Meeting With Woody Allen (1986) Godard (2)

[simeonedebeauvoir]

It is interesting to see that for Woody Allen, the experience of going to the cinema is an aesthetic experience. He refers to the greatness of the place. As for Godard, it seems to be a act of resistance on the vision someone imposed on you (in his case, his family). I think these two standpoints are characteristics of the respective vision of American and French cinema in general.

[tapasudana]

Dealing the act going to the cinema.....

Godard says : .... liberty ....

Woddy Allen says: .... ritual ....

[inrwizards]

tv takes out the artestry and presents everything in an unimaginative way for the most part. there are exceptions, like the sopranos, but they only come along once in a lifetime.

[Frederikamusic]

It's funny. Woody seems extremely embarassed by Godard. He can't really look at him in the eye!

[ThePrinceMyshkin]

@Frederikamusic

Lots of people are intimidated by him. Apparently the critic Serge Daney (I think), and Bernardo Bertolucci both threw up when they first met Godard. Incredibly hilarious.

[kevinivers]

Sounds like Mia Farrow translating...

[relyanddefy]

people who slag off TV as an inferior way to watch "great" movies are idiots. despite his remarks i still like woody.

[SideshowJared]

@relyanddefy he's talking about film viewing from a filmmaker's perspective, and, more specifically, speaking of VHS in its infancy. Don't forget this is from 1986, way before flat screen TV's, blu-rays, etc. Not that VHS is the worst way to view a film, but it's certainly inferior. Right?

[relyanddefy]

@SideshowJared i guess i dont have his filmmakers perspective, only a film lovers. and i must be of the generation where going to the cinema isnt a magical experience that transports me to other worlds, it used to when i was young but i am very aware of where i am when i watch a movie, no matter how great it is. its a shame!

[SideshowJared]

@relyanddefy I usually can to, but in his case, not only did he essentially learn about films by going to the theater, he carefully crafts the images and sound to be on a theater screen. Know what I mean?

[relyanddefy]

@SideshowJared yeah i get you, im trying to think of an example from one of his movies...

[SideshowJared]

@relyanddefy "Manhattan" has those great images and Gershwin music that, although you or myself can still see the beauty, in his eyes it's probably disastrous on television.

[relyanddefy]

@SideshowJared yeah very true. im kind of jealous of feeling that way. despite the fact i get to enjoy a lot more movies my way,

[madmatts2]

I dont know about that. People said the very same thing about film 90 years ago, when much of the intelectual speech worldwide was all about degrading the use of machines, and yes, maybe "they" were right. never the less I think filming wasnt the ultimate truth of arts back then, and it still isnt. Its a technology, and therefore a means towards expression. The digital revolution, i think, its just another change of means, quite raw and underestimated, but new and full of possibilities.

[TheJabberwock]

Martin Scorsese watched a lot of his first movies on television, specifically Italian ones.

[PtAltmVansanTarr]

Allen looks at Godard like he's from a different planet.

[PtAltmVansanTarr]

@Phaices In "Helas pour moi" he issues a self crit of himself at one point, with a character saying that it's easy to say flowering profound poetic things, but if they aren't true, you shouldn't speak and if you do,you must take the words back immediately.

[biiicyclerace]

Thanks to television I was able to watch these two together in "King Lear", at the age of 13. Since then, thanks to Godard, I've been absolutely captivated by modern cinema (even though I didn't understand most of the film at time). Part 1 of this interview is priceless!

[DavidZissou]

They did make a film together, "King Lear" in 1987. It starred Woody Allen, Molly Ringwald, Julie Delpy and Norman Mailer. Only copy I know of is an American VHS. Godard's later films are very poorly supported on DVD. Richard Brody and Colin McCabe have written about the films a great deal to try and turn the tide and rectify this. Shakespeare. Allen. Godard. What more do people need before it's worth distributing? Honestly, kids today. It's all Vampires...

[johnnysocco3]

"Someplace to block out the terrible truths of reality..."

[jayraskin]

Amazing, amazing, amazing. Thanks. This is like watching a combination of a Godard and Woody Allen movie. Wouldn't it have been fantastic if they had collaborated on a big cinema movie?

[RonAlmeida]

Godard would have ended up pulling out all the little hair he has.

[El135o]

If television was unhealthy to film, Youtube is toxic.

The so-called digitial revolution may mean the end of film, literature, and music.

[okuhfesa]

Mwahahaha

[Rarab2]

@El135o

Technology and materialism are gonna stamp out art and spirituality. The next big development, as big as the internet was, will be a real problem.

[stob000]

@El135o I don't agree. It's just that there hasn't really been a load of great stuff to come that is a direct response to or part of 'Youtube'-isation. I know so deeply for a fact that this will produce something interesting and take you somewhere interesting.

One may not want to go there, that would be a fair thing to say. And no there is an abundance of cancerous things which I watch myself which are not good for me. But Godard's best work came because of Video technology & his response to it.

[momogompo]

@El135o

Hypocrite.

[ThePrinceMyshkin]

@El135o

The digital 'revolution' encourages inattention and inactivity. It may kill art which is necessarily challenging. Naturally it's been a big hit. Why work when you don't have to? Why progress? Base satisfaction is much easier, quicker, socially acceptable, and more likely to make money for other people who don't deserve it... than immaterial progress. All that I've said has been said a million times. A losing battle. Well...

[wungabunga]

I don't understand how Woody can misinterpret Goddard's question! I'm used to the style - it can appear a bit pretentious, but the French aren't embarrassed, just tell him 'no' if you think it's a bullshit point!

[RonAlmeida]

Yes everybody wants cliche's and not anything new. A new way of looking or of narration. No wonder bourgeois Blockbusters and bestsellers always make the grade.

[Funnysterste]

And if there is something new that cant be refused because it is good, then it hast to be put into a cliche.

[MANNYLAGE]

what a beautiful film!

[Phalces]

I agree with barry06. Godard is a cinema genius but his poetry sometimes comes off as pretentious garbage. That is the risk a poet of the cinema like him must take. Here in this context he falls into that trap.

[NewJerusalum]

Never noticed how similar the 2 look.

[israelmonrroy]

this is been cut where can we see the full interview, its cut in bit i don'r get it, where?

[BenHudsonBen]

Godard's approach is serious. it's also funny. generally cool. a bit up his ass perhaps but quite decent action.

[barry06]

i appreciate godard's style and vision, but in an interview, i want to hear the conversation. also, id like to hear the specific questions and interpret the interviewee's reaction