Goodbye to Language (2014)

You know, it's always so common that people who dislike/hate films like this to call fans "pretentious", among other names, highlighting their reasons for liking films like these as having to do with self-importance. I do tend to like really out-there stuff so I know how it feels. But really, it just comes down to whether one enjoyed something like this or not. It's not about the "meaning", since one can like or dislike a film regardless of how well they understood it. Despite not knowing what the hell this was saying, I was actually enjoying it. I'm sure some hated it from the get-go and it was torture, but for me the first 30 minutes had me mostly intrigued. That fascination with it lessened as the film went on. I don't think something like this really works for more than 30 minutes, at most. I'm sure some would disagree, but while I don't hate it, I'm not a fan of it overall. I enjoyed it until I didn't, simple as that.

Fmovies: 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

In the end I felt as if 70 minutes of my life had been stolen... not to mention nauseous from the unbelievably bad 3D cinematography/editing. How could it have won an award? This film was a mishmash of Hitler, nudity, and too many overly long scenes of an ugly man sitting on a toilet. There was no discernible plot, no character development... The best thing about the film was the home movie of Godard's dog and even that had been spoiled by over saturated colors and poorly applied 3D. Apparently this movie is the result of a combination of an over-the- hill "art" director and his cadre of sycophants. My recommendation is to save your money, avoid it when it comes to netflix.

Goodbye to Language fmovies. This film, however philosophical it may be, will hurt you. Not in a way where you empathize with the characters so you come out stronger or more appreciative of what you have in your own life. I mean the film will literally cause you pain while you attempt to watch it. There are multiple scenes where Godard interlaces two scenes on-screen at the same time, which causes eye strain when watching with 3D glasses so much that I had to look away (and I have never before had trouble with IMAX or 3D). The sound mixing is so poorly done with stark contrasts and "experimental" shifts in the audio channels, that it gave me headaches. The only reason I kept watching was because I was in a theater and kept hoping the best star of the film, the dog, would do something interesting. Instead, I was subjected to watching a man on a toilet for what must have been at least five minutes. That is what should be on the movie poster instead -- to warn viewers of the most representative content. I've read my fair share of philosophy and have been to France twice, so I certainly thought I might like this. Instead, I would rank this within the worst five films I have ever seen. I'm almost inclined to watch Batman & Robin again to see which is more deserving of a Razzie.

"Those lacking imagination take refuge in reality." (Beginning on-screen text)

Reality, equality, sexuality, conviviality, and more come from New Wave patriarch Jean Luc Godard in his newest exciting expressionistic mess, Goodbye Language 3D. It's a mash up of images that in the end add up to the master's take on the corruptions of communication, even his beloved cinema, and the challenges of loving while dealing with that very French "existentialism." The opening statement quoted above establishes the challenge of being your own person, your own creator, in the face of the world's sensory and intellectual influences. After all, for the existentialist it takes a lifetime to create a character, which in Godard's view of things, is shaped by forces outside the person, and inevitably doomed, except for the dog.

He is the avatar of uncorrupted essence, a Godardian motif whose sensory life is its whole life, with the exception of loving humans more than itself. The complicating factor of clashing characters, even those we communicate with daily, is expressed in a naked, adulterous couple. They seem to clash about staying with each other, having babies, and possibly the ennui of making love over an extended time.

As he sits on the "throne" like The Thinker, with accompanying scatological sounds, and naked she stares, he declares that "thought reclaims its place in poop." Well, life does become "s__t" for many humans, at least as Godard interprets life, but we share the crap together, equally, so to speak. On the TV screen, Godard places Ava Gardner and Gregory Peck mooning after each other in The Snows of Kilimanjaro. But that's the unreal movies, Godard's artistic medium, which is not the reality of the defecating lover.

In the end, it's about expressing us, as Godard ironically does in his title, emphasizing the participation of new technology like 3D. Images are his world, and seemingly he uses them to express his feeling of chaos in the film world. When he overlaps stereo images to confuse the audience, he is visually representing the fusion of contemporary conflicts in the image-communication grid. When a bookseller observes that Solzhenitsyn didn't need Google, Godard makes a powerful case for the non-technical world.

Goodbye to Language 3D is a sassy, subversive, disconcerting, sometimes humorous angle of vision from the infant terrible of French cinema and a cinematic prophet of doom. It's a long way from the carefree "Breathless" but close to the contemporary Babel of world dysfunction. Only a dog can see the world as it really is: We are getting things wrong all over the globe.

To call a post-Nineties Jean-Luc Godard's film "accessible" would be a stretch. But his new one, Goodbye to Language, is discernibly more appealing and less of a slog (70 minuets instead of 104) than his Film Socialisme (NYFF 2010). The latter occasioned Todd McCarthy's angry-sounding assertion that Godard is mean-spirited and exhibits "the most spurious sort of anti-Americanism or genuinely profound anti-humanism, something that puts Godard in the same misguided camp as those errant geniuses of an earlier era, Pound and Céline." This is less visible in Goodbye to Language, which spends a lot of time with a naked middle-class white couple in an apartment, and with Godard's own dog, Roxy, and is playful enough to be shot in 3D, of which it makes some good use. I do not see that use as "revolutionary," as Mike D'Angelo did in a Cannes bulletin for The Dissolve. I think in the face of a rote-acknowledged "master" (and Godard really did seem exciting and revolutionary back in the days of Breathless and La Chinoise) whom one can't make head nor tail of, it's natural to pick out elements one enjoys and blow them up into something important. Thus one notes that the distorted color in Goodbye to Language is sometimes gorgeous. And one wishes that more mainstream films dared to do such things more often, with one excuse or another.

Goodbye to Language, like Film Socialisme, is divided up into parts with portentous titles, which one would remember if they seemed to illustrate their titles in any relatable way. The NYFF festival blurb calls this "a work of the greatest freedom and joy," but it's not. It's didactic, full of general nouns (like "freedom" and "joy") thrown out with the verve of a French university student. It cites fifteen or twenty famous authors whose names were dropped or lines quoted; and ten or twelve classical composers, snippets of whose compositions are folded in to add flavor and importance. But when Mike D'Angelo says "it doesn't constantly seem as if he's primarily interested in demonstrating his own erudition," he's saying this because other Godard films have constantly seemed to be primarily interested in that, and this one just barely avoids it.

Here's what D'Angelo observes in the film's 3D that he thinks revolutionary (and this one moment is indeed remarkable): "Turns out he'd had the camera pan to follow an actor walking away from another actor, then superimposed the pan onto the stationary shot, creating (via 3-D) a surreal loop that, when completed, inspired the audience to burst into spontaneous applause. " It's hard to describe, and strange, and indeed original. I'd very much like to have watched this sequence -- which you do have to take off your 3D glasses to appreciate the transformative nature of -- with an audience keen enough to have noted its cleverness and applauded it. The audience I was with applauded at the end, but that just felt like an obligatory gesture, not the "olé" of connoisseurs noting a visual coup.

As D'Angelo says, since the Nineties Godard has been "a full-bore avant-garde filmmaker." This means his films are the kind of thing you might see showing in a loop in a darkened room of a museum. When any film makes no rational sense I remember my museum experiences of that kind of art film and am calmed. Such films have their place. They are like complex decorative objects. Yes, a