Film socialisme (2010) User Reviews (19)

Surface glitter hides an empty interior

[Ethan_Ford · 6/10 · 9 October 2010]

It was eagerly awaited for years,the trailer which was the whole film in fast motion looked ravishing, and it seemed as if in this,perhaps his last film,Godard would deliver his final testament,a summation of all the themes which have run through his work for the last fifty years.From the beginning it looks absolutely stunning.In its high def cinematography the colours are gorgeous,the Mediterranean setting recalling that of Le Mépris ,but whereas the latter film was a profound meditation on European culture and civilisation,here the characters spout banal platitudes about politics or philosophy as the ship sails along past various cities; in the Spanish section there is a scene of a bullfight,in the Italian section a clip from a Rossellini film,it's that predictable.

In the final section the film switches to one of Godard's favourite subjects,the daily routine of a family with young children who run a petrol station and have for no apparent reason a pet llama.Here finally the film shows some kind of rapport with its characters but it is already too late.Yet despite its faults it still exhibits all the hallmarks of Godard's style,the brilliance of his framing and editing,the crucial way sound plays against image,but the feeling persists that perhaps he has no longer anything to say.

Godard's Genius or Garbage

[christian94 · 6/10 · 20 August 2012]

Jean-Luc Godard is a reference in cinema and changed the art fifty years ago with a unique challenging style that defied current esthetics and etiquette.

His latest work can be described more as an eclectic experiment than any enduring piece of cinema, but it serves to show his mastery of the art and his ability to dissect it in its most basic components before trying to create a different, distinct experience for the viewer. He plays with themes, locations, styles and intermingles with little restriction photos, videos, ambient sounds, silence, music, narrations, monologues, dialogues to delves into a dream-like undefined cinematic discussion.

The film does not quite work as a whole, precisely from this lack of focus, but some of the imagery (some sharp and some out of focus, some old and some new, some seemingly meaningless and some full of allegories, etc.), dialogues (existential, simple, social, revolutionary) and intertitles do reach a cord and will be remembered subconsciously or consciously. It's lack of clear content or continuity should not take away from it's task of deconstruction and desire to destabilise our current comforts. In that aspect, Godard grabs the rug under conventional cinema and pulls very hard to make it topple over dumbfounded and confused.

There are three segments, each shorter than the previous, but besides being glad to finally leave this seemingly derelict boat and to briefly know a fictional philosophising family, there is not enough distinction between the segments to warrant further feedback at this point. Only that as Godard's life perhaps, and exemplified in the crafty ancient time-telling device in segment #2, time is getting shorter...

Maybe we'll get it right some day, may be one of many messages of this remue-méninges.

A treat for fans of Godard

[Chris_Docker · 3 August 2011]

I get quite excited at the prospect of a new Godard. Not that I see his work as any ultimate example. It's not. But somehow it is in a different milieu to most films you can watch. Like poetry, it's not about the words or images, but the joy that comes from exploring, from original thought. Sound and vision used not to entertain but to seek deeper levels than can be expressed in prose or 'narrative cinema as we know it.' Yet the slew of bad reviews prepared me for the worst. Perhaps age had caught up with the grand master of Nouvelle Vague? Or perhaps Godard was not beyond playing a joke on his audience, just to see what they make of it?

Omens weren't great. A small auditorium and no more than a dozen people there as I walk in. Some obviously by mistake. As they walk out halfway through. But I am already entranced. Wondering if I will be able to see it again in the final screening tomorrow. Looking forward to the DVD so I can stop-start for quotes that send my head spinning like I'm back in my alma mater's philosophy class. A dizzying array of original and masterly techniques. And, like poetry, enough fluidity to offer meanings in ways that suit the individual viewer (persons who walked out excepted).

A warning: there is a 'looking for answers' but no real story. On a difficulty level, this film is much harder than Breathless, Le Mepris, or Vivre Sa Vie. It is warmer and more captivating than Weekend or Made in USA, but only just. Neither does it have the clear expository style of his last most recent well-known movie, Notre Musique. It has three main sections: 1 - scenes on a Mediterranean cruise ship ('Things'), 2 - a European family ('Our Europe'), and 3 - scenes of conflict and war ('Humanities'). Each seeks understanding to certain questions on an individual, interpersonal and political level.

The first section held my attention the most. Inside the cruise ship is a plethora of "things" (if this was Godard of yesteryear, I'd maybe have written 'bourgeois distractions.') Only when we go outside, or see the light shine in, do we experience crisp photography, scenes of genuine beauty, and people spending their time at least trying to solve some of life's deeper puzzles. Perhaps this is just my own interpretation, but I like the way it is depicted visually. Money is a 'common good' – like water – but party-people onboard use it for nothing but bloated consumerism. Meaningless dance classes and revelry. As two people engage in philosophical discourse outside the main hall, a woman repeatedly falls against the glass partition. Is she dancing and letting her spirit free? Apparently not – she falls face down into the swimming pool.

There is a young girl seen frequently with an old man. Something strange there? A hooker perhaps? A maybe rather a scholar or seeker of truth – availing herself of the rich variety of elderly experience onboard (a philosopher, a UN bureaucrat, a Palestinian ambassador, and so on).

Characteristic Godardian effects are used with casual precision. There is no attempt at reality if it stands in the way of the point he is making. Such as when the background noise cuts out momentarily for the word 'happiness' to occurs in the girl's dialogue. Deliberate camera distortions emphasise an alcohol-sodden mentality of the majority of passengers, images often obscenely blurred, as if taken on a mobile phone. Or the mother in Section Two who talks to the camera about how she is totally unaware of the part she is playing.

There are more hidden references than an afternoon of Tarantino movies. Except, unlike Tarantino's work, Godard is not entertaining pub quiz movie geeks; but giving clues to further meanings within his experimental and exploratory work. A young lad gives a young woman a copy of 'La Porte Entroite,' (a coming of age novel). There are nods to Husserl's philosophical geometry which fit the film but will need hours of study to fully appreciate (we see a projection of a man lecturing on 'geometry as origin' – to an empty auditorium). And Balzac's 'Illusions Perdues,' which anticipates themes of aristocracy vs poverty as well as journalism as intellectual prostitution. And don't miss the homage later to Battleship Potemkin's Odessa Staircase slaughter.

Dialogue sparkles from witty – "The United Nations have been somewhat disunited since 1948," to surreal and Zen-like – "Once in 1942 I have encountered nothingness . . ." I'm quoting from memory and leaving the end of the quote for you to enjoy on screen.

The individual's relation to government is addressed by the adolescents in the second Section, posing a difference between the State and Society. The dream of the State is to be 'one'; whereas the dream of the Individual is to be two, to 'pair up.' Aggressively intrusive foreigners demanding driving directions are given a cold shoulder ("Go and invade some other country!") An intrusive camera, making a documentary about a coming election, similarly distances everyone from any (inner) reality.

Some of the phrases from Section Two bleed over into scenes of Section Three bloodshed. The young girl wants people to, "learn to see before learning to read." Godard's intertitles come fast and frequent, and in many different languages. At one point, a prayer in Hebrew and a prayer in Arabic are overlaid, visually and aurally. It recalls Godard's offhand response to the question, "Peace In the Middle East - when?" by replying, "As soon as Israel and Palestine introduce six million dogs and stroll with them as neighbours who don't speak, who don't speak of something else." Cinema is a remarkable opportunity sometimes to communicate without speaking those things which are often too difficult, or too sensitive, or simply whitewashed of their core by aimless chatter. Or by narrative movies.

Godard is laughing at you.

[werewolfgal13 · 1/10 · 22 March 2011]

Let me first state that I am on the whole a fan of Godard's work and was excited to see this movie, that having been said this is a remarkable film solely for the reason that this was the FIRST movie I ever walked out of. Ever. From the minimal subtitles that only proved to confuse and annoy, to the windy microphones so even a French speaker couldn't understand what was being said. There was nothing in the film to keep me watching save the director's name. Fifteen minutes seemed an hour and by the half hour mark completely at wit's end I left. Not having seen the entire film I can't really rate it, but all I could think was that Godard was laughing at everyone still in the theatre; laughing at everyone that cites this pretentious unbearably dull film as a masterpiece, and proving that a well respected artist can get away with anything and people will still call trash art.

the apocalypse conspiracies

[juliahro · 1/10 · 15 February 2011]

Many old cinematographers say nowadays cinema is dead; I have no doubt that is precisely how they feel, how they think; and it is obviously part of their being old, grumpy, and having nothing left to be said. Yes, the world is coming to an end, we're dealing with an imminent Apocalypse, global warming and asteroids heading straight to the Earth. Not to mention the many political and economical conspiracy theories, always involving Jews, Mafia and some other people speaking Russian in strange accents.

I want to remember Godard as the creator of "À bout de soufflé" and "Pierrot le fou", not as the senile man with nothing left to be said. It is insulting and disappointing to the big world of fine cinema today. Because indeed there are fine young cinematographers out there who need respect and support. At least from those who don't organize their lives on account of the imminent Apocalypse, anyway.

No comment

[polysicsarebest · 10/10 · 26 November 2010]

As a longtime Godard fan (especially his later works, like "Every Man For Himself" and "King Lear"), the wait for his latest film was excruciating; it had been 6 long years since the brilliant "Notre Musique" confounded and shocked me with its eye-popping imagery, jarring editing, and poetic dialogue. Something I've noticed about Godard is that he always strives for more and is always willing to take his ideas and methods and approach further and further. I was expecting a pure information overload with "Film Socialisme", and I was not let down. There is a lot going on in this picture, and it's going to take many, many watches for me to understand everything, to piece together all the information. No matter -- Godard's works have always been densely-layered and offer rewards for those willing to keep watching.

Such is the case here; Godard seems to be be in Histoire(s) du cinéma mode here, since this film -- for the most part -- resembles his work with that brilliant "film essay" series, as well as calling to mind films like Numero Deux and Comment Ca Va? Godard, for the first time, shot this entire film on digital, and the results are fascinating, sometimes even... funny. During one part, the crappy digital camera he had been shooting with appears to have been failing -- or at least, there was some failure when transferred to the computer for editing -- as parts skip ahead, and backwards; there are artifacts on the screen, audible and visual glitches, obscuring moments of a character's speech. This wasn't my DVD -- this was definitely part of the film. Other parts of the (early parts of) movie seem to have been filmed on really crappy webcams, then the footage was oversaturated... the results are quite jarring, especially when some of the "crap" footage is put next to some of the most beautiful digital filmography I've ever seen. There are audio messups, video glitches; recording synch sound on a boat in itself is absurd, as you mainly hear wind, people screaming in the distant, the engine of the ship; in sequences filming a party, you basically can't hear anything but fart sounds, a loud distorted booming and crashing. So, Godard seems to be using new technology against itself, in a way. He plays with jump cuts (which he popularized 50 years ago and has rarely used since), stop-motion (filming a camera being reassembled), dramatic pausing, silence, glitching, and slow motion. The first 40 minutes are all kinda like this; voices from who-knows-where delivering lines that were important to Godard, as image after image is shown in very quick bursts; some images were jaw-droppingly beautiful, some were distorted beyond comprehension -- all were striking. Godard is first and foremost an artist, and rest assured that the first 40 minutes are highly artistic. Not a dull moment in what can only be described as a postmodern documentary. Has Godard been watching the Current Channel? Has he been surfing Youtube? There definitely seems to be a lot of influence from outside sources in this part of the film, maybe even some of video art manipulating master Ryan Trecartin...

Then, the next part of the film -- a good 30-40 minutes -- is extremely "Godardian". It should be very familiar to people who have seen any of Godard's recent films. There's not a lot of image or sound manipulation here; just lots of long, quiet takes of characters discussing life... usually filmed in front of strikingly beautiful backdrops. This section calls to mind every film he's made in the last 30 years, Some people call this "alienating", but his style is so brilliantly personal, I can't help but be fascinated. The direction in this section is topnotch, of course...

...and it leads to the final 30 minutes, which is mostly a film essay, with dialogue over top of mostly stock footage (scenes from other films).

So, it's an overwhelming experience, but I never felt it was 'tiring'; I could've watched another hour or two of this stuff, definitely. Therein lies its brilliance. While, indeed, its difficult to sum up in a few words, its not difficult to understand why its so compelling; this is one giant ball of images, sounds, quotes, hitting us so fast that we can barely keep up. I'm not qualified to put forth everything this film meant to me, after just one watch, but I do know I will be watching this film 100 more times in the future, because it's just so captivating.

Forgot to mention... LOLcats are on this, as well as a lama who lives in a garage.

A truly brilliant experience that a lot of people will find "difficult" or "challenging", but to be completely honest, this is one of Godard's most easy-to-get-into films in a long time; by adopting the elliptical "youtube editing" and by going into "Sensory overload" mode (at least, for a lot of its length), Godard has actually managed to make a film that even an A.D.D.-addled teenage could probably enjoy... all the while, commenting on aspects such AS sensory overload, technology, language, and how impersonal and cold everyone in 2010 is. Characters speak but don't "converse". Talk, talk, talk... but no one listens. No one responds. In many ways, this is a style Godard has always utilized, but this is his best display of it; this might be the ultimate Godard film.

PS: I originally had a LOT more written on each section, but I had to keep removing chunks of it to get it to the 1000 word limit. I suspect anybody who tries to review this film will probably face the same challenge; there is just simply too much to say about this film. Truly the best film of the past 10 years.

Terrible Film

[petja2 · 1/10 · 9 September 2010]

Just saw this at Toronto Film Festival. Quite contrary to my expectations, this is a terrible, extremely boring film.

First, at my screening there were no subtitles at all, so unless you spoke French, you would not have understood much. From further discussion, the subtitles were supposed to be there, but are apparently minimal.

Second, the film reminds me of that pieces of "art" in one of the museums which consists solely of an overturned toilet. The film comprises a number of loosely related segments with jarring sound and cuts. I understand that some of you will argue this is "modern art" - however, to me, this is just terrible filmmaking. It's not art much the same way an overturned toilet isn't either.

Finally, the segments, and the film as a whole, are so generic and open to interpretation that they lose all meaning along the way. The one theme of a terrible, vicious and disorderly humanity is revealed in such a boring and generic way that it introduces absolutely no new value whatsoever.

Do not waste your time on this film, see something better instead. It is also very upsetting to think that this movie has made it so far (to a number of festivals) simply because of the name attached to it. If anyone else made a film like this, it would be discarded and forgotten almost immediately, but because this was done by one of the masters, it gets shown everywhere as a "true art film", which it isn't.

Film Socialisme, Wonderful As It Is, Should Not Be Anyone's First Godard

[timwake73 · 9/10 · 27 September 2013]

Steve Pulaskie's negative review of "Film Socialisme" inadvertently, by its very length and detail, betrays the fascination a good Godard can exert even on the "unimpressed." I'll let the positive reviews -- not all of which I have read -- speak to my own liking for this film. I need to see it more times, especially after my French is more fluent than it is. But my take is that "Film Socialisme" is meant to provoke thought and questions, not answer them ... notwithstanding one can pick up a good notion of where Godard is coming from. But -- to echo any other reviews that have said the same -- "Film Socialisme" should NEVER be anyone's introduction to Godard! Whether or not it's really his last film, it comes 50+ years after his first films blew up the way everyone made movies ... and, yes, they even have plots. I have seen only a few of them, but am buying up more. The main IMDb web-page features a number of fans listing their top Godards; I refer newbies to them. By all means see "A bout de soufflé," "Une femme est une femme," "Alphaville," "Pierrot le Fou," "Band of Outsiders," and maybe "Weekend" -- and only then try "Film Socialisme." But this last film shows me Godard hasn't lost a thing he started with. He still has all his outrageous playful inventiveness, exuberant effrontery: he still makes a movie MOVE; this film is more CINEMA than the most CINEMA flick he ever tossed off. See the early ones -- on which his rep will always rest -- then re-see this one. Whether you like "Film Socialisme" or not, you'll know what I mean.

Displeasing, thoughtless, isolated, and alienating

[StevePulaski · 1/10 · 24 May 2012]

This is my introduction to the world of French director Jean-Luc Godard. He has been hailed as a filmmaking mastermind, prolific, reclusive, and utterly different, putting many American directors to shame. Watching Film Socialisme, I would've thought he was the Michael Bay to the French people. This is one of the worst, most unpleasant movie experiences I've had in years. Put that on the back of a DVD.

Before you proclaim me as some inept, condescending idiot, who is practically void of diligent, efficient criticism, consistent readers will note I adore indie cinema. They will know that on weeks when a famed, hyped blockbuster comes out, I sometimes see it, but pay the smaller films due more often than not. The week Transformers: Dark of the Moon came out, I saw the divine Art of Getting By. Just a week after the release of The Avengers, I sought out the tenacious Bernie. Not to mention, if I can't get around to seeing it in theaters, I always try and seek it out on DVD. I rewound, Googled, and contemplated points Film Socialisme was trying to make and have come to the conclusion the film is utterly listless and is almost void of meaning. You can say I don't appreciate "art," but don't say I didn't make an earnest attempt.

You know how sometimes, in a film, you experience a sense of confusion? Perhaps you become lost because you weren't paying attention, went to the bathroom, or even just drifted into your own little world while it was playing. Imagine feeling like that during the course of a whole film. Film Socialisme manipulates the viewer in ways I never thought possible. It deliberately makes its message nearly unobtainable by a casual viewing. It is a form of poetry in the opposite sense; instead of providing words and dialog, while leaving the viewer to imagine the visuals, it hands you the visuals and forces you to do all the work by reading so deeply into it you've lost your train of thought. I have no problem with movies that make you think. I find that to be an added benefit. I do have a problem with films that try to get by with the bare, bare minimum like supplying abstract visuals forcing you to form the vaguest analogy to what they all mean.

By now it should be almost clear to you there is no plot, so let's focus on what the film does consist of. It is divided into three acts or proclaimed "movements." The first focuses on a cruise ship named the Costa Concordia, which interestingly was wrecked in January 2012, featuring dialog of all different languages as the ship sales listlessly around the Mediterranean. The immediate problem is the subtitles, which seem to deliberately distant and void of meaning. The conversations, mostly, take place in French. There will be a lengthy monologue, and at the end, you're provided with at most three nouns or adjectives, sometimes even words merged together likeso. If you're an average American, how will you comprehend this film? Ironically, the film is entitled "Film Socialisme," and much like the government system, it is unfair, biased, and annoyingly ignorant to those of other statuses. As an exercise, I'll sum up this paragraph "languages, conversations, ignorantstatuses." Run and decipher that.

The second movement involves children demanding such answers and definitions to the terms "liberty," "freedom," and "equality." The third and final movement involves scenes of all different walks of life, from Palestine, Egypt, Barcelona, Odessa, Naples, and Hellas. By now, we've been alienated tirelessly, taken advantage of, and are begging answers, explanations, and further examination. Is this a location study? It certainly isn't a character study since we are never provided with one who appears in more than a handful of shots. Is this supposed to be indistinct commentary on socialism? It certainly isn't, since the topic is rarely discussed. Or is this supposed to be...whatever you want it to be? I can't remember the last time a film was so displeasing, thoughtless, isolated, and alienating. What baffles me is how the French director, Jean-Luc Godard, has developed such a loyal, concerned fanbase. Perhaps this was an off-movie, and he made it out of instantaneous thought and sudden interest. I mentioned before that Film Socialisme is my introduction to his work. Here's a connection I can make to that; imagine going on a date with the most beautiful man or woman and having them spit in your face upon arrival. Great impression? Well there's my connection to the film at hand. Steve: 1, Film Socialisme: 0.

NOTE: The film ends with an FBI disclaimer, like one that will appear before a feature on a DVD, that slowly fades into French text, before giving us a black screen saying "NO COMMENT." The alienation just never stops.

Film socialism (take 2)

[sandover · 19 November 2010]

This needs some kind of foregrounding. We have to acknowledge that Godard is a unique case, unique in the sense that there is always a lot of experimentation and improvisation in his work, and given that, he spans five decades of work, so, being now in his eighth decade, one expects some idiosyncratic responses.

What we have to have in mind also is that he is a french cultural phenomenon. By that I mean this: from his work in the sixties, one thing that keeps coming back is a tripartite approach to things. From his famous remark "I like films with beginning, middle and end, but not necessarily in that order" to his use of blue, red and white as elements commenting on both the French and the American flag/ideology, to his development in a late film like "Notre Musique" of tripartite loose structure, there is something telling. What it tells us I think meets the french tradition of Roland Barthes' text "Image-Music-Text" and Levi-Strauss "Look-Listen-Read", authors Godard has the knack of citing. And of course, there is Liberty-Equality-Fraternity, which is a good starting point.

A good starting point namely because these are the words shot in his "Made in USA", and Liberty first, written in blue, blue being its symbol. And look what happens: from his aforementioned use of the three colors, blue is the colorful word missing in this new feature. Liberty, I take him telling us, is absent from (a film called) socialism. This is not random. There are other similar hints right from the start to guide us in his signature mixture of images, sound and music; we just have to be in tune in order to savor the off-beat humor.

"Money is a common good," says a man's off-voice at the start and a woman's voice responds "Like water then" as we face the sea's skin of water and Mediterranean bright light - and like two shots next, there is a wave crashing close to us, as if suggesting "common good, you said?"

The first part of the film is brimming with suggestions and shows a supreme craftsmanship, equaled perhaps only by the late Alain Resnais' "Wild Grass" last year. From this we should not disregard a stubborn perhaps element of playfulness just for the heck of it.

Brimming with suggestions is also brimming with directions: the brilliant use of pixelized images early on at that take of the ship's disco with people thumping and with the distortion of sound arousing anxiety at least on this viewer, and the insistence of presenting the inanity of such mass cultural acting-out, has a visceral power that exposes the trivial effect of, say, Apichatpong Weerasethakul's "Syndromes and a Century" last shot of a cute mass aerobic demonstration (a theme that keeps coming back in his films).

Or that long take of a woman jogging on the deck joins Kubrick's circular jogging in "2001". Or the sublime jump-cut attack before the first part resumes, with that oppressive soundtrack of strings and two girls belly-dancing, has an eerie quality that reminds one of David Lynch.

The difference in all examples cited, or the larger in-joke to Fellini's "And the ship goes", is that the force or eeriness derives and is directed to cultural impact. In fact, "Film Socialisme" could be called an ominous elegy. At one point the screen asks us "Quo Vadis Europa?" This may seem to some obvious, but Godard never shied away from his cultural heritage. And even if Patti Smith's presence winks to Pina Bausch's presence in Fellini's film, the three rugged shots in which she appears show with anxiety that her subversive place is occupied by forces increasingly at odds with adult culture.

Perhaps this is why Godard trusts with unexpected tenderness the children's equivocal stature: early on the ship a kid punching the air tells the old man sunbathing, in a blatant historical quip, that he was a Nazi, and he with a gruff voice offers malediction. This tells more than a whole bag of cultural and historical alienation. And the generation gap Godard now seems to palpably feel.

In the middle section, to call it that, he offers us what I thought was his most tender confession, with that blond boy wearing a red USSR t-shirt and conducting in an endearing and ridiculous manner an invisible orchestra, then telling us that he would puff away the world if it was his caprice to act so: this exposes the vanity, the misgivings of a giant-child's ideological beliefs, be it socialism or younger Godard. He seems to say goodbye to all that, but what will come he does not hint after. But this section revisiting "Weekend"'s limbo and the youth of "La Chinoise" has an unparalleled appreciation of what a child's or a youth's face is. I wish I had more space to go into this in more detail.

Where unfortunately I thought the temperature of the film considerably lowered was the last part of the film. It gave me the impression Godard skimmed through the documentary medium, curiously disfavoring its form, as if impatient with it, and at the same time not challenging it, as if in for an uninspired tour. Something was missing, as if the energy to continue abandoned him. Was it in preparation of the "no comment" ending, an ending the way a DVD begins? For me, if this is the case, as if he mixed enraged laughter and placid smile, it left me wanting. I hope this is not the last we will see of Godard. I love him.

Oh Please

[WhatTheyDo · 4/10 · 10 January 2013]

Can we all get over the "challenging" provocations that this Film attempts to offer. Forgive a potential Agism, but in the spirit of class conscious critique: This is a sign of late Godard, complicit in his Bourgeois canonization, making ineffectual meditations on a a medium already robust, ubiquitous and politically affective. I'm speaking of course about Video. A previous reviewer mentioned Ryan Tracartin - This film is at least 20 years behind Ryan Trecartin's most trivial undergrad work. Godard mobilizing the distancing, alienating politics of a pseudo-left closeted Eurocentrist in order to promulgate a consistent dominance over "Art House" cinema. Honestly what the blood is this film? a further denigration of the kinds of education received in low income areas of the United States, Northern Africa, Southeast Asia and Eastern Europe? Who is this this film standing up for? and if it stands up for no one then why is this nihilism necessary? The fractured subtitles are absolutely insulting - There is no transformative translation ala Benjamin, no generative deconstruction, no Stein, no Saurraute , no performative language at all - we are left with nothing but masturbatory sloganism (and not a kind of sloganism which implodes on itself in order to critique a contemporary state of language, rather a sloganism which, with full self awareness, alienates all those accept for the most privileged, most geographically/economically/culturally entitled). This film is no "challenge" to its audience as the audience for late Godard is ALREADY educated, already leftist (or at least conventionally Liberal) already enlightened as to the ornate delicacies of high cinema and already aware of and experienced with cultural forms outside of the myopic mainstream. Therefore, this film seems unnecessarily difficult, a poorly informed cloying attempt at relevance in a digital age. The Film says nothing about its medium other than a tired Brechtian breaking of verisimilitude at the beginning (a fruitless technique, as video implicitly points to its own making(s) given its unmistakable and highly recognizable fidelity) and is years behind even the most the primitive works of contemporary video art. It seems Godard did not realize the impact that Histoire(s) du cinema had on the rest of the world, and that the rest of the world has taken something he helped to pioneer and ran far far away from beyond it. I can't help but feel that Harun Farocki already made this film in the 80s and it was far more innovative, "challenging", inclusive and all around less insulting than this ultimately apolitical irreverency. There is nothing about identity in this film and an absolute disregard for the filmmaker's own place of power in the discursive grid (ie, heterosexual, white, wealthy, Western, mutilingual, gendered male).

to the reviewer who in response to the fractured subtitles said "you should learn French!" - maybe in another lifetime free of inhibitory systemic inhibitors, financial constraint and economic-racial-historical determinism we could all take up this task of Eurocentric cultural Enlightenment, but for now I'll settle for at least a concession of legibility.

What does not change is that there'll always be bastards.

[lastliberal-853-253708 · 8/10 · 7 March 2012]

A Jean-Luc Godard double feature for me this evening. The first was Alphaville. This film, reported to be Godard's last, is a far cry from that.

It was shot entirely in digital, and the colors are breathtaking. It was meant to be seen in the theater, according to Godard, but I had to settle for video. There are numerous technical "glitches" in the film, and they were meant to be there.

Most of the film's text is in French with a smattering of German, Russian, Arabic, Hebrew, Latin, and Greek. Godard added subtitles in what he termed "Navajo English" at the bottom of the frame, which were as unhelpful as they were meant to be. The film is about a failure to communicate.

This is one of those films where the critics are far more enamored than the general populace. It is considered one of the top films of 2011 - almost the top ten. The people would disagree.

Very important movie: Great Godard, must you must be familiar with his work

[nycterr · 10/10 · 6 October 2010]

FILM SOCIALISME is very important movie, for what it is and for it says.

FILM SOCIALISME deals with: Europe, democracy, money, capitalism, information, generations, myths, water and the sun.

It is interesting to see it because of (1) the technical aspect of it for those who understand that cinema is not only content but also the shape, and (2) images+words because it basically shows us the state of the civilization (minus américa, but be aware Americans, Godard does not like you).

Of course, as any post-1970 Godard, it is complicated, there are more questions than answers, and if you try to digest the movie while watching it you will end up frustrated. Try to be relaxed when you watch it, and do not fall in the trap of "modern art", because Godard is not modern art. Godard is way more straightforward than what it looks like. When Godard shows a word on screen, the word is what it is, and that's it.

JLG has said in a recent interview (with Telerama) that Cinéma is actually dead, that there is nothing to do with it anymore, that he gives up. He might be right.

The grand auteur becomes a memelord.

[CantileverCaribou · 5 November 2016]

Godard seemed to always be concerned with the pretension of language being inadequate to convey meaning, which is stated more clearly in the title of his 2014 film, Goodbye to Language. Not only does he suggest language is a poor mediator of meaning (in a fashion so incoherent that you have to figure this out from second hand accounts in many cases... or from longterm fanboyism), but he makes sure you won't get any meaning out of the film by making it inscrutable and fractured. There is little to cling to. Characters come and go, nameless ones, who fail to be more than ghostly stereotypes that function as many different mouthpieces for Godard.

There are political references, mentions of Stalin, Hitler, other dictators, communists, events related to WWII or occurring just before or after it, colonialism, etc... Some of the references are obscure, some quite well known, but they're all thrown around in an incoherent jumble. Never much more than a bunch of ideas that one can mostly only guess about.Most ideas remain too undeveloped to be interesting or garner much though from the viewer. It's mostly just name dropping and references. His films took a turn for an essayistic style—essentially essay films, barraging an audience with many ideas, skits, monologues, visuals, poems, sounds, music, etc. in a sometimes pleasing medley—he could convey so much, often doing so with considerable panache, but it seems to me that he's becoming less coherent and fails to be interesting in his experiments… it's all so detached. Early iterations of his style had a semblance of narrative to run the ideas through or developed mouthpieces that could be more easily identified as a sign of something. He's gone too far into the excesses of postmodernism and has failed to craft an engaging piece of cinema. No, this is more like unfunny (okay so sometimes it is funny: "Go invade another country," says a rude girl when pressed for an answer by tourists—oh, and this is while she's reading Balzac, which is revealed with a camera zoom, followed by random shots of a llama and disconnected shards of dialogue) comedy vignettes than cinema. Godard actually comes off as a bit of a memelord here—the man always was with the times… the hyperactive nature and strange soundbites lend it that kind of quality, not to mention the cat video that Alissa watches (accompanied by her obnoxious imitation "meow."

The chronology of the movie seems to be Part 1: Godard goes on a cruise with his rich friends. Part 2: Godard films in his backyard and focuses on a family. Part 3: Archival footage that mercifully does away with all the annoying characters

Many images do not work very well with the spoken word, and one might argue: that is the point. The actors don't really act—they're there to be mouthpieces, even more so than many older Godard movies. They're little more than a source being cited in a paper. Actor's often speak in a loopy French sing-song poetic style, which contradicts the rather prosaic lines often spoken, not to mention the chopped up mess that are the subtitles of this film—Navajo English, which is one of Godard's jokes for translating the french into English and cutting out words on a whim to make less sense than he usually makes.

Compared to his old work with Raoul Cotard, the cinematography is rather ugly at many points. He uses many different digital cameras—from webcams to professional cinema cameras. There are digital artifacts and he tends to heavily oversaturate the colors in certain scenes to the point where the images look warped. Some shots look lovely but there's no real rhyme or reason to it, no consistency. Random canted angles of random things happening on the cruise ship, for example—random montages, etc.

One example of a scene would be the year 1936 being referenced. Following that, a woman on screen has a monologue about Moscow's and other countries involvement in the Spanish Civil War. Matryoshka dolls are sitting around her in the foreground. She is arguing with a person, and the movement of gold out of the Spanish bank is a key topic. Some other woman, unseen in the background, begins to babble something unrelated, some of it while the first woman is still talking. A male character approaches the first woman, ruffles her hair, and name drops a communist, then walks away... that's what most of the movie is like, only less interesting.

Godard is just some elitist who expects everyone to learn his language, not like language is an effective means of expression, according to him, the absurdist. Luckily the DVD has full English subs, not that it makes a lot of sense most of the time, anyway.

He does it to you one more time

[antcol8 · 9/10 · 10 June 2011]

One viewing...only one viewing. I'm going to have to see it again. Very soon - maybe tomorrow. And when I do, maybe I'll revise what I write here. I can't blame anyone who hated it, anyone who was bored. You sit through it, you sit with it, you try to follow all of the political - sociological thinking, and what do you end up with? Not much...But, on the other hand, you can't separate all of the thinking, the questioning from the GESTALT of the film. This is what it is. You look at all of those ugly, saturated, distorted images of morons Disco Dancing on a cruise ship, and you decide - "Oh, I get it: disgust for the Modern World!". But then some of the most beautiful images of the sea - worthy of Caspar David Friedrich. It is a late film - very late. I thought it was going to end so many times. Try to remember that J-L G already announced the End of Cinema 45 years ago, with Weekend. But like Kafka, like Beckett the impossibility of not writing is greater than the impossibility of writing. So he goes on. I admit it - I crashed a couple of times. I've been doing that lately. Overloaded? So it seems. And this film has what to saturate one. What can I suggest? Follow the consistency - how many Godard films have featured long scenes at Gas Stations? Answer: several. With cute girls reading,and talking about that... Just thinking about the coherence and consistency of J - L G's obsessions should keep those of you who compare this film unfavorably to others in the game. He is very tired - yes. But he expresses that more passionately here than in many of his films of the last 30 years.

The "Lies" That We Are Taught About "Reality".

[JoeKulik · 10/10 · 31 August 2015]

Jean-Luc Godard's Film Socialisme (2010) is an utterly brilliant, and very complex instance of Cinematic Art.

This film has received decidedly mixed reviews, with some liking the film very much, while others seemed to dislike it equally much. However, a common ground that I found between both poles of criticism is the erroneous assumption that this film was created with the intention that it be, or at some level, understandable to the viewer. I would wholeheartedly disagree with that assumption. Godard here not only delivered a film that is simply devoid of "meaning", as this term is usually understood, he deliberately set out, and quite convincingly succeeded, in my opinion, to create a film that systematically destroys "meaning" altogether. This film then can be interpreted as a calculated, systematic, very thoughtful attack on "meaning", not only in terms of cinema being an effective vehicle for "meaning", but also in terms of destroying the human illusion that anything at all in reality has any sort of "meaning" whatsoever, outside the puny, and ultimately arbitrary attempts of countless generations of human beings to prove otherwise.

This can perhaps be best understood in terms of a theme present in this film that is prominent in other Godard films as well, such as Tout va bien (1972), the total inadequacy of language as a means of structuring and manipulating reality, and as a medium for effective human interaction. This theme of linguistic inadequacy is blatantly expressed in the title of a more recent cinematic foray by Godard, Goodbye To Language (2014).

In this film, Godard quite rightly recognizes that language is far more than the noises that are emitted from the human oral cavity, or the markings that humans leave behind on pieces of paper. Language is the underlying mechanism upon which the whole history of human civilization has constructed not only its ultimately arbitrary physical artifacts, but has also created all the ultimately arbitrary opinions, attitudes, belief systems, political doctrines, and scientific theories that populate the interaction of all humans beings. This film's outrageous, yet admirable juxtapositionings of completely antithetical manifestations of language, not only in terms of literal linguistic expressions, but in terms of the cultural, societal manifestations of language in terms of physical artifacts, and social belief systems quite effectively reveals the ultimate arbitrariness of language in all of its manifestations. The very radical editing in this film reinforces, even often creates these outrageous antithetic juxtapositioning of imagery, both visual and auditory imagery.

A mere perusal of the Wikipedia page for "socialism" reveals Godard' s utter contempt for language by choosing this word, this concept as the title for this film, for Wiki clearly states, and supports with copious citations, that there are so many different varieties of social and political doctrines which are subsumed under the banner of "socialism", as to make the very term itself almost barren of effective, discriminatory "meaning" altogether.

Yet another very interesting observation about "socialism" that this Wiki article makes is that, in varying degrees, all varieties of "socialism" have conceptual associations with the social and political doctrines of "anarchism". This historical association between "socialism" and "anarchism" is perhaps another reason why Godard might have chosen "socialism" as the title for this film. This is why perhaps "anarchy" is the concept that renders this film most understandable, for Godard's deliberately contradictory, conflicting portrayal of civilization in this film is intended to create "anarchy" in the viewer himself, a devastation of all the language based opinions, attitudes, and belief systems that deceptively comfort the viewer in his status quo acceptance of reality as society has ingrained him to accept . For it is only after the inner "anarchy" of destroying one's ultimately arbitrary preconceptions about reality that the human spirit is finally set free in its boundless flight to true creativity, to formulating ever more effective, yet still ultimately arbitrary, means of coping with its physical environment, and with coping with the much precarious environment of Self and Other.

20 Stars !!!

Thank goodness truly provocative cinema still exists

[Klickberg · 26 September 2011]

We recently screened Godard's contentious "Film Socialisme" at a small art-house cinema in Boulder, CO where I live and I couldn't be more delighted by the response. Namely, there were many people who were infuriated about the film, leaving in droves and upset that such a film both exists and/or would be shown at said theater (the only art-house theater in the city, actually).

One patron was even angry enough to leave a note behind for the concessions stand stating that she "speaks French" and was particularly upset about the subtitles of the film. She'd probably be the kind of person to get upset about the "punctuation problems" in ee cummings' poems. And don't get her started on Andy Kaufman!

First and foremost, "Film Socialisme" is without a doubt a beautiful film. The way in which it was shot and edited is visionary, a true patchwork of modern/post-modern society/cinema today. The kind of film that -- as with the majority of Godard's ouevre -- may be ahead of its time but will certainly be enjoyed by sincere cinephiles looking for something new, bold and fresh. Beyond any sense of provocation, there were true moments of visual/audio splendor that simply cannot be seen anywhere else (by sheer merit of the fact that, yes I agree, no one else would be "allowed" to make/distribute such a film; and that in itself is important when considering whether or not you should spend the money/time on seeing it in the theater).

Clearly, the subtitles of the film -- which are minimalist and fractured (clearly intentionally) - - are a play on one of the film's many themes: the breakdown of communication and language (think Gertrude Stein texting you viz. her thoughts on modern society). That people are growing angry about the challenging and innovative way Godard has aptly chosen to play even now with the very subtitles of his film is extremely exciting. Not to mention the fact that, again, aside from the "gimmick," the subtitles become a poetic innovation unto themselves in which Godard combines words into fascinating portmanteaus that invoke clever wordplay a la some of the greater avant-garde/surrealist literature.

He has finally gone that extra distance in deconstructing every aspect of the film (including, at times, a brilliant dalliance with the audio mix that clearly has confounded viewers a la similar experiments by the likes of the Velvet Underground, Andy Warhol, Andy Kaufman and La Monte Young; there are moments in which you truly wonder whether or not there is an "actual" breakdown of the film being shown -- especially if you're lucky enough to see this film through digital projection; "Is there something wrong with the disc?! Oh no!!" Very exciting. Audience interaction, indeed!)

Ultimately and as per Godard's typical (?) MO, the film is a firm lashing of the perpetuated bourgeois culture (particularly in America; hence his giving us the finger for not knowing French or the many other languages interspersed throughout the polyglot film; "You don't want to learn another language? Fine. Try figuring THIS out!!")

Like Lenny Bruce and a younger John Waters, with "Film Socialisme" Godard is shaking up audience members -- particularly his "greatest fans" -- by provoking them in ways they may not be comfortable with, in ways that may simply repel them. "You want to be shocked? I'll shock you, but be prepared to be, well c'mon: shocked." We don't go to Godard films to watch a clear narrative or to understand everything that happens. It's poetry, it's visual/audio artistry, it's -- ultimately -- play and experimentation. And Godard has once again succeeded in creating something that will not allow us to remain static in our seats. If you can't handle that, he is saying as always, then feel free to leave and don't forget to ask for a refund on your way out.

The megaplex is right down the street. Or, hey, buy a copy of "Breathless" and watch a nice "really weird and wild!!!!" noir film with a plot. It's all up to you!

In the end, the film defies quotation marks. If you want "challenging," you've got plenty of it on Netflix. If you want challenging, however, see "Film Socialisme." Just don't be too upset if it... challenges you.

Keep the Remote Nearby

[Michael_Elliott · 26 January 2014]

Film socialisme (2010)

BOMB (out of 4)

How does one go about explaining Jean-Luc Godard's FILM SOCIALISME? I guess you could say that the director just throws at us various film clips. Some take place on a ship. Some take place in Egypt. Some just seem to be random shots of people walking around. Some are film in beautiful HD while others are filmed on what appears to be a very old cell phone. The subtitles are often full of mistakes. It could be that the words are put together to where it's hard to read them. It could be that the subtitles aren't really telling us what the characters are saying. Was there a point to this madness? I think there are two possibilities. One is that Godard wanted to drive people to suicide so he made this film. The other theory of mine is that he wanted to make a film so horrid that his followers would still rave about how great it was. Either way this here is a pretty worthless film and it's not that it's horrible because of a horrible filmmaker. No, it's horrible because the filmmaker knows he's making something that is nothing but a waste of time. The reason Godard does this is beyond me but sitting through this film is quite unpleasant and it makes one realize that this film is so bad that you couldn't even recommend it to those who love bad movies. I'm not going to lie and say Godard is one of my favorite filmmakers because he isn't. There have been highly respected films of his (like ALPHAVILLE) that I simply hated. With that said, I could see why some would be drawn to it. With this movie it's just pure garbage and I must admit that I find it funny reading so many reviews that call this a piece of art and one of the greatest films of the decade. Reading Roger Ebert's review states that Godard showed this film in a four-minute version by playing it with the fast-forward button on high. This here might have been the greatest idea the director ever had.

I like it

[Kirpianuscus · 29 May 2023]

Far to be a Godard admirer, I was real seduced by this film, a mix of cultural references about Mediteranean area, a good pledge for language as obstacle of understanding, eccentric, innovative, absurd in essence, proposing characters and theirs memories and believes , but not exactly a story.

A film about time and masks and past and facts as pieces of puzzle , it is a provocative invitation to viewer to create his explanations or - and doubts.

For me, the old watch is the main scene defining this film who remains a clash by fragments of doczmentary, stains of kitsch and rediscover of past. All, in essence, in the most honest manner.