't win the Oscar for best foreign film.

Review of Mr. Turner by Leigh

This was the longest depiction of Mr. Turner that I've seen so far. I've seen some artist bibliographies, but haven't seen a narrative that deals with his life. It is a very good portrayal of his life. The central theme of the film is a little obscure, but one can speculate that it is the artists' status in society that is the main question of the film. Throughout the film it is up for discussion the place of the artist's place in society. He is undoubtably a great artist. Yet, the question remains what is his status over time? He had two mistresses and children by one, are we to judge the main ill because of his troubles with women?

Furthermore, is his choice of subject matter dull or uninspired? Do all of those oceanic crashes lose appeal over time? I think some of them are pinnacles of aritistic expression. They gave birth to the impressionist movement in France. Perhaps not wholely, but in part yes.

The film is an interesting portrait of Mr. Turner. It follows his life from young adulthood until death. We see how he made a living painting. He had a studio which he exhibited his works.

What is most interesting, perhaps, is his ventures to a vacation spot. He takes up temporary residence in a seaside resort and eventually takes a lover from the residence he lives in. They go on to live comfortably. He dies in the care of his mistress. Which is questionable. Then again Mr. Turner was not a swell looker, so perhaps it was all he could get. Let's not pass too harsh a judgement on him.

The film was interesting in it's techniques. The camera work was good, but not great. The editing was adequate, not innovative. It all worked to bring about a story of England's greatest painter of the 19th century. The story was interesting and held my attention for all of it's time. It was a credit to Mike Leigh and his record of film making.

Review of Brideshead Revisited

This is quite possibly the best long for series ever. Jeremy Irons is great as Charles Ryder. It is the series that made him star. His performance is superb as Charles Ryder the upper middles class, but not quite upper class, oxford student who falls in with Sebastian Flyte. Flyte is the incorrigle upper class drunkard who takes full advantage of his class position vis a vis Ryder. This review will be about the first two episodes of Brideshead. I've longed thought of Brideshead as the most appropriate series to go along with Cannidines's book about the Decline and Fall of the British Aristocracy. This series is the longest, thirteen episodes, to deal with the subject of Britain's slow decline in WWI and WWII. I've seen A Dance to the Music of Time which was Anthony Powell's very well done treatment of those years, but Brideshead is better; more serious, more tense, and, perhaps, more accurate in it's portrayal of Imperial decline. Regrettably I've not read Cannadine's book. Yet, I have seen both long form series which do not dissapoint in any way.

I save this space to write further about these long form series which are making a comeback with the growth of webisodes and binge watching among younger viewers who are eshewing television for the web. I can only say that the settings of Brideshead are impeccable. I was awe struck by the portrayals of Oxford and the Marchmain estate. Simply fantastic.

The performances are good; so far. Of course there is Jeremy Irons who plays the reserved Charles Ryder. Throughout the first two episode I could not think of why he endures such treatment by Sebathian. As to why he is so obseessed with his class position vis a vis Sebastian. Yet, I detect, this was a symptom of the times. The whole of British society was obsessed with class, the empire, and gaining money at whatever cost. Similarly the New York of the times was obsessed with money, jazz, and status. Until the Depression struck with a resounding crash that's all New York thought about.

I've seen the series before so I know the outcome. I've also studied the Great Depression so I know the outcome of that catastrophe.

It is clearly a portrayal of the decline of the aristocracy in this long form series. And I think it is the best portrayal of the upper class's loss of status that has been done to date. It raises questions about Capitalism and inequality that the film doesn't answer, yet. It may show how unequal and uneccesary the upper class was to British society during the war period.

To be continued....

Another Look at Godard's Breathless (Screenplay and Film)

Bon. This film is what launched Jean luc Godard into super stardom. It put him and the French New Wave on the map. I have seen the film 5 or 6 times and every time the film is better. It still has the punch, the radicalism, the avant garde sensibility that it did the first time. It is truly a milestone in filmmaking and film history. Like Rosselini's Rome Open City it started a revolution in filmmaking. Before films were, for the most part, stuffy, over produced, period pieces and/or costume dramas that lacked realism or any innovation. Breathless meant that anyone could make a film. All you needed was a camera and some actors. Perhaps I'm overestimating a bit, but I really think this is a crucial film in the development of cinema. Before producers would have balked at a film with shoestring cinematography and jump cuts. After Breathless, their proved to be a possiblity that films of this kind could find an audience.

The scene I like best, and that I am always returning to on youtub is the bedroom scene. It lasts about 15-20 minutes and is so entertaining. It wasn't scripted at all. Godard made the script girl stand outside of the apartment the whole time they were shooting. Much of it was improvisation. And it works incredibly well. The chemistry between Belmondo and Seberg is legendary. The way they work off one another; him always pushing, she always denying. Until finally she relents. All in the space of a small apartment. It also reveals much about Paris and France of the times. The growing youth movement, the disaffection with De Gaulle, the love of jazz and sex. It was quite controversial to have pre-marital sex in Catholic France. Maybe it was this film that broke down some barriers with regards to sex before marriage? I' ll have to do some research on that.

The narrative is also heartbreaking. Why does Seberg turn in Belmondo? Why doesn't she run away with him to Italy? The end is so bittersweet. The couple that is so in love, willing to evade the police, yet she turns on him in the end. And he totally resigns. He says he prefers prison. I couldn't believe it. I was hoping he would run away with the money and never be found. I guess I was hoping for a more "Hollywood" end to the film. After all it's a nouvelle vague film. What would you expect? Tres triste!

The film doesn't follow strictly the three act structure. There is a setup, Bel Mondo shoots the cop, there is a conflict, will he move away to Italy, and there is a resolution, he gives up and is shot to death. Yet, there is the bedroom scene which is long and seems to meander, if that's the right word, perhaps it's existentialist philosophizing? Whatever it is it creates a lull in the action. Yet it is the best scene in the film and makes the whole betrayal of Belmondo that much more heartbreaking.

I read the screenplay to the film too. It was done in a style I'm not used to. It had all the camera angles in the script. The dialogue was there, but it was much different from a Paul Schrader screenplay which reads like a novel. This must be a European format. I found it when I read some of RWF's Marriage of Maria Braun. That one also had all the camera angles in it. The film followed the screenplay to the letter. There were no differences in the film to the screenplay. It was a good read, pretty fast, and not boring.

Review of Weekend by Godard

This might be Godard's best film. It is, perhaps, the most nonlinear of his films. The action mainly happens in the beginning of the film. Then it circles back and reveals it's meaning in the long monologues of the trash collectors. Finally, it makes a final conclusion with cannibals and guerrilla fighters. It is hard to make sense of this film. Is it an allegory for the France of 1968? Is it seeking to describe or depict the chaos and upheaval of those times? What does the film mean? What is it saying about the times it seeks to depict? Or about human nature in general? Or about post-colonialism? I, for one, enjoyed Godard's monologues inserted with the garbage collectors. I though, for it's time, or for contemporary times, rarely did a clear statement of the political philosophy of African or Arab nationalists get such a free forum in which their ideologies get a place for exposition.

The last bit about the cannabilists, I think, shows the chaos of the late sixties. In my documentary film class we watched the Maysles Stones documentary about the end of the Summer of love. And it seemed to me that this film was about the student protests of ' 68 that engulfed France and of which Godard was such a willing participant. This time was also when the decisive break with Truffaut came about. Truffauth wanted nothing to do with the student protest which were decidedly Marxist-Leninist. Godard on the other hand embraced the student movement and was one of their most ardent supporters. If my memory serves me correct he even supported the takeover of the Cinematique Francais to show more protest friendly works.

Perhaps the best part of this film is the long take of all the traffic stoppages. The death and carnage that is on the highway along the voyage to the female leads father's home is tres cool! tres super! I showed in my film class as part of a lesson about the long take. Of course this was before digital technology had allowed filmmakers to shoot for days without changing the reel. Now, filmmakers can shoot for hours without changing the reel. The shot was very innovative for it's time. I still watch it with aw.

The first time I watched this film I didn't get the last part with the cannibals. I checked out earlier and didn't remember the cannibals. Now, when I watched the film for a second time, I really see how the cannibals are an allegory for crazy people from the late 60's. I could see how the cannibal gang is similar to the manson gang who committed those ghastly murders in the late 60's. I'm not sure if Godard meant to allegorize that gang, but it comes pretty close to the heart of the extremes of that era.

This was a bounce back for Godard. It might have been, as Richard Brody stated in his book, Godard's high point. Of course there was Breathless, Weekend might have been his high point during the 60's when he was considered to be at his zenith of creative output. Yet, I've seen some of his later works and they have very few shortcoming too. Richard Brody has written about these films and truly they are not to be missed. I will blog about them in other posts.

Review of Fassbinder's The American Soldier

This was part of the criterion collections early Fassbinder series. I 've begun to notice some particular qualities about Fassbinder films, at least his early ones. The films are short. Not one is over 2 hours. And they all have a simplicity to them. There is no big theme or action. The stories are simple. With few characters, limited dialogue, and not too much action. This film, The American Soldier, is like that. Not much happens and the dialogue is kept to a minimum. The visual makeup of the film is also nothing spectacular. It does have a stylistic quality to it. It is an auteur film. The markings of Fassbinder are apparent in the film.

The style of the film is what was most apparent to me. I liked the short dialogue. The intrigue of a conspiracy at a police department. The big twist at the end where he is faced with the choice of whether to kill his new love or abscond with her to Japan. Of course he is stupid and shoots the girl. I detected a lot of sexism in this film. It was also prevalent in Fassbinder's Magnum Opus Berlin Alexanderplatz. Women in his films are often abused and rarely rise above the level of cabaret singer. There was also a strange sililoquy in the film. The maid sits at the end of the bed and tells a story while the killer and the prostitute make out. It is a stange interlude that really had no baring on the narrative.

This film reminded me of Love is Colder than Death another entry in the early Fassbinder series. Both films are simplicitic and pack a powerful ending. Yet, neither film rises to the complexity, visually or thematically, that Fassbinder's later work does. Specifically I'm referring to his BRD trilogy which I watched a while back. I will watch it again as part of my annotated bibliography for my screenwriting group.

The American Soldier also reminded me of American film noir of the 30's, 40's, and 50's. Yet there are differences. The main character is darker than the relatively quite American Noir detective/hero. Humphrey Bogart would never appear in the buff in any of his films. Furthermore he would never appear, or at least to my knowledge, never appeared on screen having sex with a sex worker. So, Fassbinder elaborates on the Noir detective/hero in his film which I found to be interesting and entertaining.

A good film. Not his best though.

Review of Chabrol's Les Biches

This was the first Claude Chabrol film that I have seen. I have seen a lot of Godard. One Varda, Cleo cinq au sept, but little else of the French Nouvelle Vague. I enjoyed this film. Most of all because of it's sensuality and display of sexuality. Yet the cruelty of the lead character was painfully obvious. It reminded me of a Kristen Scott Thomas film. It is one where she is brutally murdered by a corporate underling. In fact the hallway scene from this film, Les Biches, is remarkably similar to the scene from the Scott Thomas film. I would hazard a guess that it is a homage to Chabrol's film. A well deserved salute to Chabrol.

The film develops slowly. As with Le Beau Serge, Chabrol seems to develop his film narratives. This one is, perhaps more visually sumptuous given the regal setting of St. Tropez in the South of France. The swinging sixties are in full display. She is with her female lover. There is a gay couple that lives in the house. Drinks flow freely. It is a great time to be alive. And, of course, rich and living in the South of France.

Yet there is trouble lurking. I guess now is the time to remember when your family told you to avoid crazy street people, because that is exactly what the artist in this picture turns out to be. She is schizophrenic and obsessed with her former lover. I did feel sympathy for the spurned lover. She fell in love with a man from the party, slept with him, only to have him stolen away by the rich lesbian. Or faux lesbian. Or bisexual. Whatever you would like to call her. She proves to be a very dastardly bitch. How could she? The narrative climbs along. Slowly we see the two lovers grow deeper in love. Slowly she turns her back on her former lesbian life. Slowly we see the jilted lover becoming more and more obsessed. She eyeballs the antique knife. It becomes obvious what may happen next. Until it does.

I thought the story in this film was very strong. It has been said that Chabrol is a master of suspense. I suppose one could compare him to Hitchcock, which after this film would be a due compliment. Yet, this is the first film I have seen of Chabrol that is suspense. Le Beau Serge is somewhat of a suspense film. This one clearly marks a development point for Chabrol. At least as far as I know. It is also clear that this film was more expensive. The women are much prettier than the men from his previous films. The sets are better. The camera is freer and more creative. I don't know how much this cost, but I would guess it was more than Le Beau Serge. I have yet to see Les Cousins or any of Chabrol's films, but I will watch them, and will blog. Sayonara!

Review of On the Bowery by Rogosin

This was the first film I've seen about NYC history that deviates from the Ric Burns documentary about NYC. I've seen that film I don't know how many times, but it has served as the basis for my knowledge of NYC over the course of several decades. It was the earliest film I can recollect about addiction and living homeless or down and out.  I'm currently writing a screenplay about the drug trade and the criminal element that has grown up around it. This film serves as a basis about addiction depictions in film.

I thought this film really hit a nerve. I've been down to the Bowery and Chinatown and Little Italy and it is not as bad as this film makes it out to be. On my last trip down to the Bowery there were high rise apartments and luxury hotels. A far cry from it's reputation as the "skid row" of NYC. I guess that's a good thing the drunks and junkies will have to find a new place to cavort. The film was good, it was short, but still stung a stinging blow in terms of social realism. The drunks depicted in this short film are just as bad as any depicted in Jack Kerouac's On the Road or other novel of hobos, drunks, and other sorts. In fact I imagined this film as a Jack Kerouac novel on film. I've read a few Kerouac novels and this seems like a depiction of one of them.

The narrative of this film is dire. There are no happy endings. One presumes that the drunkard gets out alive, but who knows? For all we know he ends back on skid row vying for his next drink. The film's action never really veres into high intensity. There is a scene when the leading man ends up passed out on the street, his suitcase stolen from him, with no where to go. It is a gritty scene, but it is very short.

The most gritty scenes are where the cabal of drunkards is scheming for it's next drink. They manipulate the new guy in town; they get him to buy a bottle f wine, steal his suitcase, then leave him for dead in the street. There is a brief respite in the Bowery Mission, yet he is still alone, alcholic and destitute.

The film is one of social poignancy. Questions of prohibition ran through my mind as I watched the film. The questions about legalizing booze had been settled years ago. Yet, the questions of addiction and destitution were still lively topics as this film shows. I suppose this film could be updated to the debate about legalizing drugs. That topic is still up in the air. And the Bowery is a much cleaner place to date. 

Final Thoughts on Everything is Cinema by Richard Brody

I have finished Brody's book about Godard. I read the last 200 pages or so these past few weeks. The material mostly deals with Godard's later works that, regrettably, are hard to find on DVD. I've found a few but not everyone. Last night I watched Hail Mary which I thought was great. Much better than Ici et Ailleurs. The late 70s were not a great period for Godard. In fact you could probably call it his "wilderness period" to all of the 70s when he left Paris and eventually, returned to Switzerland where he now makes his work and life.

One discernible trend I detected, especially in the last 50 pages of the book, is Godard trending more and more to the extreme right following a large portion of French society. In recent times and espcecially after the attacks on the magazine Charlie Hebdo, France has gone more to the right. Godard has led or followed that trend. Brody talks about Godard's anti-semitism and his adherence to support of the Palestinian cause. I didn't detect that Godard made any outlandish statements. For example comparing the concentration camps to what Israel does to Palestinians. So there is some level of reason behind his, however objectionable, political stances.

Remarkably Godard has remained productive throughout the 80s and 90s, yet you get the sense that he has reached another block in his work. His last film was not well attended or well received by critics suggesting that Godard has fallen back into relative obscurity. Yet, Brody says a the end of his book that as long as Godard keeps making films, Cinema will still be alive and have a place in culture.

Over the course of the last few chapters Godard returned again and again to Cinema's role as a marker for art and humanity. He, as I interpreted the book, makes the claim that Cinema or any art lost efficacy after the Shoah or Holocaust. He makes an interesting point about whether we can truly call ourselves sophisticated or human after that atrocity was committed. From his ruminations about the Holocaust, which according to Godard, was never dealt with by Hollywood, what role does Cinema play in culture? In politics? If Cinema is supposed to be an agent for change, then does it still retain that role after WWII and the Shoah? I guess I would quote Samuel Beckett's famous words; "I can't go on. I'll go on."

Godard's films are intertwined with his politics and his intellectualism. His film Sauve Qui Peu brought him out of the wilderness and Brody calls it his second first film. Godard tried to revive his art again to little success in the early 2000s.

I agree with Brody's statement that Godard is at the center of filmmaking. Brody comments that some people have said that Godard is out of touch, but I think he is very much in touch with the World and his films show that. His thoughts about the Middles East are clear evidence of that. As are his right leaning opinions. I think Godard is a voice that should be paid attention to.

Review of Godard's Hail Mary

Hail Mary may have been JLG's most controversial film. At least the subject matter is it's most controversial. In it he tackles the ever thorny subject of the immaculate conception and evolution. These twin topics often get Christians panties in a bunch. And, true to JLG, there are a number of shots of panties.

The first part of the film was learing a little too long on the pre- pubscent girl. The relationship between her father was another taboo topic that the film dealt with. I liked the dance scene where she moves around the open apartment. I really felt Godard captured the innocence of a young girl's life with little care for the World except music and dance.

I got a little lost in the transition from the young girl to the college girl. Eventually, not too long, I got it back and started following the real substance of the story; a college aged, or high school aged young woman becomes pregnant without having sex. This, of course, is directly taken from the story of Jesus' conception. In Richard Brody's book about JLG he talks of the controversy that surrounded the release of the film. Catholic groups were up in arms and staged some kind of a "stink bomb" during it's premiere. The film also had little release outside of France. If I remember correctly it was banned by the Pope and didn't play in Italy.

True to form some of the best parts of the film are visual. Yet I still found some dialogue to be interesting. And the story is compelling. Especially the last 40 minutes or so. After she grows up she works at a gas station and has a boyfriend whom she doesn't have relations with. This causes tension. How did she get pregnant? From whom? What is his role? Should he act as father? The questions are all somewhat resolved. After she has the baby, which is a boy, and, could be inferred that he is the second coming, her boyfriend becomes the surrogate father. Of course, the boy has a "God complex" and doesn't listen to his father. There the film ends which is a let down because the possibilities are endless, and could certainly evoke a harsh response from Christian groups. How would Jesus act in today's World? What would it mean if he were born? In France? To bourgeoisie parents? The film doesn't go there.

This film was part of Godard's, and French film's resurgence in the mid 80's. Godard made several films in this period which were all evocative of taboo issues; religious theology, pedophilia, adultery, and evolution. His other film, as Richard Brody notes, Sauve qui peu, turns the direction of Godard's filmmaking in a new and fresh direction. Brody calls that film which was the impetus for Every man for Himself as Godard's second Breathless. I will write a blog for that film under a seperate heading.

I enjoyed the film and I was taken in with the theosophy of the professor and the young girl's dilemna. Godard does an excellent job blending cinematography with human characters to create an emotional resonance which is felt with the situation of the girl.