Godard Interviewed by Deanna Kamiel - 1980

[neilbahadur1]

@karanmaxfilms Maybe.

[neilbahadur1]

@karanmaxfilms And of course Welles!

[neilbahadur1]

@karanmaxfilms The classical American film is extrodindary, Von Sternberg, Nick Ray, Ford, Von Stroheim, Chaplin, King Vidor, as well as the modern masters such as Ferrara, Michael Mann, Scorsese, Terrence Malick, James Grey........Kubrick, while good, will fade with time.

[pfranks44]

this interviewer is a fucking ditz

[PtAltmVansanTarr]

@alien3445 LOL, Spielberg did show us a more realistic image of WWII in the Omaha Beach sequence, but as a whole, that film was a failure compared to JLG's antiwar films at transmitting the stupidity of war

[Serpico261]

remember la chinoise?

[folladordeprostis]

jean luc godard fans said amelie sucks,they said that movie is very "americanize"

[relyanddefy]

my postcard was useful then because maybe you forgot you existed :p

[doctornoooo]

big budgets do not masterpieces make: Rififi was made for practically nothing and is still the best thriller ever made, Godard never made a film close to its excellence, and as for Hollywood the original Invasion of the Body Snatchers was churned out in a few weeks for practically nada, is Hollywood to the bone, and still the best sci fi ever. Blanket judgements about Hollywood being the home of the mediocre and France the palace of the gods is really rather tiresome

[yodasling]

@doctornoooo tiresome perhaps for you but true :-)

[PtAltmVansanTarr]

@anti-Hollywood types -when Godard devotes a section of his film to Bogie, I think you can make the assumption that Godard is greatly inspired by more than the budgets of these films.

[PtAltmVansanTarr]

@yellowwasp09 but watch Stagecoach, that film is better than 99% of the crap Hollywood releases today

[Hirfel]

I love the pristine HD quality!

[surfbite]

Movies can be bad everywhere, it was Godard dream to direct in Hollywood, I don't really know why is that, but I don't think people today is still ready to listen the imagens he recorded, so for sure the blockbusters isn't ready to speak this messagens too.

[Rarab2]

@surfbite

I figure he wanted bigger budgets and wider releases. Bigger opportunities.

[surfbite]

Yeah, I agree, maybe this is the reason, but sometimes I think it's also because it was home for Nicholas Ray which he adored.

[RonAlmeida]

Americans were brought up on Disneyland and Hollywood not on literature and art as Europeans. You cant expect the same sensibility. Money is not the basis for art but for Hollywood it is.

[apocalypselat3r]

@RonAlmeida i think you ought to be more careful with your words. intellectual reasoning is founded on a thorough inspection of culture not through fascistic and pedantic snobbishness. you are employing the same means hollywood and disneyland use to mesmerize and subsequently imprison (the imaginations of) their audience. in addition, godard was influenced primarily by this same hollywood you mention. and your gilded regard for the european people is the furthest from the truth. they are human.

[RonAlmeida]

@apocalypselat3r You are right words are never enough to describe or communicate to anyone the experiences of a whole lifetime.

[ssanyeux]

@andrejvgo it's hard to make such a statement like RonAlmeida. but somehow it is true, I can't truly say such a thing, but in general , Hollywood had its fascinating times, in hollywood cinema is business, the french new wave was only a movement of people who wanted to give cinema more than just acting and words. breaking the mold of the predicible. cinema is everything and everyone, so it doesn't really matter what country has the smartest people?

[philmaster288]

@RonAlmeida wow , how can you generalise like that ? I live in America , and trust me : art is pretty much everywhere . Just in montreal city , we are overwhelmed with museums and artistic events.

[RonAlmeida]

@philmaster288 You are right I am sure, since its all a point of view. Nobody speaks every language or has had the same experiences. One mans art is anothers you know what.

[Joelaroc7]

@RonAlmeida To say Americans were not brought up on literature is pure BS when you consider many American authors like James Cooper, Washington Irving, Edgar Allan Poe, Herman Melville, Ralph Emerson, Mark Twain, Henry Longfellow, F. Scott Fitzgerald, John Steinbeck, Sinclar Lewis, T.S. Eliot and so on. Oh and many foreign filmmakers have made their own interpretations of American novels too, including Godard himself, whose PIERROT LE FOU was based on Lionel White (an American)'s book OBSESSION.

[Joelaroc7]

@RonAlmeida "Americans were brought up on Disneyland and Hollywood." Oh, really? So I guess we were not brought up by the lightbulb, the airplane, the personal computer, transistor, the Civil Rights movement, jazz, blues, rap, rock n' roll, the nuclear family concept, automobiles, television, American sports, the steamboat, the telegraph, cotton gin and the American authors that I mentioned either, right? Sometimes I read your comment and wonder if you did your research.

[alien3445]

godard god ,spielberg suck cock

[parkerphil20]

why do you say that,schindlers list was a masterpiece

[apocalypselat3r]

@alien3445 idol worship and hasty judgement are qualities identical to those employed by the masses you probably hold so much contempt for (that is, the masses that idolize spielberg). with that said, i fundamentally agree with you, though i would just never phrase it in such a way.

[Joelaroc7]

@alien3445 Yeah, because a worthless, has-been French director who hasn't made a decent movie since 1967 is more important than one of the world's successful filmmakers who has actually made more movies in a year than this pinhead has in a decade.

[sblug2]

Not his best interview, in my opinion.

[ReservoirDentPie]

i wonder if he has more difficulty articulating his ideas in english?

[sblug2]

Well, Godard is human, sometimes he is wrong, or less interesting like everybody else. ^^

[yellowwasp09]

i like godard's films but i'm so tired of these pretentious bastards,only watching these to bash hollywood.i'm not the biggest fan,but come on...

There's a love hate relation betwen it and foreign cinema.Akira Kusawa wouldn't have made Seven Samurai if not for John Ford.

[objecteur2conscience]

really appreciate those intense comments of yours pishad ,especially since your discussions seem to be lasting for months if not years and you are positive on this great name of cinema

can you tell us what you do in cinema and how you discovered godard?

cheers!

[pishdad]

Unfortunately America, Hollywood, came out with people like Speilberg & Lucas- who are the movie equivalents of Wall Street's Bernard Madoff. Speilberg & Lucas were the quickest to understand that the best way to seperate a fool from his money is through their kids! They realized all they had to do was create some kind of movie rubbish which would capture the kids.Fathers and mothers would do anything for some peace & quiet on the weekend, hence the popularity of Star Wars and rest of the crap!

[eurochild]

Thanks to everyone who's posting these kind of interviews.

I want more, more!

[pishdad]

Qui est vous?!!

[Panda9D]

There seems to be a real anti-Hollywood sentiment here. I love Godard and Hollywood. Pishdad, you seem to categorize cinema into Godard and then everyone else. Godard is far from being the only director to utilize cinema beyond 'window-dom'. You should look at cinema more deeply before acting as if you're an authority on the subject.

[pishdad]

My dear I if there are 'authorities' on the subject' then I am am on the front line! Prey tell how do you know with whom you speak? I can say for certain that anyone who places the word Hollywood inside a sentence which also contains the words cinema or film is completely out of their mind!!! Your words reveal to me that you speak on a statistical level which precludes the possibiliity you are speaking with an autohority on film/cinema where as I determine you're a novice by your very words!

[Panda9D]

Hollywood is responsible for some great films that your hero Godard also admires. He is also often quoted as saying he would have loved to make a big budget film in the old MGM studios. I question anyone who claims to love cinema then dismisses Hollywood. To claim Godard is the only director using the camera in innovative (now not so innovative by the way) ways exposes your lack of knowledge because that isn't and was never true. Look at other great directors such as Marker, Vertov, Rouche etc.

[pishdad]

There you go characterizing me again, Panda. I never stated that Godard was the only person to live who didn't use the 'window' approach.' There might be another director or two who did that. It's the way those other guys did it that's the problem with me- they're really bad! I appreciate your good trooper 'everbody's great' approach to cinema, Panda, but my point is that there is an Ocean between them and Godard. By the way he's not my hero. I just go with the end product, the works.

[pishdad]

Yeah, he'd love to make a big budget film in the old MGM Studio's because there are tons of props, etc. Sorry, Im laughing, it's not the buildings and the location of Hollywood that Godard or I am against!! Again it's THE QUALITY OF THE WORK PRODUCED THERE! It's just that Hollywood is the envy of any great director as far as equipment!!They just do very little with what they have. It's like giving an 8 year old brat a top line 2010 Mercedes Benz and all his friends just have a little Hot Wheel!

[forugh]

yeah, and i would really like to see what godard would have done in mgm studios when he said that

[tristanXIV]

what's with Hollywood and all these super hero remakes in recent years?

[Panda9D]

Godard is a great director who I admire. But your comments dismiss John Ford, Orson Welles, Billy Wilder, Howard Hawkes, Alfred Hitchcock, Woody Allen, David Lynch, The Coen Brothers, Wes Anderson, Stanley Kubrik and many more filmmakers who are/were supported by Hollywood studios.

[pishdad]

You know how many comic strips do you have to go and read before you once again conclude that comics are just limited and rather shallow? I feel that way about directors too! I'm told by him and her, 'oh, you should really see xyz.' I go check out xyz and it's crap!!!! This happens to me all the time. I believe it all has to do with expectations and our 'level' of what we perceive to be 'quality.' One person will completely convinced that Beatle Bailey is the be all end all, and they mean it!!!

[pishdad]

Another person will think Beatle Bailey is a complete joke, which it is! It all has to do with your expectations and level of sophistication I guess. Some people swear Buster Keaton is just the best and most rad director out there. I just feel he's probably the funniest but in no way the most amazing! That's me. I see tremendous flaws in most of the people you mention, Panda. I just don't think they're very good. I'll give Welles an honorable mention but he's all to understandable and limited.

[pishdad]

Oh, keep in mind Panda that when Godard mentioned some sort of admiration for Hollywood it was with regards to the incredible budget they are able to amass. Godard was merely venting how much he'd like to have even 1/10th of the budget of any of those Hollywood morons!! Can you or anybody imagine the creation Godard would have concocted if he had a Hollywood budget?! It's like comaring Godard's yard sale to Speilberg's Citibank or something like that!!

[oratorspeaker]

one of the living legends!

[pishdad]

If you want to understand film/cinema you must understand that there is a difference between a movie about cowboys/indians or good guys/bad guys and a movie about cinema which happens to have some coyboys or bad guys in it!!!!! In the former you have a story about cowboys & indians- documentary or "visual novel" yes but not cinema/film. In the latter you're using cowboys & indians as an excuse to experiment more on the genre of cinema/film!!Big difference!! The latter is Godard! I'm done here!!

[wheZZ1]

Although some of what you say is interesting, there is no way that you (or anybody else) can define what cinema "truly is". Not even Godard. That's even what he is saying in this interview. On the other hand, it is quite interesting to consider what Herzog thinks of Godard, mainly that "his films, compared to a kung fu flick, are like counterfeit money". I'm not saying he is right there, but still interesting to ponder...

[pishdad]

Wow, now that's the most interesting thing I've ever seen on youtube. It would be highly interesting about the counterfeit thing!! I think what your guys is referring to is the "freshness" of Godard films. These films are definitely done on a budget and I think that has something to do with this counterfeit issue of yours,etc. But I've never heard of anyone referring to it in that way. I guess you could say that Godard films are rather counterfeit. I'm sure he'd laugh and enjoy that.

[pishdad]

I'm a multimedia artist and I think I'm going to use that 'counterfeit' concept in one of my pieces!! Ha, ha! It'll be interesting. Godard never had that "Hollywood" budget. God I hate to even placed that nasty "H" word in the same paragraph as Godard but I guess you gotta do what ya gotta do. I'll refer to it as the H-word from now on. In all this YouTube I've never really seen any body say anything insightful about anything in film. They all say "oh you should see this or that," but that's it.

[pishdad]

Then people say "oh you should see this and that." "It's a really good movie." "Godard really liked so & so." "Godard thought so & so was great," etc. But nobody ever says anything constructive at all. Then they think of themselves as film connoisseurs. It amazes me!! I can't believe how many gorge themselves on art but then nothing to say about it. I really look for something even if it's hidden but- NOTHING! Nothing.

[pishdad]

Yeah, you know I just thought of putting it in a different way. The interview above says it all! My opinion is that 99.999% of the films out there are incongnizant of what film is. Basically what they're giving you is not a film presentation; they're giving you a show. It's a show exactly the same as dad going to the elementary school to video his daughters little premeire on the stage of the school play. Con't...

[pishdad]

...Con't.

In a nutshell, that's what Hollywood and every director out there is doing. Godard is different because the show and camera are more interactive- they become one. H-wood and all the other directors I've see, European included, just seem to be putting the camera out there and just recording "the school play." "Capturing some outside event in the window of film." With Godard the camera becomes part of that show itself- more integrated. That's it for me now.

[pishdad]

If you want to understand film/cinema you must understand that there is a difference between a movie about cowboys/indians or good guys/bad guys and a movie about cinema which happens to have some coyboys or bad guys in it!!!!! In the former you have a story about cowboys & indians- documentary or "visual novel" yes but not cinema/film. In the latter you're using cowboys & indians as an excuse to experiment more on the genre of cinema/film!!Big difference!! The latter is Godard! I'm done here!!

[pishdad]

Again. The difference between Godard and other directors is that he is an artist as well! Other directors use cinema/film as a "window," to show you the story on "the other side of the window or wall." With Godard "the window" itself is "the story going on on the other side." This shows that Godard knows what film/cinema really is. Most directors have no clue what cinema is!! They just use the camera as a way to show you some cowboys and indians or a comedian or two- they're clueless!

[pishdad]

Again. The difference between Godard and other directors is that he is an artist as well! Other directors use cinema/film as a "window," to show you the story on "the other side of the window or wall." With Godard "the window" itself is "the story going on on the other side." This shows that Godard knows what film/cinema really is. Most directors have no clue what cinema is!! They just use the camera as a way to show you some cowboys and indians or a comedian or two- they're clueless!

[pishdad]

People. What seperates Godard from other directors is that Godard is a director and an artist. This is the highest level you can bestow on genre- Artist. Everyone uses the term artist like pop-corn, but in truth there are very, very, very few artists in the world- only a handfull if that at any moment!!!!!The others are directors and that's it. Other directors use film as a window to view the story on the "other side of the wall." With Godard the window itself is "the other side of the wall."

[pishdad]

People. What seperates Godard from other directors is that Godard is a director and an artist. This is the highest level you can bestow on genre- Artist. Everyone uses the term artist like pop-corn, but in truth there are very, very, very few artists in the world- only a handfull if that at any moment!!!!!The others are directors and that's it. Other directors use film as a window to view the story on the "other side of the wall." With Godard the window itself is "the other side of the wall."

[pishdad]

Wow! How profound. Godard says that the best thing you can take away from his work is to realize that you exist because in this world of charlatans and corrupted people, minds, etc you may have forgotten that you exist!! Ha, ha,ha, what a man!! No other director in the world would ever make such an amazingly selfless yet brilliant point! By far the only real and greatest director to ever live!

[Boudosaved]

He is the best one alive, but I think he would agree that Bresson, Tarkovsky, Bergman, Antonioni, Teshigahara and Welles were his equals.

[pishdad]

I'm sorry but..Absolutely no way. Godard has no equals. He's the Michelangelo of film,period. What you say is tentamount to saying Monet, Sisley, Passaro, etc. were equals to Van Gogh. Absolutely not, sorry. But I will admit painting did have more great artists than film ever did. It's a more successful medium. Some equals of Van Gogh were Cezanne, maybe Gaugan but that's it during his time.

[Boudosaved]

Godard is a master. Don't get me wrong. But even Godard thought highly of Bresson and called "Au Hasard Balthazar" one of the best films ever made. Bergman loved Tarkovsky and Tarkovsky loved Bergman, Teshigahara and...named "Diary of a Country Priest" by Bresson as the best film ever made.

[pishdad]

...And I say all of this without even particularly liking the French. They're arrogant, think they know everything, and have bad attitudes. I don't care for the rest of French cinema/film either. Godard is an exception. And not witholding I also cannot stand anything Hollywood. The last decent thing that came out of Hollywood was Welles, but nothing good since- it's been a complete scourge to society and has stiffled creativity in cinema!! Keaton was fun though- but nothing too serious,etc.

[pishdad]

Well, Godard may or may not think this but I guess the point I'm making is I don't believe this to be the case. Godard is working on a completely different level than the above. Godard adhere strictly to cinema as cinema without a 'story line.' The point Godard makes is that he is making a film and this is evident throughout each film and career of films. The others turn and twist things into a story of so and so event, or it all involves some climatic point or profound meaning. That's dead!

[pishdad]

Look the point I'm making is that everyone from the people you mention to Renoir, Hitchcock, Welles, etc. They all create cinema for the story they want to convey. The story is either full of drama, meaning, emotionally maniuplative, etc. And none of those movies include you in them!! Godard is different!! To Godard film is film, cinema is cinema. You do it to comment on the nature of the medium itself and not to inject some kind of Harald & Maude type of drama into it!

[Rchie5678]

I respect your opinion about the "including the viewer into the film". But can you explain how this is achieved? If I were to make a movie that includes the viewer into it, what should I do to achieve that? Or what would You do? Or at least prove me, HOW does Godard include the viewer into his movies? Cause I saw his movies, and never felt as if I were inside the film.

[pishdad]

Look I'm going to say this and you either get it or you don't. I face too many ignorant people on a daily basis to give any more free tutorials here. Look Godard is different and if you don't get it then you're over your head or just too arrogant to understand! Godar places the viewer as the center piece of each film. None of the other directors do this. They all tell their storys whether you're listening or not. I they could give a damn about you. Hitchcock is telling his story and that's it!!

[Boudosaved]

You know Godard well, but it is clear you don't know Bresson, Bergman or Tarkovsky. I suggest you check out the senses of cinema website for a tutorial on each director's works. Most of your comments are insults and not rational responses to my original comment.

[pishdad]

Ha! Insults. I'm done. I've listened to enough people like you. Every time I check them out I'm proven correct. To me you're like someone coming to me and suggesting I should check out this and that. It always ends up that what I check out is at the level of *MASH* 4077 or some such silly show!!I really don't even know why I even attempt to share stuff with people, it's not like they'll understand anything. They all just come back with the same stupid comments as before. I'm done.

[pishdad]

I was wondering if you could refrain from anymore comments to me because I find it all draining, no interesting insights, nothing creative to say, etc. I find this direction very boring. I'm used to more stimulating conversation/thought. Thanks for your time.

[pishdad]

Hitchcock, Kirasawa, Renoir, and the rest all tell their stories. They don't take into account the viewer at all. The films just go on in spite of you- it's all forced down your throat like it or not. Godard is different. Godard suggests things here and there with much greater style and finesse. Things are contradictory and more introspective.If you are a jaded individual you will walk out of a Godard film because it undermines you.You see it as too trite or silly, but in fact Godard exposes us!

[DavNav88]

She sounds so clueless. Why are there so many dumb reporters and journalists? It's a job that should be left for the most intelligent and clever of individuals.

[pishdad]

Duh! All reporters are stupid. Intelligent people don't go into reporting because there are too many other things for them to go into. By the time it's all over we're just left with idiots and so they find their way into reporting! It's that simple! Just look at the tv/news/papers, they're all incredibly stupid!I'm surprised you see so many "dumb reporters" and you haven't put the math together yet!!?

[DavNav88]

What is up with all this anger? Surely there are good reporters, and to label all of them idiots is prejudice. Perhaps you don't look hard enought for them, no? I'm positive that you aren't familiar with every reporter on the face of the planet, so your argument ends there. Although I find your comment on "how smart people tend not to go into journalism" interesting, the rest of your statement is completely immature and I'm surprised at how your math works.

[pishdad]

It is very simple just like I said. Intelligent people don't go into journalism period my friend. "Intelligent people" get absorbed into the other things. Reporting, journalism ends up with people who are not bright at all. But as the saying goes, someones gotta do it and it can be lucrative at the higher levels just like everything but they're still not a smart group of people- car salespeople are smarter than reporters, just maybe not as photogenic.

[pishdad]

And as far as reporters go this one is better than 99% of them. I'm surprised you call this one clueless. In general you'd be correct but this one is better that probably any I've seen. I'm greatly bemused by your conjecture of clulessness with this journalist. I'm wondering if you aren't somewhat arogant and seems looking down on this lady journalist- she's actually very good in her business!!!

[ffzappe]

very cool