User Reviews (24)

Add a Review

  • I first saw Notre Musique at the NY film festival, and responded to it strongly because it was, after going through a slew of his more recent work of the 80s and 90s (often hit or miss, more miss), a very well structured, interesting picture with a very distinct look and feel that balanced the elegiac and darkness with some light. Watching it again, I'm still fascinated most by the first segment 'Hell'. If this was just a stand-alone short film, I would rank it among some of Godard's best work from the 60s. It's brash, it's seemingly unending, the narration actually does fit the images on screen (which, from my perspective, is what ends up usually irking me with some of Godard's later work when he does this), and all of these images of civilization decaying through war and other disasters, and the machinery and technology used for all of this death and horror, really works to a great effect.

    Purgatory, the second segment, is often quite good, as it's a really well-balanced mix of fiction and documentary as real life writers and professors and journalists go through issues like Sarajevo, troubles in the middle east, and cinema itself as Godard humorously and sometimes somberly goes through a lecture to some students as he's part of the setting. There's even a perfectly understated, interested performance by the lead Sarah Adler. When the film then transforms into the last act, Paradise, it kind of starts to break some of the power and interest in the previous sections of the film (I didn't really connect with much of the symbolism, as beautifully photographed as it all was). But what ends up really impressing me most about Notre Musique is that I really could understand most, if not all, of what many of these long stretches of dialog were about- unlike in some past, notoriously messy films by the director- and it worked without Godard's way of filming subjects and locations. Julien Hirsch's cinematography, going through the director's vision, is often so striking I'd say it's some of the best that was done in 2004 anywhere.

    There's still some kind of documentarian's spirit at heart, and it really does work best in the conversations that go on in the film, as lots of subject matter gets covered. This mixed with a partially fictionalized story helps to make something pretty special, if not really sensational, and in its 80 minute running time nothing overstays its welcome. If anything, the film is almost too short by a few minutes. It's a mix of history, politics, poetry, cinema, and the meanings of life and death, and not often does it come off pretentious.
  • Some film critics, like Stuart Klawans of "The Nation" magazine, Desson Thomson of "The Washington Post," and Manohla Dargis of "The New York Times," have hailed this latest effort from Godard, the undisputed giant of the French New Wave, in glowing terms. I think it's a sloppy little film that wouldn't have seen the light of the big screen thousands of miles from home were it not for the fact that it was made by a legendary director.

    "Notre Musique" is divided into three sections: the first (12 minutes) is subtitled "Kingdom 1 – Hell" and the last (6 minutes) is called "Kingdom 3 – Heaven." The long middle section (62 minutes) is "Kingdom 2 – Purgatory." "Hell" is a montage depicting scenes of war – battles and the carnage that is created by war - made of clips from documentary archival footage and fictional feature films. "Heaven" is a contemporary shoot in a lush park-like setting next to a lake, where it's peaceable and sunny, a lovely stream meanders through, and a few people frolic about. Both of these brief sequences could easily have been made by film school students.

    It's difficult to describe the main middle section. It takes place at an international conference in Sarajevo of intellectuals, literati, journalists, diplomats and arts people. Was it an actual conference or something staged for the film? You can't tell just from watching. Several well known people play themselves, including Godard. But mixed in among them are actors playing roles of people given other names.

    There's lots of talk. A number of big ideas are casually put on the table, some intriguing but entirely unexplored (example: "killing a man to defend an idea isn't defending an idea, it's killing a man"), some certainly questionable or debatable (examples: "humane people don't start revolutions, they start libraries…or cemeteries," or "if the house is already on fire, it's foolish to try to save the furniture"), others simply false on the face of it (example: "The only serious philosophical problem is suicide").

    There are allusions to the Nazis; to the destruction - during the Bosnian war - and recent reconstruction of the nearby ancient Mostar Bridge, first built in 1566; to the perennial middle east problem of Palestine and Israel; to the seeming universality of man's inhumanity to man (example: Native Americans in full tribal regalia standing solemnly alongside the Mostar Bridge).

    There is footage wasted on various moving forms of transportation – planes, buses, cars, trains, streetcars – and on people getting into and out of cars, like typical filler footage in a third rate TV drama from Burbank, CA. And there are little meaningless toss off scenes, like an impassive waiter serving flutes of wine carefully to six people seated around a table, a scene that segues into another, in which a fat male guest intrusively wraps a hammy arm around a shapely impassive waitress and pushes her through a little faux dance. So what's that all about…the well off – even intellectuals – exploiting working people? Who knows.

    The best bits occur in a seminar conducted by Godard himself, about the way in which cinema can portray opposite tendencies in human nature and society, what he refers to as "shot" and "reverse shot." He mentions several such polarities, e.g., certainty vs. ambiguity, victim vs. criminal. Another example: Godard asserts that the story of Jews in Israel is fiction, while the story of the Palestinians is documentary. What does that mean? One wonders.

    Well, it's true that a larger-than-life romantic aura has developed around the Israelis and their struggle to secure a homeland over the past 60 years, while we think of Palestinians instead in undramatic, concrete terms of poverty, joblessness, lack of infrastructure, ineffective leadership, and so on.

    Regarding cinema, Godard's comments made me think of scenes from the recent propagandistic documentary about Hugo Chavez and Venezuela, "The Revolution Will Not be Televised." In that film there is a sequence in which shots are fired from a bridge into a crowd below. Viewed from one angle, the scene invites the interpretation that opposition snipers are firing on a pro-Chavez crowd, but, viewed from another angle, the opposite conclusion is possible: that Chavez's people are shooting at opposition protesters. What is the truth? Both versions? Neither?

    Animating this theme further are two young women who seem also to represent opposites. There is Judith Lerner (played by actress Sarah Adler), an Israeli journalist who chooses to live in Palestine. She has come to Sarajevo because "I wanted to see a place where reconciliation seems possible." Judith is an optimist. On the other hand we have Olga (Nade Dieu) who is depressed and suicidal, despite her comfortable life. She holds herself back from suicide only because she fears pain and the next world. In the end she is shot by marksmen, we are told, and we rejoin her in the final Heaven sequence.

    I do agree with Godard that Purgatory could easily be imagined as a place where endless pseudo-intellectual blather keeps confusing and mesmerizing people, to their detriment. It's the sort of place that people who conduct themselves in this manner during life deserve to be stuck in for the hereafter. Talk is cheap and yet sometimes it has the power to move whole nations toward war or self destruction. Is this what he's driving at? Who can tell?

    The only basis for recommending this film is that it is the creation of one of the great filmmakers of the last 50 years, and we owe Godard this respect, to observe any new work of his, approaching it soberly and with openness. But we are not required to genuflect to the master, casting a blind eye toward mediocrity. (In French, Arabic, English, Hebrew, Serbo-Croatian & Spanish) My rating: 6/10 (B-). (Film seen on 02/07/05). If you'd like to read more of my reviews, send me a message for directions to my websites.
  • "Notre Musique" could be either a late night college bull session or one of those Monty Python skits where historical warmongers sit around rationally comparing their various atrocities with a coolly objective BBC moderator.

    Maybe it's a French intellectual's reality show pitch: we'll set up a dialog between a Jew and a Palestinian at a literary meeting in bombed-out Sarajevo as observed by living ghost Native Americans after bombarding them with images of war and genocide through 19th and 20th century history.

    Amidst this trumped-up pretentiousness, Godard the filmmaker does make some good points about war and memory. While the historical images, both from fiction and journalism, are colorized to contemporize them, one easily concedes, yeah, war is hell and hey didn't "Saving Private Ryan" prove that to us, when Godard cannily trumps that thought by discussing how war in fiction - from legend and poetry to movies -- touches people more than the reality.

    Then just as you're about to protest, hey, you're showing all these war images without their raison d'etre, Godard springs into a profound verbal and visual illustration of the importance of context, leading to an appreciation of how history is written by the victors. The points about the impact on Western psyche of the Trojans from Homer's perspective were more insightful than all of the "Troy" movie.

    However, those debaters that are translated in the subtitles talk in didactic epigrams that will make more sense when one can rewind the DVD for reflection (including the explanation of the title). The French intellectual smug superiority gets annoying -- we don't see any images of WW II collaborators vs. Resistance fighters, let alone colonial legacy issues in Algeria or Muslims in France today.

    While I'm not sure if the images of discarded books amidst the ruins of war were about the hopelessness of literature and the arts or its unquenchable survival as some are salvaged, Godard has an intellectual's faith in the power of dialog (and cigarette smoking), though pessimistic about the ability of the media to communicate it effectively, as he sets up an overly freighted discussion between an idealistic and ambitious young Israeli woman of Russian descent, whose grandparents were saved from the Holocaust by a Righteous Gentile, and an articulate Palestinian writer, as translated by another Wandering French/Israeli Jew.

    I think he was also trying to incorporate suicide bombers into the trajectory of French intellectual thought from Durkheim to Camus that sees it as an existential act of protest against anomie, but well, Jean Luc, we can't all be French.

    Typical for a Godard film, the woman to my right gushed that it was her second screening and it was her favorite of his films, and the woman on my left said she couldn't figure out what it was about.
  • When you go on holiday, do you ever say, "Oh Look! Look at that"? How does sharing it make it different for us? How is the experience lessened when we don't have another person there?

    A scientist measures position and momentum of a particle, but no matter how accurate the measurements, there is always an uncertainty in the results. This Nobel Prize theory is known as 'Heisenberg's uncertainty principle' and has profound implications for physics and philosophy. (At the atomic and sub-atomic level, an act of observation noticeably affects what is being observed.)

    Godard mentions Heisenberg through one of his (Heisenberg's) anecdotes. Godard's main interest is funnelled through the cinematic device of shot/reverse angle shot. He examines how it can enlarge understanding of deeper issues. In Notre Musique, Godard is protagonist not for political ideology or social comment. He is flag-bearer. For film. For poetry. For film-as-poetry. Like Maya Deren in her copious writings on cinematic theory, he shoulders the burden of artist-filmmaker with all seriousness, proffering a new language. A different way to view the world. He becomes the lens. We make it our camera.

    "Heisenberg and Bohr," he says, "were walking in the Danish countryside, talking about physics. They come to Elsinore Castle. The German scientist said, 'Oh, there's nothing special about this castle.' The Danish physicist said, 'Yes, but if you say, "Hamlet's Castle," then it becomes special.'

    Godard stars as himself in this mix of documentary, fiction and montage. He is speaking about on text and image, at the European Literary Encounters Conference in Bosnia. In the Heisenberg story, 'Hamlet's Castle' becomes a literary 'shot/reverse shot.' Godard concerns us with the power of romanticism. His takes on Israeli-Palestinian conflict are refreshingly non-judgemental. Notre Musique calls for a revolution of creative force, "that reinforces memory, clarifies dreams and gives substance to images." Continuing his discourse on the power of the 'real' and the 'poetic,' Godard explains how, "the Jews become the stuff of fiction: the Palestinians, of documentary." (Look at the cinematic output of both, and how Palestinians are defined largely in relation to Israel.)

    One storyline concerns two young girls visiting Sarajevo – a place 'where reconciliation seems possible.' Judith is an Israeli journalist. She interviews, among others, Palestinian intellectual and celebrated poet, Mahmoud Darwich. (In Darwich's work, Palestine becomes a metaphor for the loss of Eden, for birth and resurrection, and for the anguish of dispossession. As with Heisenberg, this contextual reference is not explained in the film itself. Understanding them is not essential but does enrich the enjoyment of Notre Musique. ) Also at the Encounters is Olga, a Jewish-French student of Russian descent. She videos Godard's lecture and tries to give him a copy. In some ways, she is an alter-ego, a 'shot/reverse shot' of Judith.

    The concept of dialogue (in a non-verbal sense) is developed as Godard critiques 'shot/reverse shot' as part of his lecture. This cinematic device, usually used when two people are talking to each other, reverses the camera so we see each person seemingly from the other's viewpoint as they speak. The angle provides a mental continuity for us, even though both people are not on screen together. The actual change in camera angle, now a convention, is not really 180 degrees but anything from 120 to 160. The person is slightly offset, rather than directly facing the camera (which would also appear more confrontational).

    Notre Musique is one of Godard's most responsible, articulate and accessible works. Which makes it doubly shameful that many critics failed to expend the minimal energy required to engage with it, preferring instead to give a banal description that belies their clocking-on superficiality, and usually finishing with a self-satisfied dismissal by 'cleverly' observing that Godard has slightly misquoted something or that his ideas are too hard to follow. As if that mattered. (A more mature analysis was given by BFI writer Michael Witt who said the film, "functions simultaneously as a bulwark against the tyranny of received ideas and as a laboratory for the generation of fresh perspectives.") Notre Musique is structured into a somewhat artificial triptych of Hell, Purgatory and Heaven. The first covers the horrors of war through the ages up to the present. The second, mental scars left on survivors. The brief 'heaven' follows what might probably have been part two's tragic conclusion (related by a disembodied voice over a phone at the end of the second act). Cinematography and editing have all of Godard's hallmark crispness. Some of the subtitling is sloppy, even misspelling Bohr's name (something that will irritate adherents of form over substance).

    A glimpse of a penguin near the beginning gives it an almost anthropological tone, man portrayed as obsessively armed for the extermination of his own kind. Descending from the 'age of fable,' the hollowness of popular morality is hinted at briefly. A woman on her knees beseeches a soldier. The Lord's Prayer is quoted, "Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." Irony is underlined in a refrain, "As we forgive them, and no differently," which is twice repeated. It is not a song that has carried much weight against war. Can the music of artists and poets do any better? Recently I watched a multiplex trailer for 'this summer's movies.' It asked, and 'answered' everything I supposedly 'want' from films. Thrills. Excitement. Explosions. Laughs. Being whisked off to an imaginary world. And so on. I listened to the end of the list waiting in vain for something like, "being mentally stimulated." If you are also unsatisfied by the surfeit of cinematic trash that puts your brain on hold, this film might be for you. If, however, like the critics who simply rate it against competing blockbusters and find it lacking, you maybe do not wish to exercise any of those mental muscles then, like this humble review, it will not be the welcome sunbeam that makes or doesn't make your summer.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Godard divides "Our Music" into three loose segments, titled "Hell", "Purgatory" and "Heaven" respectfully. This structure strongly resembles both Dante's "Divine Comedy" and Pasolini's "Salo", though Godard's "Hell" is largely comprised of combat footage taken from documentaries and fictional war films. This compilation recalls Esther Shub's "Fall of the Romanov Dynasty" and Wertmuller's "Seven Beauties", and is itself divided further into four sub-sections, which mark a gradual, loose movement away from "all the wars" to "technology" to "victims of wars" to "war time Sarajevo". Here, humanity's music is almost exclusively bloodshed; hymns of violence. Over these images, a narrator speaks. Like Antonioni, all of Godard's dialogue is tangential. A kind of free-verse poetry.

    We're then "frozen" in Sarajevo. As purgatory, or limbo, is traditionally the first circle of hell, Sarajevo is also the last portion of the film's first section. Here, in a kind of war-torn stasis, introspective characters wander about buildings, wreckage, rubble and noirish cities. Everyone seems to be waiting for something. The film's setting is significant: a site of long-standing clashes between Christians, Jews and Muslims. The film's title itself alludes to the Latin root of "music", which referred to the muses of memory, voice and history. It's narrative arc – as epitomised by the in-film rebuilding of the Mostar Bridge, which allowed some peaceful connection between Catholics and Muslims – is that of a movement away from hell and toward some collective, common ground: our music.

    Typical of late-Godard, our cast muses whilst the world falls apart, the intellectual now impotent and incapable of either provoking movement or preventing collapse. Godard then tells the story of two young women who visit an arts conference in Sarajevo (Sarajevo being "The Jerusalem of Europe"). The first is Judith Lerner (German for "learning"), an Israeli journalist. The second is Olga Brodsky, a French speaking Russian Jew. We watch as Judith interviews the Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish, visits various landmarks, and then reads texts by Emmanuel Levinas. Levinas is known for his near-Buddhist philosophy of "ethics, responsibility and love". He denounced Western philosophy as being egocentric, damning it for filtering everything through the "prism of the subject", including all other people, whose natures were determined by "analogy to my own experience through inference". All other people, then, are defined in their relation to the subject, viewed with significance only as alter egos. Levinas believed this led to a "general forgetfulness of the face", the Other never truly valued ("Our Music" is obsessed with faces, our heroine's faces frequently mirrored to that of the Virgin Mary). To rectify this Levinas formulated a quasi-religious philosophy. Western philosophy's supreme, universal rationality, the "love of wisdom", then became the antithesis for Levinas' ethics: the ethics of "the wisdom of love". Godard's "Music" unfolds along similar lines.

    Meanwhile, Olga films the conference and attends a lecture by Godard himself. Here Godard sketches broad movements: Judith is drawn to light, Olga to dark, both psychologically weighing Israel and Palestine against each another. The film itself conflates the Bosnian conflict, Israeli/Palestinian hostilities, the Nazis, and the genocide of Native Americans, whose ghosts amble throughout the film.

    Godard's lecture within the film focuses on "shots" and "reverse-shots". He uses a sequence from a Howard Hawks film and states that Hawks can't distinguish between men and women (Hawks routinely cast "females in male roles"). "The State dreams to be one," someone then says, the state magnifying individual neuroses (a desire for imaginary wholeness, completion, unity). Jean-Paul Curnier then pops up and opines that "criminals can always accuse still bigger criminals," and thus become "victims themselves." Godard: "victims provide moral comfort to the dominant society."

    "Can digital save cinema?" Godard is asked. He remains silent. In the past he's denounced cinema as a now wasted gesture; a co-opted medium now unable to engender change. For Godard, when cinema's not lying, it's reaffirming truths for those who don't need to be spoken too. His later films are often more sketchbooks than "features", manifestos, video-essays or idea-banks designed to infect the thinking of "those who come after me". But he knows no one's following.

    Unsurprisingly, a disillusioned Olga leaves Godard's lecture (where else is she to go?), joins the Palestinian cause, becomes a "terrorist" and is shot by a marksman (see "Hadewijch" and "La Chinoise"). She dies with a bag of books. Godard: "Humane people start libraries, not revolutions." Our music plays incessantly, well-meaning prose unable to assuage blood. Indeed, much of the film's action takes place in a bombed, crumbling library, the present seemingly forever asphyxiating the "word" (of god, the humane, the past, history etc). Godard's character then receives a DVD of Olga's film. It contains her personal political statement, but is used by Godard as a symbol for the limitations of media, digital testaments and the futility of Olga's own death. Watch for a sniper's exit-wound in Olga's DVD case.

    The film's third segment shows Olga, whose name means "Holy", walking contemplatively through "Heaven" (Paradise, the Future). Hilariously, American soldiers, tasked with checking pulses, control the flow of people into Heaven. David Goodis' "Street of No Return" segues into the film's final line, itself the final line of Chandler's "Farewell, My Lovely". Whether such a place can, does or will exist is left up to the viewer. Olga then bites an apple, foreshadowing the Fall of Man in the Bible's Genesis.

    Like Godard's best films, "Music" gains tremendous power with re-watches. Because Godard delights in binaries (up/down, point/counterpoint), all movement is short-circuited. The film seems to go nowhere, every line, thought and gesture meeting its opposite. Typical of late-Godard, a mood of sadness suffuses. This is a ghost story, the characters long dead and clinging to their dilapidating cities and libraries. Every shot feels haunted; all emancipatory hope has departed, so the ghosts linger in their crumbling bastions. The film's Paradise is itself deliberately kitschy, the cosy pipe-dream of a dead radical's stunted imagination.

    8.9/10 – Multiple viewings required.
  • This is not entertainment...

    I'd seen Contempt (1963) and Breathless (1960) many years ago and thoroughly enjoyed both. After 1964, I sort missed all that he directed until now, which appeared on late-night TV. And no wonder it was on so late at night...

    It seems that, as many of us get older and maybe wiser, we like to expound on things philosophical. Bergman did it well, and without resorting to didactic circularity or confusion – and still managed to tell a good story. Woody Allen uses satire brilliantly for the same purpose.

    However, Godard here uses the bare bones of a simple, quasi-documentary style story – and one that it episodically fractured and with much symbolism – to reflect upon 'what it all means': that is, life, death and the whole damn thing. Using the current Israeli problem with Palestine and vice-versa, he explores the three concepts of Hell, Purgatory and Heaven, using each to show what humanity has done, what it's doing and where it should be going, respectively.

    The first, Hell, is obvious: with a montage of cuts from a multitude of news and film clips, Godard shows us the extent to which we prey upon each other even as we pray for each other. So, there are some real – all too real – scenes of the dead, the dying and the executed during the many wars that have been documented during the last hundred years or so. Nothing new here at all...

    The second, Purgatory (a place for waiting), is – well – an exposition about waiting: waiting for a bus, for a train, for a plane, for a meeting to start, for a bridge to be rebuilt, for a nation to recover from war, for people to begin to understand each other. And this is all done within the thin framework of the story of Olga (Nade Dieu), the Jewish journalist from Tel Aviv who is attending a lecture by Godard (playing himself) in Sarajevo, and who is trying to understand why human problems cannot seem to be resolved, no matter what. Significantly, by choosing just Olga, Godard has certainly brought his philosophy to a very personal level, and one with which we can all identify, more or less.

    All of that is rendered moot when Olga appears to commit an unspeakable act when she returns to Tel Aviv. Perhaps Godard should have told her that it's not the end that matters but the journey to achieve that end?

    The third – the shortest vignette – is our final destination: as a prisoner of Nature, complete with - American! - border guards who let Olga through to join the happy throng. Essentially: strip off civilization and return to our basics to find out who we really are...

    I think I'll stick with tackling prejudice, reducing global warming and trying to make a positive difference rather than taking Olga's choice.

    It's well filmed, as you'd expect from Godard; the music is, at times, quite beautiful to hear; and the Sarajevo mise-en-scene is a stark reminder of our collective sins. An annoying aspect for me, however, is that not all dialog was translated and subtitled; perhaps it wasn't necessary?

    So, while interesting visually and aurally, I'd recommend this only for those who like to reflect upon existential problems within philosophy.
  • I've just come back from the cinema and it's raining very hard. But there's the sun, too, which is going down behind the mountains. It's very poetic. But not nearly as poetic as Jean Luc Godard's last film, "Notre Musique".

    The movie is divided into three kingdoms: 1 - Enfer, 2 - Purgatoire and 3 - Paradis. The first part of the movie consists in a collage of various war images and situations accompanied by a wonderful music. Some very clever sentences are said off screen, too. "Death can be seen in two different ways: as the possible of the impossible or as the impossible of the possible". The second part shows us the crossed stories of some peoples meeting in Sarajevo for the Book Weeks: J. L. Godard himself, a young Israeli Journalist, a Palestinian and a Spanish poets, A young Hebrew girl with Russian origins, a Hebrew translator with Egyptian origins, some American natives, some natives of Sarajevo and other people speak about their experiences, they wishes, war, peace, poetry, history, life, death, cinema, reconciliation. J.L. Godard gives a lecture to some cinema students and shows them photographs. The third part takes place in paradise and shows us a girl who has been killed in a cinema by Israeli snipers who suspected her of being a terrorist ready to kill herself. She had a red bag with her and people thought it contained a bomb. In fact there were just books in it. The girl wanders near a river and encounters an American marine. Some boys are playing and reading books. Paradise is fenced and guarded by U.S. military forces.

    This movie is truly amazing. In fact it is not just a film, it is poetry. In moments like these when cinema industry is dominated by fast, brainless, action-packed movies, it is a real pleasure and mind-freeing experience to see something that beautiful and poetic. This was presented this year in Cannes and didn't get much attention if I remember right. A journalist of "Le Nouvel Observateur" who usually gives very good advices, this time got it wrong saying that "Notre Musique" is a senile work. Not at all. It's the work of a director who has only improved with years and who has reached total serenity and great wisdom. This film does not give you ready-made, simple answers to common questions, it gives you some points which are incredibly interesting to develop and think about. Sarajevo is the ideal place where peoples, histories and cultures mix and sometimes sadly clash. When the young girl is asked "Why Sarajevo?" the touching answer she gives is "Because Palestine. I come from Tel Aviv and wanted to see a place where people can get along in harmony". There's so much to think about this movie. And everything is filmed so well, so limpidly, with such a mastery, you can't stop staring at the screen. "Godard is the only film director in the world" (Freddy Buache)
  • There are movies to help you relax on a Saturday night and there are movies that stimulate, even if that means asking questions that have no answers. I didn't understand this movie but I still felt stimulated by its questions. I tried so hard to make the connections and I had a lot of trouble. But you don't read Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man once without discussing it and expect to understand it. Nor is the more accessible Three Colors Trilogy meant to be seen only once for complete understanding. The quality of a movie is not determined by its accessibility. It's a limited understanding of the medium to judge film by its accessibility. It can be more than an easy way to relax. It can be the impetus to dialogue. I cared about this movie because I didn't understand it.
  • Godard's status as a filmmaker, and an auteur, cannot be challenged. He no longer needs to make a name for himself and is free (within reason) to pursue the projects he likes, and carry them out to his own satisfaction. He also has an enormous and varied body of work 'under his belt', along with the experience that this has brought. And yet, these facts do not seem to have made him complacent. No one could accuse him of 'going commercial', and though the new Godard is 'nicer' than the strident, know-it-all politician of his Maoist period, he can't be accused of slowing down.

    This film is a case in point. Within in, one finds so much going on, so many ideas, and at such a pace, that it really needs multiple viewings. At 75 minutes, it flies by. It is hard, therefore, to cover all the issues raised by the film, but I will try to give a summary of my impressions.

    The film follows a basic triptych structure named according to the rather Catholic names of Hell, Purgatory and Heaven. Parts 1 and 3 act like short wings to the hour-long centrepiece.

    In a brutal first 10 minutes, appropriately called 'Hell', one is confronted with a mix of images of war from film and from war footage. Personally, I've always found documentary footage of war, however grainy or poorly shot, much more troubling than the most violent parts of acted film (such as Saving Private Ryan). Is Godard pushing the two together (implying moral responsibility of the filmmaker), or contrasting them through montage? (Suggesting the dual aspects of film-making, which he will emphasise later in the film, when comparing Israelis, who have become a film, to the Palestinians, who have become a documentary.) Like the rest of the film, it is a brilliantly edited tour-de-force of images and ideas.

    The second section, Purgatory, consists largely of discussions between writers and journalists drawn to Sarajevo for a literary conference. The number of questions (though not answers) that bubble to the surface in these discussions is astounding. Citations (a Godardian standard) are given new meaning through editing / montage. And many more eminently quotable lines are added by Godard and the other participants, literary figures playing themselves, such as Mahmoud Darwish, whose analysis is original and perceptive, and Juan Goytisolo. This section has a documentary feel, but an artist's aesthetic. The film itself looks superb, demonstrating a real eye for shot composition. This makes his films 'surface' extremely watchable, even before the 'substance' is broached. The substance is tasty too, with a superabundance of wit on parade, not in the sense of trite humour, but real insight, combined with a sober sigh before the unchangeable.

    The last 'movement' is of course 'Heaven', which is amusingly guarded by US marines, and looks a little like the less-than-heavenly site in which the end of Godard's 'Weekend' was played out. This playfulness and self-referentiality was typical of the rest of the film also, for example, in the trio of vocal Native Americans reminiscent of characters in 'Sympathy for the Devil'. Where does quotation end and creation begin? Godard's work is full of citation and self-allusion, but due to the (specifically filmic) nature of montage and narrative context, these citations and allusions take on new meanings.

    The film is, therefore, certainly elitist, as are so many great films (and novels for that matter). 'Notre Musique' demands a cine-literate viewer, and preferably also familiar with Godard, since there is a lot of meaningful and playful self-referentiality. (One could also argue that someone new to this kind of film-making might be challenged to improve their cine-literacy). More importantly, it demands an alert viewer, because there is potentially much more happening than merely what is on the screen. Godard, in examining filmic space has also created a space between screen and viewer, making him or her an active part of the process of meaning-making.

    Certainly, if all films were of this caliber, one would get a sore head thinking them through, but it is important to be enlivened by such a work as this from time to time, just to remember film's artistic and intellectual potential.
  • Jean-Luc Godard's quasi-update of Dante's Divine Comedy set to the modern world. The first segment of the film is hell and it only runs at about 10 minutes. In it, Godard has cobbled together a devastating montage of scenes of human destruction from the holocaust, Vietnam, the American Civil War, and other scenes of warfare and destruction, all compiled from documentary and movie footage. It's an impressive sequence as he overlaps the scenes of horror over the sounds of a melodic piano score. Then the film moves into limbo, the section usually regarded as the least interesting of Dante's cantos. Godard spends the bulk of his time on this section. In it, a French Jewish journalist attends a literary conference and meets Godard as himself and meets the Palestinian poet Mohmoud Darwish and discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. She travels to Sarejevo and witnesses the aftermath of Serbian destruction (a topic which Godard is clearly haunted with), and includes some direct views on cinema from Godard himself. The final section is in paradise. It features perplexing images with the protagonist in a beautiful forest guarded by American soldiers. Notre Musique is about the state of the world at the beginning of the 21st century. It is a powerful and esoteric rumination of the art and history of the past, and a foreboding insight into what the future may look like. The film includes a wonderful piano score from Sibelius and Tchaikovsky and beautiful color photography from Julien Hirsh. The film was shot in 1:33 aspect ratio so don't expect the DVD to appear in scope.
  • It is sometimes hard for creative and well meaning filmmakers to accept the fact that their political and philosophical understanding of the world might not be as rounded as their movie making skills. Godard shows in this excruciating film that he clearly falls into this category of filmmakers. 'Notre Musique' is well intentioned, for sure. Godard seeks to obfuscate the lines between reality and drama, the sensible and the absurd (heaven guarded by US marines). In doing so, however, the film becomes Godard's 'international politics explained' more than an engaging piece of cinema. Being a visual medium as it is, cinema needs to add layers of subtlety to what's seen (so that we look beyond that which is seen), in order to be not only an effective messenger but also an exercise in self-exploration. 'Notre Musique' is a blaring loudspeaker with Godard in control of the microphone.
  • robgarza224 February 2005
    "Our Music" is the result of a working man, a man that has been investigating sound and image for so many movies. As time goes by, Godard's images are simpler, but his editing has become tremendously complex.

    The film rests over Dante's "Divine Comedy": Hell, Purgatory and Paradise. Hell is a montage of war stock material. Purgatory is Sarajevo today and Paradise is plain nature guarded by U.S. Marines. As usual, many of the dialogs are made up of quotes and the author is rarely quoted, because through the editing the made-up phrases become humanity's questioning.

    By playing with the World's sounds and images, deconstructing time and space, the poetry comes naturally, not forced at all. Godard looks at todays technified world from a distance, mixing things and themes to see what happens, to bring up new possibilities and questions.

    As usual happens with this French filmmaker, the sound design is astonishing.

    If you like the work of Godard, you will love this film. If you don't like Godard's work, don't waste your time looking at this gem.
  • In spite of all intentions, a movie has to be understandable for the average intelligent person. It works and has always worked by the main method of showing pictures in motion. It's not supposed to be a filmed text, although the text in this film is not read, but spoken.

    The Israeli girl here is not really acting. She is an instrument for Godard's confusing view on politics and war. Things that ought to be obvious, like the meaning of Indians in the library of Sarajevo, becomes slightly comical in its so called complexity. The climax is when the Israeli girl talks about the only philosophical problem: The suicide.

    We aren't interested in that problem because we don't get any solutions. This film is dead, because Godard doesn't seem to have an answer to whether death or anything else exists (although it's definitely worth discussing, according to him). This is not a movie. It's a filmed text and you won't care about it.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    There's a moment in Notre Musique that tells you all you need to know about Jean-Luc Godard at this advanced stage in his long and varied career. A film lecture is taking place in a dimly-lit museum somewhere, with Godard himself presiding. After a typically rambling, critical speech (where that old hack Howard Hawks is put in his place), the director, swathed in shadow like Don Corleone, gives audience to a few of his young, admiring acolytes, one of whom asks a question about the potential of digital-video cameras to spark a renaissance in movies. The old Godard would've answered this query with some half-comprehensible diatribe, but the new Godard, emphasis on "God," sits there in knowing silence, as if to say that such a question is not worth answering - as if cinema is not only beyond saving, but is beyond even considering. Godard, having gone through several decades of being bitter, has come out the other side purged of all such base worries as whether the cinema is viable anymore, or ever was. He has reached the pinnacle of twerpdom.

    Godard burned-out on movies a long time ago, and his recent work represents a kind of pleasant after-glow. Notre Musique and the earlier In Praise of Love share in common the sense of someone embarking on a project without knowing where they're going or what they mean to say, but doing it because that's just what they do. Godard ran out of things to say a long time ago, but still feels the need to drag himself out of bed every couple of years or so and make a film. He seems to acknowledge his half-indifference in Notre Musique when, at the end, he takes to photographing flowers like an old man who doesn't care about anything anymore except his little, distracting hobby.

    The whole movie feels like it was made in a state of half-attention, as if at any moment the camera could just turn to some little detail having nothing to do with the action of the scene. The result is a sense of fleetingness that can sometimes be pleasurable, the way staring at a passing landscape from a car window can. Things go by your face half-glimpsed, half-noticed, and when it's over you have a little memory in your head that's already dissolving.

    The film's subject is War, and it's broken into three parts a la Dante: Hell, Purgatory and Paradise. The first part is composed of newsreel footage of all manner of 20th Century carnage, interspersed with images from movies made in the same period of time. The point being that war is horrible, and movies do their part in propagating the attitudes that lead to war, and that's a bad thing. This somewhat irreverent passage is followed by the main "plot," which involves a young Israeli woman's travels through a re-building Sarajevo, her interviews with various learned people, some Indians who show up to remind us nasty Americans how guilty we should feel about ruining everything, and Godard sitting in the background taking pot-shots. The "Paradise" segment takes place, somewhat tritely, in the forest (nature = paradise for old flower-planting washed-up filmmakers), after the young Israeli girl has been killed (off-camera, Godard being above such melodramatics).

    Godard's point is that none of this really matters much, the artist's job is simply to take note of what he sees, to bear witness to history as it passes by his window. The director takes on a god-like perspective, but he's a god who has lost interest in his subjects. The characters in Godard's films were never exactly three-dimensional, but the emotional blanks were filled in by the camera, which was unfailingly adept at finding the beauty, the sadness, the humor in the situations. There's still a wistfulness to Godard's work, but this seems like little more than a vestige. The film has the settled-in quality of a twilight work - the director has nothing left to prove. The old imaginative spark has been gone for awhile, and all that's left is this vaguely sour decline, the sense of talent fiddling its last hours away, not even nostalgic for its glory-days.
  • I am not sure if this amazing film has only just got into the Art Cinema Circuit here. Seeing it some 36hrs after the London Bombings was to experience something quite extraordinary and to confirm JLG as a filmmaker of unique relevance. If you haven't seen it-Get out there NOW.You will be probably appreciate it more if you haven't read any other reviews!JLG chooses a rather complex framework for this study of violence and the Human Condition.Indeed his own appearance within the film as JLG-auteur,could distract from the hugely powerful simplicity of any one of several interlocking "stories",in the end however my companion and I felt that this was the pinnacle of our 25years of film-going.Cheers and be excellent to .......!
  • Was really the best film of 2004 and I am a bit shocked that I heard as little as I did about it. Like The Divine Comedy, the film is broken into three parts, Inferno, Purgatory, and Paradise except the realms of the afterlife are here used as political metaphors. The Inferno is ten minutes of images of war from all of film history and some stock footage, Purgatory is the "story" part of the film about a meeting of artists, thinkers, and journalists in bombed out Sarajevo for a conference, and Paradise is a beautiful impressionistic beach resort guarded by US Marines. The dialogue is fairly oblique and stilited, but thats just how Godard rolls. If you can keep down the little reactionary who lives inside us all anytime we sense that dreaded word "pretentiou..", than you may find yourself moved by the end, moved in a way Godard has not moved anything in quite awhile.
  • A huge portion of the world's population consider Americans lazy, uninformed (because they are lazy), short-sighted (because they are uninformed), narcissistic (because they are short-sighted).

    "Can 30 million Frenchmen be wrong?"

    "Probably," we would say (that the French are worthy of scorn being an article of faith among a huge portion of our population).

    "Well, what about 3 billion non-Frenchmen?"

    Anyone who makes a filmlike this....uncompromisingly serious (this is a huge slap in the face to the notion that movies are about entertainment) political (read "leftist"), fiercely anti-American will be dismissed as difficult, obtuse, elitist. This is an anti-War movie and not one of those treacly "King of Hearts" anti-war movie that lets the audience off the hook by allowing them to congratulate themselves for their sympathy for the director's view. That is much too easy for someone like Godard who likes to think that mankind's endless history of "cutting off each other's heads" is unspeakably horrible, somehow something to be taken seriously.

    Maybe it's OK for someone to ask the audience to do a little work when engaging a work of art.

    This is a sublime experience. The look of the film is endlessly breathtaking....how does he get that look???? (i've never seen anyone else who could do this. And the musique, the cutting in and out of these short searing bursts of symphonic music....

    This pass weekend i saw 2 movies on DVD - Notre Musique and Predator. Yes, i relished the chance to see an Arnold classic and yes, i felt reluctant to have to put up with Godard's cranky obtuseness. After watching Schwartzeneger (??) I felt like i'd just wasted 2 hours of my life that i would never get back. After watching JLG, I felt like my view of the world had been permanently changed.

    The message of this film is that it might soon be too late. For anyone not interested in buying into such things, there is always Predator 2.
  • "Notre Music" is a very ambitious, pretentious and hermetic Jean-Luc Godard's film, divided in three kingdoms: Hell, Purgatory and Paradise like in the Dante's Inferno in the Divine Comedy. Hell shows footages of many wars; Purgatory mixes reality and fiction in Sarajevo; and Paradise is a surrealistic view of a beach "protected" by the American Marines.

    I found this movie absolutely boring. It seems that Godard wants to challenge the intelligence of the viewers, since to understand his movies the viewer needs to read or listen to his interviews. I respect those who like this French director, but they have to agree that "Notre Musique" is only recommended for fans of Godard and pseudo-intellectuals (there are a lot of them…). My vote is four.

    Title (Brazil): "Nossa Música" ("Our Music")
  • Warning: Spoilers
    All I really want to say is that this is a beautiful movie, but it seems like you have to write more, so here goes. I don't know, this movie does not exactly strike me as Godard's version of "international politics," as someone said in an earlier comment. Godard in the film (along with the audience) is notified of the protagonist's suicide while absentmindedly working on his garden. A purely political movie would not likely waste such an opportunity to reinforce its politics with images. This is either a really bad or really great political movie. As others have pointed out, when a student asks Godard about digital cameras' effect on the future of cinema, he just stares at us. What's going on here? Are these cases of Godard being disingenuous, trying to use his presence in front of the camera to lull us into a a belief that he has no agenda, that he is not really manipulating everything that is happening behind the camera, or is he just disinterested, above it all? No, it's a mistake to equate Godard's lack of answers with a lack of interest or passion, and Godard is not very inconspicuous behind the camera. There is an intensity to the (non)scenes. I'm admittedly a trusting person, and I certainly don't claim to understand everything said, but I was moved almost throughout the film. Can I be moved by pure form? Well, can't we be moved by music?
  • cnamed6 September 2005
    Leave it up to Monsieur Godard to shoot his first film to directly address the Palastineans since Ici et ailleurs in '76 in Sarajevo with a cast that includes US Marines, Native Americans in full traditional regalia, and Godard himself in counter-sermonizing flesh. At least, and this is much more than trivial record keeping, the maestro has found a way to render his digital photography as gorgeous as the celluloid variety for which he is well known. The quality of the video images takes Notre Musique miles beyond the wan DV sections in Éloge de l'amour. This is all the more interesting considering his response, during the film's central writer's conference, to a question concerning whether or not digital cameras can save cinema. Godard stares into his DV lense and says nothing; the question cannot have an answer other than the one to be provided, immanently, vis-a-vis the unwinding of our collective species activity. Godard, as always, is best when he resists the unavailing temptation to answer the questions which constitute him as one of the most compelling artists of the 20th Century. Though his autodidactic flights of fancy may fail to soar as solidly as before, his discourses remain ultimately profound, his metaphors as unstintingly powerful as ever, his plagiarism as unflappable. He has begun to rely again on Borges, which is always good, and there is much less Merleau-Ponty. The only major flaw of the film is the opening section "Hell" (yes, Dante is backstage here folks), in which the montage is more of a groantage, in the manner of a Baraka (God no!) more than anything Eisenstein might recognize as dialectical. "Heaven", however, is wonderful. All Godard does is take the US Marine anthem at its word.
  • This film may be, at first at least, a little bemusing. Goddard does whirl you around with unanswerable questions with few solutions, but isn't the fact that hes at least asking enough?

    Goddards film reviews society as it is today : transitional and incoherent to the everyday citizen. War, Racism, Anger and Hate fill our land, and Goddards questioning of all these social factors creates an intriguing film. There is no narrative, Goddard simply works with film, digital imagery, voice-overs and art (yes, art...) to convey his viewpoint.

    "Cinema is the light that shines on to our night"...
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I will confess it: Godard is "my" filmmaker. My mother took me to see Weekend when it came out - when I was 12. I wasn't really precocious when it came to films, but this one made a big impact on me. It's still, 45 years later, my favorite of his. I started watching films seriously about 10 years later. And I loved pretty much all of Godard's '60s films. But the Dziga Vertov period stuff really left me cold. I was lucky enough to see Sauve Qui Peut when it came out, and it felt like a (slightly feeble) return to form. Well, it's more than 30 years since then, and "my" Godard films really remain the ones from the '60s. I've had hot and cold feelings about most of the post 1980 ones I've seen. But Notre Musique and Film Socialisme have really become important to me. They share that elegiac tone that can be one of the markers of a Late Period style. Godard's investigations into and questions about the nature of Image and Image Making remain as astute and as funny as ever. But the rhythm has changed. Sometimes the tempo is so languid. And the relationship between the intensity with which the intellectual constatations are made and the limited amount of "truth content" they reveal can be frustrating and annoying. All that being said, the first section of this film, Hell (Enfer), is a career highpoint - one of the most brilliant examples of the use of collage/appropriation/new media I've ever seen. The conflation of classic film depictions of war and violence with documentary footage and videos of "real" War is like a whole course on the Simulacra. But what Baudrillard could never do is implicate the viewer the way Godard can - some of the images, even some of the most distorted and degenerated, are so beautiful! We know we are spectators, passive ones, deriving pleasure from scenes of horror. And the film, especially in the second section, displays some sense of outrage about this. But it is a very muted outrage. You can't call it "defeated", because a defeated person could never find the strength to make this film.

    What does Sarajevo mean for Godard? Europe as a site - if we can call Europe a site - seemed to be committed to Humanistic Values, chastened forever by World War II and the Holocaust. Sure, there was plenty of European repression, in Algeria, for example. But there hadn't been a real WAR on European soil since 1945. Sarajevo reveals at best, the fragility, at worst, the lie of the Dream of "Europe". A parade of intellectuals is brought on stage to mourn the Sarajevo library and engage in some Disaster Tourism. This section seems to be infected by a certain amount of Western European snobbery and sense of superiority. But there are great moments: one of the best - ever lines in a Godard film - "If anyone understands me, then I wasn't clear". Auto - derision, baby! Gotta love it...And the scene of an exhausted Godard framed by a spectacular Duty Free display at the Sarajevo airport is not only beautiful in itself, but also evocative of many Grand Moments of Conspicuous Commodity Overload from throughout Godard's career (Two Or Three Things I Know About Her being only the most obvious example).

    I'm not sure about section three (Paradise). On first viewing, I really didn't like it. It seemed totally anti - climactic. But after reading some commentary, I'm warming up to it. Maybe I'll come back and edit this review after I watch it a couple more times...I've always had mixed feelings about Godard's Girls. They've always seemed hyper - fetishized, without his critiquing that as much as I might like. Olga - and Judith - are both adorable characters. And they're very clever and thoughtful. But there's something twee about their seriousness, as though Godard was being condescending towards the combination of Earnestness and Girliness. Or something like that. This is a quality that perhaps does not gain in attractiveness as one grows older...

    Summation: A brilliant and beautiful film from an Old Lion who refuses to give up, either on his ideals or on his idealism, dated and used up as they may seem. All of his world - weariness and his cynicism can't mask that. The site of this film is not the barricades of '68, from the viewpoint of a 38 year old. These are the barricades of 2004, from the viewpoint of a 74 year old. Bless him.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    For many years, I did not see Godard's recent films because they weren't distributed in the United States. As an older film maker, after transcending his sexual and historical politics, Godard brilliantly enters into the area of eternity, excellently examining the meaning of life.

    In Notre Musique, Godard concerns himself with the overall picture of life,illuminating for us, in the age old triptych of life (war) - purgatory - and paradise, his conclusions after living an honest life as an artist. It is a tribute to the open nature of French cinema that he was able to make so many uncompromising films in his lifetime.
  • I number the reviews of my Godard quest so as to provide a sense of continuity and progression, what came before and after. I will likely rest here and leave Film Socialisme for some other time. It's obvious from these last few films that he has said his piece, some ten years before.

    Nonetheless, in his mode as essayist of cinema he is the most rewarding Godard. He goes where Chris Marker went, but is more lyrical, hoping to evoke what he yearns to transcend. Mortality, love, injustice, he ruminates on these as he did before. He divides his disseminations as three kingdoms.

    Among the footage of war and atrocity that make up Hell I spotted Eisenstein, from the film he left unfinished in Mexico for Paramount. Which makes me ask what else is staged and illusionary in this, though in the grand scheme it doesn't matter and that is perhaps the point. Filmed from life or for the cinema, these images elicit the same outrage. Our imagination of violence blends well with the reality of it. This segment also shows that Godard is incomparable as editor. Apart from political signifiers, these images I enjoy for the contours of their gratuitous shape, for how they swirl in and out of each other.

    Purgatory shows us souls in transit, trapped in the dilemmas of existence we know all too well. Aching for meaning or lamenting the absence of it, we see here a tapestry of internal anxiety. Images of roads elucidate our passing through the world, mundane but quietly magical if seen with the right eyes. In this segment he refurbishes an insight from the Histoire(s) project. How we are drawn to the light of the imaginary, in order to cast it in the dark of reality that surrounds us. He also tells us what Kazantzakis had said fifty years ago, that we are truly free of our bonds when we neither hope nor fear. That life is, while death isn't. But he also crams this part with more political discourse, trite by now.

    This is all well, some of it stale, some of it exceptional. But how to portray Heaven, what does Godard envision the other world to be? This is what intrigued me as I was watching the film.

    Nature, this is where Godard goes to reflect again, as he did before. Not so curiously, in his Heaven are only young people, one of them reading a book, others playing in the shade. Tres banal or simply tres Godard? The image that closes this is rather poignant though. It's a beautiful, clear day, and the woman is looking out at sea. She can see far but not from where she came.