Comments from Mubi.com
2 Or 3 Things I know About Her
I was just looking for some further insight on this Film other than the Plot Summary and Ratings. I’m assuming the preview clip for the Film doesn’t do it justice, and I was hoping maybe someone out their, preferably that likes the movie, could tell me a little more about it. And maybe- based on my “Favorites”, would I like it?
Its Godards abridging his cinema into more extremist politics, with that said. Here his politics are almost objectively agreeable, he also experiments with cinematic devices he’d heavily rely upon later in his career: Characters being reduced to figures, eradication of narratives, blur between fiction and non-fiction.
Basically, do not expect something like Breathless or Vivre Sa Vie.
What Godard films have you seen? I suggest watching his filmography in order as they become available to you, for Godards 60 films have a very clear progression in experimentation, and his career is kind of an anthology of sorts.
Basically, do not expect something like Breathless or Vivre Sa Vie.
What Godard films have you seen? I suggest watching his filmography in order as they become available to you, for Godards 60 films have a very clear progression in experimentation, and his career is kind of an anthology of sorts.
This is a REPEAT of a post I made on a Godard forum:
I recently cracked open the new 2 OR 3 THINGS DVD and viewed it. I had VERY complex and contradictory reactions.
For one, I hadn’t seen it since its initial release (when I watched it “2 or 3” times). At that time, I was VERY impressed with its content and innovative (Brechtian) style. Godard not only revolutionized cinema in that era but also how we THINK about cinema.
Today, though, those lessons have been learned, and that’s probably why the film seemed less “relevant” for today, when innovations are being made in non-Western national cinemas. Back in the day, all the references to the Vietnam War were seen as radical encouragement to those of us who participated in the antiwar movement. Likewise, all the anti-capitalist messages about mega-housing developments, consumerism, and how we all prostitute ourselves in contemporary society. To me, it’s a shame that Godard was such a damned good teacher about all those points (and film STYLE) that I now feel that I don’t have much more to learn from 2 OR 3 THINGS, except to re-appreciate its historical significance.
He was a film artist expressing himself and looking for an audience that would appreciate his vision of life and cinema. That audience happened to be the cineastes and intelligentsia, who “got” his many allusions and references to literature, philosophy, Marxism, and other films. I hope that first-time viewers of Godard’s films will appreciate his contributions for what they are, and for what they can teach us about how to watch a film.
I recently cracked open the new 2 OR 3 THINGS DVD and viewed it. I had VERY complex and contradictory reactions.
For one, I hadn’t seen it since its initial release (when I watched it “2 or 3” times). At that time, I was VERY impressed with its content and innovative (Brechtian) style. Godard not only revolutionized cinema in that era but also how we THINK about cinema.
Today, though, those lessons have been learned, and that’s probably why the film seemed less “relevant” for today, when innovations are being made in non-Western national cinemas. Back in the day, all the references to the Vietnam War were seen as radical encouragement to those of us who participated in the antiwar movement. Likewise, all the anti-capitalist messages about mega-housing developments, consumerism, and how we all prostitute ourselves in contemporary society. To me, it’s a shame that Godard was such a damned good teacher about all those points (and film STYLE) that I now feel that I don’t have much more to learn from 2 OR 3 THINGS, except to re-appreciate its historical significance.
He was a film artist expressing himself and looking for an audience that would appreciate his vision of life and cinema. That audience happened to be the cineastes and intelligentsia, who “got” his many allusions and references to literature, philosophy, Marxism, and other films. I hope that first-time viewers of Godard’s films will appreciate his contributions for what they are, and for what they can teach us about how to watch a film.
Those posts are actually really fucking helpful. I need someone to sort of tell me what its about though…
I haven’t seen any Godard Films (I know, I should kill myself), so I wouldn’t know what to expect.
I haven’t seen any Godard Films (I know, I should kill myself), so I wouldn’t know what to expect.
G-Nubs- It is actually hard to describe what the film is about. It’s really about the themes listed above and how they relate to life in contemporary Paris. It is really a kind of fictional essay about these themes of consumerism, modernism, the relationship of capitalism to prostitution, the role of the family (parent and child) relations in contemporary society etc. It is an exceptional film; but i don’t know if it should be your first Godard film. I might suggest you start with Breathless.
Godard made films not “for the ages” but to testify to the very moment in which he was living. Consquently “2 or 3 Things” refers to the Vietnam war, and manyother things that “date” it. The construction it shows being engineered has been completed. It continues to fascinate as a film in which things (the famous cup of cofffee) have as much cinematic proiminence as people.
Jean-Calude Guiguet’s masterpiece “Les Passagers” takes up from where Godard left off several decades later.
Jean-Calude Guiguet’s masterpiece “Les Passagers” takes up from where Godard left off several decades later.
A women whose day to day interactions are solely economic transactions. Even sex has become an economic contract.
A pivot where Godard turned politically very radical.
A pivot where Godard turned politically very radical.
To me that pivot came with “La Chinoise.”
“la chinoise” and “2 or 3” were released the same year. but obviously, also, we have to talk about “made in the usa” being shot simultaneously with “2 or 3”. and finally, “weekend” was released that same year too.
so yes, godards pivot into radical politicalism or political radicalism was 1967. a watershed year for him. not that politics were never an important part of his films before, or radicalism in film form for that matter.
so yes, godards pivot into radical politicalism or political radicalism was 1967. a watershed year for him. not that politics were never an important part of his films before, or radicalism in film form for that matter.
Gino Start with “Breathless” that’s what I did been a fan ever since.
From the perspective of 2009, the moment of radical politics which this film enshrines has retreated into a form of historical camp. I think that much of what Godard did here suffers from having itself been commodified and now looks merely like self-indulgent artifice. Which is maybe what people didn’t want to recognise at the time. The hectoring Maoist tone, the faux-Socratic questioning are just callow and ugly. Only the female figures seem to have a connection to a reality beyond the frame and thereby achieve depth. I found this remark in Irigaray which seems pertinent: " the discourse of truth, the discourse of “de-monstration” cannot incorporate the sexual relation within the economy of its logic." (Cosi Fan Tutti)
I don’t know what you’re talking about. I find nothing “hectoring” or “Maoist” about Godard’s off-screen narration — delivered in a half-whistered style.
I don’t know what you’re talking about. I find nothing “hectoring” or “Maoist” about Godard’s off-screen narration — delivered in a half-whistered style.
I completely disagree, John. The issues raised by Godard are still extremely prevalent in today’s society and his film is one hell of an essay, so personal that I cannot help but love the man along with the film.
Does anyone know if it’s possible to find screenplays of Godard’s films anywhere? I saw this film recently and would love to read the screenplay …
I don’t think he wrote screenplays. He directed off of rough notes for the most part.
My initial reaction was that it was very well framed criticism of modern architecture and society in which much of humanity is lost. The women are presented in the most banal settings and situations, yet he so lovingly composes each frame that they read like portraits, giving them a humanity that would otherwise be lost. Makes me think of Vermeer in this regard.
No comments:
Post a Comment