Quote:
|
Originally Posted by h8kurdt
Aye, I'm well aware of what they did for cinema and I think I mentioned that before. Problem is, were they doing anything decent with it? It's all well and good using techniques and pushing the auteur theory but if you aren't doing anything interesting with it then it's just masturbation.
“I’ve never gotten anything out of his movies. They have felt constructed, faux intellectual, and completely dead. Cinematographically uninteresting and infinitely boring. Godard is a fucking bore. He’s made his films for the critics. One of the movies, Masculin, Féminin, was shot here in Sweden. It was mind-numbingly boring.”
Bergman said that. Whilst I'm not holding him as the fountain of knowledge it goes someway to explaining that just cos they were the critics darlings doesn't mean I'm going to like them.
|
There are individual scenes in most of Godard's films that I love. It's trying to take a full movie that I struggle with. I still haven't got through the whole of Weekend in one sitting but that infamous traffic jam tracking shot is just brilliant. You can go through most of his films and find the same thing. There are 'slow' directors, who people often consider boring because of the pace of their storytelling (Bergman, Tarkovsky, Antonioni, Fellini, Ford, etc) but who, so long as you can deal with that pace, are fine. Godard's films seem quick, because they're hectic, but they just always seem to feel 3x longer than they actually are. Tarkovsky, Antonioni, etc, are slow, no getting away from it, but they can somehow entrance me in a way Godard never really does.