turnmark
Lifetime Total
150+
Lifetime Filmo
1+
Lifetime Plot
1+
Lifetime Trivia
5+
Lifetime Image
5+
IMDb Member
17 years
Lists
Nouvelle VagueCinema Novo Alemão (New German Cinema)
Neo-Realismo Italiano
New Hollywood
Pós-Neorrealismo / Italian Post-Neorealist Cinema
Italian Political Cinema (Cinema Político Italiano)
Cinema Marginal Brasileiro - Brazilian Marginal Cinema
Realismo Poético Francês
Cinema Novo Brasileiro - New Brazilian Cinema
See more
Reviews
Une bonne à tout faire (1981)
Godard shows how to create cinema without needing so much!
This is a beautiful, but unknown, short film by Jean-Luc Godard, which the filmmaker directed at Francis Ford Coppola's Zoetrope Studios in 1981, when he was filming 'The Bottom of the Heart'.
Coppola was the one who financed the short, which cost just US$30,000.
However, Godard only finished the short in 2006.
The short features the participation of the great Italian director of photography Vittorio Storaro and the Russian filmmaker Andrei Konchalowsky.
Konchalowsky reads a text about the French impressionist painter Paul Cézanne regarding artistic creation, in which the French painter said he wanted to make the invisible become visible.
Godard critically shows the creation of an immense scenario, with many professionals involved, to reproduce, in Cinema, the painting 'Le Nouveau-Né' (The Newborn), by the French painter Georges de La Tour.
However, in the end, Godard makes it clear that it is not necessary to do something monumental to create a beautiful work of art, as he only uses a candle and two actresses to reproduce, in a beautiful way, the painting by Georges de La Tour .
This is still a kind of direct message from Godard to Francis F. Coppola, as if the master were saying "what's the point of spending so much money, when it is possible to obtain even better results with so little?" ?'.
This is one of Godard's most beautiful short films, but unfortunately it is little known. For those interested, the short is available on YouTube.
Coppola was the one who financed the short, which cost just US$30,000.
However, Godard only finished the short in 2006.
The short features the participation of the great Italian director of photography Vittorio Storaro and the Russian filmmaker Andrei Konchalowsky.
Konchalowsky reads a text about the French impressionist painter Paul Cézanne regarding artistic creation, in which the French painter said he wanted to make the invisible become visible.
Godard critically shows the creation of an immense scenario, with many professionals involved, to reproduce, in Cinema, the painting 'Le Nouveau-Né' (The Newborn), by the French painter Georges de La Tour.
However, in the end, Godard makes it clear that it is not necessary to do something monumental to create a beautiful work of art, as he only uses a candle and two actresses to reproduce, in a beautiful way, the painting by Georges de La Tour .
This is still a kind of direct message from Godard to Francis F. Coppola, as if the master were saying "what's the point of spending so much money, when it is possible to obtain even better results with so little?" ?'.
This is one of Godard's most beautiful short films, but unfortunately it is little known. For those interested, the short is available on YouTube.
Godard, seul le cinéma (2022)
Godard - The filmmaker who lived in Cinema!
This documentary, which was directed and scripted by Cyril Leuthy, shows the trajectory of Jean-Luc Godard, one of the most important and influential filmmakers in history and who made a film ('À Bout de Souffle'; 1959) that changed the history of Seventh Art, dividing it into before and after.
If the revolutionary 'A Bout de Souffle' had been the only film in Godard's life, then it would already be enough to leave his name marked in the history of Cinema. But Godard's work went far beyond 'Breaked', which this film by Leuthy makes very clear.
The film shows Godard's family, personal and artistic evolution, going through all the phases, from the years of cinematographic training (at the Cinematheque and in the cineclubs of Paris), from the end of the 1940s and which shows the beginning of their friendship with the other members of the 'Schérer Gang' (Truffaut, Chabrol, Rivette and Rohmer), until his last feature film, which was "Le Livre D'Image" (2018).
Thus, we see his work together with the other members of the 'Schérer Gang', as one of the critics of the 'Cahiers du Cinéma', who wanted to revolutionize French cinema, the early years of the Nouvelle Vague, the great impact of the revolutionary 'À Bout de Souffle' (1959).
Godard, a name that has become synonymous with a cinema marked by creative freedom and constant innovation. From the use of jump cuts, in 'À Bout de Souffle' (1959), to the use of 3D technology, in 'Adeus à Linguagem' (2014), Godard never settled down, was never restricted to a 'comfort zone', as so many do other talented filmmakers, but who don't risk as much.
We also see Godard's discomfort with being treated, more and more, during the 1960s, as a media star and celebrity, and even as a guru, something he never wanted.
This was one of the factors that led him, around 1967-1968, to want to isolate himself from everything and almost everyone with whom he lived, breaking entirely with the cinema of its first phase (Nouvelle Vague, between 1959 and 1968), including with him coming to repudiate such films for a certain period of time.
This was something he revisited, later, after the end of the Maoist period, which lasted until 1972. In fact, in several films from the 1980s (such as 'Prénom Carmen', from 1983, and 'Détective', from 1987) we will see Godard make references to his films from the 1960s, showing that he had already reconciled with them. He realized that these films were part of his history and of cinema itself.
Thus, this beautiful film by Cyril Leuthy is also present, of course, Godard's complex transition to the militant period marked by Maoism (1966-1968), through the creation, with Jean-Pierre Gorin, of the Dziga Vertov Group (1968-1972 ), his frustrated marriages to Anna Karina and Anne Wiazemsky, his lifelong relationship with Anne-Marie Miéville (they lived and worked together for 50 years) and his permanent reinventions as a person and as a filmmaker.
To help draw a minimally honest portrait of Godard, Cyril also made use of past and current interviews and testimonies of countless people who worked with Godard, including technicians (Romain Goupil, Gérard Martin), actresses (Hanna Schygulla, Macha Méril, Marina Vlady , Nathalie Baye...), actors (Belmondo, Bourseiller...).
We also have the participation of scholars of his work, including the historian Antoine de Baecque, who is the author of an immense biography of Godard, with its almost a thousand pages and which.
These testimonies show how Godard was a complex and absolutely unique person, who had difficulties relating to others due to his refusal to give up his ideas and convictions, including his lifelong project, which was to promote a permanent revolution in cinematographic language. Godard always saw cinema as the most important art form.
In this way, the film shows that Godard always sought to innovate, including, for example, new technologies in his work (video, digital cameras, 3D), which he did until the end of his life, being a pioneer in the use of these technologies. He even helped develop a new 35mm handheld camera model.
Thus, in the film, we have a humanized and honest portrait of Godard that makes clear not only his importance as a filmmaker and artist, but how difficult it is to reduce him to a single category.
The film shows that Godard was neither a God nor a Monster (as the envious Hazanavicius tried to show in his pathetic and lying about the filmmaker), but a genius, revolutionary and innovative artist, as well as a unique and complex human being who changed a lot during its existence.
In '2 or 3 Things I Know About Her' we have a scene in which the son (Christophe) asks his mother (Juliette) what language was and the mother replies that 'Language is where human beings live', quoting a Heidegger's friar.
In the case of Godard, language, for him, meant the same as Cinema. After all, it was through cinema that Godard communicated with people and the world. The cinema was where Godard lived.
For Ever Godard!
If the revolutionary 'A Bout de Souffle' had been the only film in Godard's life, then it would already be enough to leave his name marked in the history of Cinema. But Godard's work went far beyond 'Breaked', which this film by Leuthy makes very clear.
The film shows Godard's family, personal and artistic evolution, going through all the phases, from the years of cinematographic training (at the Cinematheque and in the cineclubs of Paris), from the end of the 1940s and which shows the beginning of their friendship with the other members of the 'Schérer Gang' (Truffaut, Chabrol, Rivette and Rohmer), until his last feature film, which was "Le Livre D'Image" (2018).
Thus, we see his work together with the other members of the 'Schérer Gang', as one of the critics of the 'Cahiers du Cinéma', who wanted to revolutionize French cinema, the early years of the Nouvelle Vague, the great impact of the revolutionary 'À Bout de Souffle' (1959).
Godard, a name that has become synonymous with a cinema marked by creative freedom and constant innovation. From the use of jump cuts, in 'À Bout de Souffle' (1959), to the use of 3D technology, in 'Adeus à Linguagem' (2014), Godard never settled down, was never restricted to a 'comfort zone', as so many do other talented filmmakers, but who don't risk as much.
We also see Godard's discomfort with being treated, more and more, during the 1960s, as a media star and celebrity, and even as a guru, something he never wanted.
This was one of the factors that led him, around 1967-1968, to want to isolate himself from everything and almost everyone with whom he lived, breaking entirely with the cinema of its first phase (Nouvelle Vague, between 1959 and 1968), including with him coming to repudiate such films for a certain period of time.
This was something he revisited, later, after the end of the Maoist period, which lasted until 1972. In fact, in several films from the 1980s (such as 'Prénom Carmen', from 1983, and 'Détective', from 1987) we will see Godard make references to his films from the 1960s, showing that he had already reconciled with them. He realized that these films were part of his history and of cinema itself.
Thus, this beautiful film by Cyril Leuthy is also present, of course, Godard's complex transition to the militant period marked by Maoism (1966-1968), through the creation, with Jean-Pierre Gorin, of the Dziga Vertov Group (1968-1972 ), his frustrated marriages to Anna Karina and Anne Wiazemsky, his lifelong relationship with Anne-Marie Miéville (they lived and worked together for 50 years) and his permanent reinventions as a person and as a filmmaker.
To help draw a minimally honest portrait of Godard, Cyril also made use of past and current interviews and testimonies of countless people who worked with Godard, including technicians (Romain Goupil, Gérard Martin), actresses (Hanna Schygulla, Macha Méril, Marina Vlady , Nathalie Baye...), actors (Belmondo, Bourseiller...).
We also have the participation of scholars of his work, including the historian Antoine de Baecque, who is the author of an immense biography of Godard, with its almost a thousand pages and which.
These testimonies show how Godard was a complex and absolutely unique person, who had difficulties relating to others due to his refusal to give up his ideas and convictions, including his lifelong project, which was to promote a permanent revolution in cinematographic language. Godard always saw cinema as the most important art form.
In this way, the film shows that Godard always sought to innovate, including, for example, new technologies in his work (video, digital cameras, 3D), which he did until the end of his life, being a pioneer in the use of these technologies. He even helped develop a new 35mm handheld camera model.
Thus, in the film, we have a humanized and honest portrait of Godard that makes clear not only his importance as a filmmaker and artist, but how difficult it is to reduce him to a single category.
The film shows that Godard was neither a God nor a Monster (as the envious Hazanavicius tried to show in his pathetic and lying about the filmmaker), but a genius, revolutionary and innovative artist, as well as a unique and complex human being who changed a lot during its existence.
In '2 or 3 Things I Know About Her' we have a scene in which the son (Christophe) asks his mother (Juliette) what language was and the mother replies that 'Language is where human beings live', quoting a Heidegger's friar.
In the case of Godard, language, for him, meant the same as Cinema. After all, it was through cinema that Godard communicated with people and the world. The cinema was where Godard lived.
For Ever Godard!