tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-494160638739613756.post2517355487670026874..comments2024-03-28T02:30:08.913-04:00Comments on Not Just Movies: Film Socialisme — First ThoughtsJakehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09078001374402400232noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-494160638739613756.post-71434774621067917592012-12-03T23:51:08.370-05:002012-12-03T23:51:08.370-05:00Jean-Luc Godard’s “Film Socialisme” (2010) ...Jean-Luc Godard’s “Film Socialisme” (2010) is not about “socialism” but - the direction of Western civilization obsessed with “technological and material progress” towards more wealth and power. The film consists of three parts – the luxury liner’s cruise towards a “promising future”, life in a French provincial city symbolizing the “backward” back-yard of our civilization, and a poetic representation of the repressed and the pauperized people’s struggle for human dignity in various parts of the world. If the first two parts are fictional, the third consists of Godard’s montage of clips and stills from fictional and documentary films that were shot at different times by filmmakers of various nationalities. <br />The plot of the film is dominated by the description of the destiny of two families – a previous high SS-rank Otto Goldberg, big scale thief of public money, and his two grandchildren (corrupted by consumerism and amorously fixated on each other as a psychological compensation), and the garage owners in rural France and their two children (searching for meaning of life and oriented on psychological growth). <br />Each part is constructed in a different stylistic paradigm. Life of the passengers on the “ship of progress” moving towards a more technological and financial power, is depicted by a combination of two clashing ideas – that of the social/financial elite and that of the crowd of demos. By this paradoxical blend: by showing the rich as the crowd, Godard is making a point about the spiritual emptiness and psychological impoverishment of many in today’s Western population where poor are prone to be idolatrous of the rich and dream to belong to the financial elites. Godard shows the wealthy as spiritual bums and psychologically homeless. The small business people of the second part of the film, on the other hand, are sensitive and existentially intelligent, not with calculating but with human minds, and psychologically whole – their depiction is not “generalized”, Godard addresses them with an inexhaustible curiosity and compassion. It is here that Godard creates the most startling images of the film, like an incredible pantomime of mutual beyond-bodily recognition between a son and his mother. <br />The third part of the film is visually musical and emotionally tormenting. We see the cruelty of power, lust of wealth, indifference of prosperity, the bleeding public realm, emotional violence and absence of grace. And we see human suffering and human heroism of continuous fight for justice, equality and humanity. The film establishes the film director as a visionary spokesman for the human destiny in 21st century. <br />By Victor Enyutin<br />katiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18386075177018131868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-494160638739613756.post-36202680453957511892011-12-22T04:37:39.745-05:002011-12-22T04:37:39.745-05:00Considering the only film I've seen of Godard ...Considering the only film I've seen of Godard is "Breathless" ... I'm looking forward to exploring his canon.Sam Fragosohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09974858608988634583noreply@blogger.com