tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-494160638739613756.post1012434977801670752..comments2024-03-28T02:30:08.913-04:00Comments on Not Just Movies: Sympathy for the Devil (a.k.a. One Plus One)Jakehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09078001374402400232noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-494160638739613756.post-27966852674889816302022-01-07T13:45:57.663-05:002022-01-07T13:45:57.663-05:00A ill-assorted ragbag of then-modish ideas. I am q...A ill-assorted ragbag of then-modish ideas. I am quite surprised at the co-operation of the black actors in Godard's bizzare sexual fantasies. Liked the old cars, some real collector's pieces among them.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12814034570863160148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-494160638739613756.post-57197546429056735622011-01-03T14:57:34.853-05:002011-01-03T14:57:34.853-05:00Interesting thoughts about this obviously flawed f...Interesting thoughts about this obviously flawed film that I still find pretty interesting and even often enjoyable. I liked it much more than you did. One thing to note is that the two cuts of the film — the producer's cut called <i>Sympathy for the Devil</i> and Godard's cut called <i>One + One</i> — are nearly identical with the sole exception of the ending. The producer changed the ending so that the full Rolling Stones song could play, and tweaked the editing of that sequence and added some colored filters so he could fit in the song. That and the title are really the only differences between the two cuts, though it winds up being a major difference since, as you point out, the whole idea of the movie is the parallel between the Stones' unfinished song and the unfinished revolution that Godard was hoping for.<br /><br />One thing that I think makes the film more interesting is the ambiguity about what Godard thinks of the various inserts and monologues and spoken materials he's filming. You seem to assume that all of these polemics are polemics that Godard would sympathize with, but I don't think that's the case at all. I see the film more as a collection of various ideas and perspectives, which together Godard sees as providing a portrait of an unstable society on the verge of a revolution. And within this unstable society, there's the potential for violence and ugliness, for racism, for a counterproductive racial backlash, for sexism and liberation and repression and revolution. The various texts read in the film are mutually exclusive and contradictory, and represent all sorts of different perspectives and ideas, some of which Godard certainly agreed with, some he certainly did not, and some where his own perspective seems more uncertain. This complicates the polemical nature of the film somewhat.<br /><br />And of course, the Stones footage itself is valuable for any fan of the band: it's utterly engrossing to watch that song come together over the course of the film, and though the film as a whole is problematic and uneven, the actual Stones footage is, without qualification, fantastic.Ed Howardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18014222247676090467noreply@blogger.com