Godard's radicalism and self-expression have become the "useless" commentary of the film. I don't care whether his commentary is good or not. I just want to know whether he himself cares about the audience watching or how he views his commentary. If you care about it, it's superfluous, otherwise it's just useless.
[Also, Godard's films are postmodern, but Wong Kar-wai is not, he is modernism. (Did I remember other people's judgments incorrectly?)] Godard became more radical as I watched this film and his latest "Book of Images". Later, Godard is no longer the same. Using "movie language" to piece together concepts and expressing feelings, but to turn (although sometimes the movie language is richer, such as the post-tracking and panning in this film) "literary language", just like his " The "book" of images is the same. It’s hard to say that he is not creating new possibilities for film and denying people’s established concept of "movie". This is not how the "new wave" came out. However, going to the extreme is indeed blurring the boundaries between art categories. Is this level desirable? In other words, is there still a need to define a certain art category? "Definition" means "scope" and "limit."
It's hard to say that he is indeed still within the limit, but fewer and fewer people can accept it. Regardless, a kind of existence, but you can't ignore it if you care too much.
If in the end there are only shining and changeable subtitles in his images [subtitles are indeed more and more, and the so-called literary nature of the images is getting higher and higher, it seems to be back, in fact, it has long surpassed the "montage era" of the former Soviet Union. The "New Wave" honoured André Bazin (advocating realism) as the "Patriarch", but in fact it has already gone against it. However, does the extreme of "realism" become "impressionism", there are still signs to follow], then it is time for him to leave.
Relatively speaking, as a new art category, film art is indeed lagging and "chaotic" compared to other art categories. At the same time, it is also rapid, so it is more chaotic and diverse. Although "modernism" and "postmodernism", which are the current art trends, do not seem to be constrained too much. Instead, there are many inventors, photographers, drama creators, scholars, writers, painters and others. Step by step in the creation of intellectuals and others. Among them, there are many supporters of various doctrines, which enable them to show all kinds of completely different faces in the same period. And film art really integrates all the arts, regardless of whether it is a masterpiece (it seems impossible to do "1+1≥2" in movies, the advantages of each art category will be offset, only 1+1>1, such as Changlun's "Literary Adaptation" "Imagine that it is necessary to abandon some things in the original work for imaging). It is difficult to be defined by a certain clear "ism". Looking at the history of film, the key nodes are mostly a certain "genre." What is the difference between "ism" and "genre"? "Ism" is scientific, systematic, and specific, while "genre" is vague and "people are divided into groups", such as "New Taiwan Films", "Left Banks", "New German Films", (early Europe) "avant-garde" and so on, we can't tell specific things, we only know who is shooting something different. Even the same faction may have very different styles and concerns.
In the final analysis, everyone is different, so this is the meaning of "author". Truffaut was the first to put forward the term "author", which is the "new wave". And the "appearance" of the "New Wave" is so prominent and the impact is so great, it may be that the "authorism" is too prominent. The core of this "ism" is that only "I" is foresight. Generally speaking, the longer the creation time, the more powerful "authority" will be consumed a little to "balance" and "fusion". To some extent, an "aggressiveness" will be weakened.
Godard is not like that!
(As the author, I respect Godard; I don’t appreciate his movies except for a few)
View more about Weekend reviews