Jean-Luc Godard in the 80s: Are the Films Worth Checking Out? [TALKING IMAGES]

[St. Gloede]

The 80s was the decade Jean-Luc Godard was suddenly back on everybody's lips. He did talk shows in the US, huge stars were lining up to work with him, he pissed off the Catholic church, and perhaps more importantly for the fans, he made what he deemed his "2nd first film". Yes, critics called it a comeback with good reason.

It is insane to think that as the 80s rolled in, JLG had alienated both old friends and ardent fans. For more than a decade he had dedicated himself to political activism and essay films, and the people who cared about his new films, or were even aware he was making them, were dwindling. And then: It all changed.

In this episode, we look at 5 of his biggest and most acclaimed films of the 1980s, which you can jump to via the timestamps below, and try to explore what we love, like and dislike with these film, not to mention who they are for.

Every Man For Himself: 00:09:32
Passion: 00:24:24
First Name: Carmen: 00: 34:44
Hail Mary: 00:52:24
A Surprise Bresson Takeover: 1:05:45
Detective: 1:09:14
JLGs Other 80s Films: 1:18:24

Yes, there is no denying that JLG's 80s work has a bit more of a niche following than his 60s films, but should you check them out, and if so, where should you start? Listen in and find out.

P.S. If you are interested in JLGs 70s work, we have an episode on these films already in our archive.

You Can Listen Here:

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/7tsMeVLFThZPFQoIdtLGu5

Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/j ... 0613080521

Participants:

• Matthieu / Teproc

• Sol / Sol

• Chris / St. Gloede

Join the Conversation

What was your first reaction to seeing JLGs 80s work? (and what was the first film you saw from him)?

What are your favorite (or least hated) JLG films from the 80s?

Does anyone here agree with Sol and Matthieu that his 70s films are better? (Now that was an unusual take!)

What would you say are the biggest differences between his 80s work and his 60s and 70s work?

Do you agree with Matthieu that JLG feels significantly older, more melancholic and even bitter in these films?

Should fans of JLG's 60s work seek out his 80s work?

What do you think inspired JLG to move away from his political activist cinema?

Do you agree with Matthieu that JLG needs great actors/movie stars to fill in blanks he is not interested in?

And a few questions about the films:

Is Every Man For Himself a Lelouch parody? (or: Who is "Lelouch?")

What do you think of the slow-motion effect in Every Man For Himself?

What do you think his goal was with the trilogy of the sublime (Passion, First Name: Carmen and Hail Mary) and do you think he succeeded?

Would you have liked more or less Godard in First Name: Carmen? (And what did you think of our two leads)?

Does the comparison we make to Bresson in the podcast make sense?

Is Hail Mary really that blasphemous (or: "Do you care?")

Also: What was the purpose of the professor and Eve?

Is Detective the closest JLG would be to a return to his 60s films?

What scenes from the 80s stand out to you?

And finally, was it a real comeback or had he just snapped:

[St. Gloede]

Any thoughts on Godard's controversial period, or how two of the co-hosts prefer his generally dismissed 70s work?

If anyone missed that episode, titled WTH Happened to Godard in the 70s, here's the thread: viewtopic.php?p=667738&hilit=Talking+images#p667738

[hurluberlu]

I am half way the podcast and I am quite enjoying it. I like the format of focusing on a director and a specific period, confronting the views.

I have watched Godard films as they come to me, not in a chronological order so I never had to be disappointed moving from the 60s to the 70s and 80s. Although the 60s are definitely his most memorable decade cinematically they all have highs and lows. Watching one of his films is also never a neutral experience. That is probably why he is one of the only director I found myself regularly changing mind about how I rate his movies because it is very dependent on where you put your attention - and if your attention is available at all to start with.

From his 80s movies I have seen Hail Mary (8, a favourite), First Name: Carmen (7), Detective (7), Every Man For Himself (6) and Soigne ta droite (6). I watched them too far ago to really answer your questions except First Name: Carmen I rewatched in restored BR and which I upgraded: I did not care too much about the back story, I thought it was just a playground Godard was using to develop some themes and explore forms of cinematic telling. Visuals are quite outstanding but the two leads are truly annoying - from being both bland and overacting, not that it matters much. Hail Mary is the most brilliant because I think he manages to strike the right balance between his formal experiments and how they incarnate on screen, which echoes the religious plotline of the film but also his love story with the lead actress.

In Every Man for Himself, I dont think he was inspired by Claude Sautet's THings of life but he is definitely mocking it. Cars in general and car accidents in particular have always been in Godard's films, using the latter as both signifying event in the narration and metaphores in the themes he is covering (sex, death, progress, etc). It can be a personal reference as well, as a man and movie director. He was hit by a car in the early 70s and had to stay in hospital several months. So when Dutronc/the lead says that "all is well, he is not dying cause he does not sees his life in flasback", it is an ironic reference to the long, unsubtle flashback of things of Life.

[mjf314]

My favorite Godard films are Pierrot le fou (1965) and A Woman is a Woman (1961). I like several of his other 60s films as well.

I hated Two or Three Things I Know About Her (1967) and Nouvelle Vague (1990). I haven't seen any of his 80s films, but after suffering through those two, I don't have much interest in watching the films that he made after the 60s.

[Apu]

To give you a good indication of how great of a filmmaker Godard is, here are the Godard films/entries featured on Rosenbaum's Essential Cinema list:

À bout de souffle (1960)*
Le mépris (1963)
Bande à part (1964)
Une femme mariée (1964)
Alphaville (1965)
Masculin féminin (1966)
Made in U.S.A. (1966)
Two or Three Things I Know About Her (1967)
La chinoise (1967)
Week End (1967)
The Oldest Profession (1967)
Numéro deux (1975)
Here and Elsewhere (1976)
France/tour/detour/deux/enfants (1977)
Scenario du film ‘Passion’ (1982)
King Lear (1987)
Puissance de la parole (1988)
Histoire(s) du cinéma (1989)
Nouvelle vague (1990)*
Film socialisme (2010)
Adieu au language (2014)

À bout de souffle and Nouvelle vague are on his top 100.

Also included on his list is Ro.Go.Pa.G. (1963), though Rosenbaum only really like Pasolini's contribution here.

Rosenbaum has also written good things about A Woman Is a Woman and Hélas pour moi. He also singles out Passion, Germany Year 90 Nine Zero and In Praise of Love as masterpieces (though not included on his Essential Cinema list). Furthermore, JLG by JLG and Notre musique are "must see-films".

The two most surprising Godard films not included on Rosenbaum's Essential Cinema are probably Vivre sa vie and Pierrot le feu. The only Godard features Rosenbaum seems to actively dislike/isn't very fond of are Un film comme les autres and For Ever Mozart.

Basically, if you're not fond and/or interested in Godard as a filmmaker (even though you may have certain contempt towards him and his films; they're not the easiest films to find enjoyable), you dislike cinema. And yes, his 1980s films are worth checking out (why wouldn't they?). Arguably no one since the 1960s has done more to broaden the idea of film as an art form and he remains endlessly influential.

[blocho]

Basically, if you're not fond and/or interested in Godard as a filmmaker (even though you may have certain contempt towards him and his films; they're not the easiest films to find enjoyable), you dislike cinema.

I didn't realize until today that I dislike cinema. This is a bit of a blow for me. I suppose I should find something else to do with my time.

[St. Gloede]

Basically, if you're not fond and/or interested in Godard as a filmmaker (even though you may have certain contempt towards him and his films; they're not the easiest films to find enjoyable), you dislike cinema.

I didn't realize until today that I dislike cinema. This is a bit of a blow for me. I suppose I should find something else to do with my time.

You can watch your films, you just have to refer to them as movies from now on.

[St. Gloede]

I am half way the podcast and I am quite enjoying it. I like the format of focusing on a director and a specific period, confronting the views.

Really happy to hear that.

I have watched Godard films as they come to me, not in a chronological order so I never had to be disappointed moving from the 60s to the 70s and 80s. Although the 60s are definitely his most memorable decade cinematically they all have highs and lows. Watching one of his films is also never a neutral experience. That is probably why he is one of the only director I found myself regularly changing mind about how I rate his movies because it is very dependent on where you put your attention - and if your attention is available at all to start with.

From his 80s movies I have seen Hail Mary (8, a favourite), First Name: Carmen (7), Detective (7), Every Man For Himself (6) and Soigne ta droite (6). I watched them too far ago to really answer your questions except First Name: Carmen I rewatched in restored BR and which I upgraded: I did not care too much about the back story, I thought it was just a playground Godard was using to develop some themes and explore forms of cinematic telling. Visuals are quite outstanding but the two leads are truly annoying - from being both bland and overacting, not that it matters much. Hail Mary is the most brilliant because I think he manages to strike the right balance between his formal experiments and how they incarnate on screen, which echoes the religious plotline of the film but also his love story with the lead actress.

In that case, I think you will love Passion as well.

Interesting to hear how you frequently change your mind on his films. I'll agree that they are multifaceted and can be read as vacuous, deep or both. One that that is really interesting with JLG is the way he seems to mock/critique everything, even his own ideas/presentation of them, everything can be read as being coated in sarcasm, and I have read many struggling to understand when and where he is sincere, and this causing frustration. We discussed this schroedinger's sincerity in relation to Hail Mary in the ep, and it can often be hard to tell. Does this make his films more measured, more fun, or is it just a safety mechanism? My appreciation for JLG films has generally come down to how he plays with cinema, with the depths of his essays, juxtapositions, etc. often feeling more like the sides rather than the main course, making a greater overall meal but not the main event for me when I sit down with them. Do you feel the same way?

In Every Man for Himself, I dont think he was inspired by Claude Sautet's THings of life but he is definitely mocking it. Cars in general and car accidents in particular have always been in Godard's films, using the latter as both signifying event in the narration and metaphores in the themes he is covering (sex, death, progress, etc). It can be a personal reference as well, as a man and movie director. He was hit by a car in the early 70s and had to stay in hospital several months. So when Dutronc/the lead says that "all is well, he is not dying cause he does not sees his life in flasback", it is an ironic reference to the long, unsubtle flashback of things of Life.

Yeah, this was the idea Matthieu was pushing as well and while I had never thought of it before I think you are both right.

[St. Gloede]

My favorite Godard films are Pierrot le fou (1965) and A Woman is a Woman (1961). I like several of his other 60s films as well.

I hated Two or Three Things I Know About Her (1967) and Nouvelle Vague (1990). I haven't seen any of his 80s films, but after suffering through those two, I don't have much interest in watching the films that he made after the 60s.

Nouvelle Vague is not really like his 80s films interestingly. It came after a set of two outlandish comedies, King Lear and Keep Your Right Up and after the start of Histoire(s) du cinema, and it feels like it is in a very different place in terms of intent, pace and mood. While I love Oh, Woe is Me (1993) I have generally felt that JLG's 90s output feels far more melancholic, even a little dry, as if he has run out of steam a little and is looking for some kind of purpose again. Meanwhile Two or Three Things I Know About Her is closer to his essay films of the 70s.

In the early and mid-60s he was a rebel-rouser, in the late 60s and early 70s he was "making films politically", with an overt revolutionary agenda, and in the mid-late 70s, he was refocusing on more domestic/social politics, but as a whole through this larger period of the mid-late 60s through the 70s he had found something to fight for and be driven by. The 80s is in large part a return to basics and cinematic techniques, he's playing around with films just for the sake of it again, breaking apart genre conventions, and especially outside of the "Trilogy of the Sublime", but even within it, just having fun with the medium again.

However, I get the sense that he thought this might have been a little empty, and in the 90s we saw a return to political filmmaking, but in a far more mellow way. This continued into the 00s, with Our Music possibly being his culmination, but in the early 00s he discovered digital cameras and this instigated a newfound sense of discovery that you can feel in all of these films until the last.

I think it is safe to assume you won't like his 70s work, but for people who likes his 60s films, the 80s is the closest point of comparison, with Passion being closer to Le mephris, First Name: Carmen being closer to Pierrot le fou, Every Man for Himself having similarities to Vivre sa vie, etc. His 80s work still alienate many 60s fans, but it is the safest bet if you want to continue to explore his work.

[St. Gloede]

To give you a good indication of how great of a filmmaker Godard is, here are the Godard films/entries featured on Rosenbaum's Essential Cinema list:

À bout de souffle (1960)*
Le mépris (1963)
Bande à part (1964)
Une femme mariée (1964)
Alphaville (1965)
Masculin féminin (1966)
Made in U.S.A. (1966)
Two or Three Things I Know About Her (1967)
La chinoise (1967)
Week End (1967)
The Oldest Profession (1967)
Numéro deux (1975)
Here and Elsewhere (1976)
France/tour/detour/deux/enfants (1977)
Scenario du film ‘Passion’ (1982)
King Lear (1987)
Puissance de la parole (1988)
Histoire(s) du cinéma (1989)
Nouvelle vague (1990)*
Film socialisme (2010)
Adieu au language (2014)

À bout de souffle and Nouvelle vague are on his top 100.

Also included on his list is Ro.Go.Pa.G. (1963), though Rosenbaum only really like Pasolini's contribution here.

Rosenbaum has also written good things about A Woman Is a Woman and Hélas pour moi. He also singles out Passion, Germany Year 90 Nine Zero and In Praise of Love as masterpieces (though not included on his Essential Cinema list). Furthermore, JLG by JLG and Notre musique are "must see-films".

The two most surprising Godard films not included on Rosenbaum's Essential Cinema are probably Vivre sa vie and Pierrot le feu. The only Godard features Rosenbaum seems to actively dislike/isn't very fond of are Un film comme les autres and For Ever Mozart.

I wish Rosenbaum's tastes were a bit more indicative of how cinephiles feel in general, but happy to have him in my corner, and I can definitely agree that A Film Like Any Other and For Ever Mozart are amongst his weakest, especially the former. Pravda is his worst IMO, but that was a group effort.

Basically, if you're not fond and/or interested in Godard as a filmmaker (even though you may have certain contempt towards him and his films; they're not the easiest films to find enjoyable), you dislike cinema. And yes, his 1980s films are worth checking out (why wouldn't they?). Arguably no one since the 1960s has done more to broaden the idea of film as an art form and he remains endlessly influential.

Now that might be going a bridge too far, but I will say that those who are not fond of JLG as a filmmaker certainly has a different interest point in cinema than me. Essentially no one has experimented more with what cinema can be than JLG, (maybe Snow) each film playing with cinema conventions and testing how it works on the big screen. This is the driving reason behind why I love JLG. It is just such an exciting and engaging experience to see what he can do with the medium. Anyone who leans more towards narrative cinema will likely find much less of note in his work however.