Goodbye to Language 3D

Torture. Perhaps it is unfair, but it seemed to this viewer as though the filmmaker possesses a clear understanding that a new cinematic language is required in order to construct a new form of intellectuality and analysis capable of addressing the contemporary age, but that he has no idea whatsoever how to go about achieving this goal. The 3D cinematography is very painful. For me, Godard now has the widest gap between best and worst, achieved across a fifty-year stretch. Enter at own risk.

Godard tries to create a new language for film and makes what is essentially a really terrible youtube video. He may be going senile. He may also have a coat fetish, which kind of disturbs me to see.

ok godard it's time to die yo e: thanks

L'une des pires expériences de ma vie au cinéma. Deux âmes perdues dans une salle sombre remplie de vieux cons prétentieux qui n'avaient même pas l'air de passer un bon moment. Les gens qui apprécient Adieu au langage, sont des gens qui se servent du cinéma pour tenter de démontrer qu'ils sont plus intelligents que vous. Remarquez que les textes positifs sont des répétitions de paraphrases pour jouer à qui balancera l’ambiguïté la plus délirante. L'art des cons.

While watching, a part of me wondered whether I simply lacked the vocabulary to communicate with the film. I don't believe that is the case; I understand what it was saying, it's just that what it was saying is obnoxious bullshit. The cinematic equivalent of a bitter old man complaining about the state of the world, but who also just wants to look at naked ladies. It does do some cool things with 3D though.

Goodbye to Language 3D is a film that you won't "get" on a single viewing, and that's okay. You don't need to understand its point or purpose to feel some sort of reaction to the visual and auditory experience that it will offer you -- yes, even if the feeling you get from it is frustration or confusion. Or, if worst comes to worst, and you just hate everything about it, at least there's a cute dog that takes up about a quarter of the brief (70 minutes) running time.

Godard thirsts for a new kind of cinema, or something, so he makes a random turn, and heads nowhere at the speed of light. Impressively ugly. Note: There's some nice home-video footage of a dog.

Extremely metalinguistic! and different from what I'm used to watching. I plan to see more Godard films.

Huh?

Çok etkileyici. Godard. Olağanüstü, tekrar tekrar izlenesi. Bu tip düşünceler. Filmin ancak yüzde20sini okuyabilmişizdir naci ile.

Nobody else should bother making 3D films now that Godard has probably taken the format to its apex. At least, that's what I want to say, but I feel like Godard would frown upon that. After all, I think the whole idea behind this film (and most of Godard's career) is that innovation is key, that we must keep progressing - that, in order for the cinema to move forward, we must say goodbye to language and then get to work on creating a brand new one. I'd say that Godard succeeded.

It's hard to believe that Godard is in his 80's; his most recent work has a spryly youthful vitality. He has constantly pushed the boundaries of the medium well beyond his classic new wave style, even if his popularity waned over the ensuing period. Aside from the 3D element though, G.T.L just seems like another late JLG effort with its relentlessly dense, often unsettling, visual collages that form web like associations riddled with obscurity. The point of the film is anyone's guess.

"HELLO THIS IS THE WORLD WE LIVE IN IT'S SENSORY OVERLOAD AND WE CAN'T MAKE SENSE OF EACH OTHER ANYMORE GOOD LUCK IN THE FUTURE." -JLG

not an easy watch by any means, but also not without it's merits. visually it was a big "fuck you" to the digital age, and thus accordingly ugly. ultimately this wasn't a film and can't be judged as such - it was a manifesto and it spoke some greatly profound truths. it felt like a conversation that stimulated your brain, but prevented you from engaging with it. some moments moved me and will stay with me for a long time, but cohesively speaking, the cacophonic form hindered the message.

72.500

Filmekimi 2014, Bengu ile & Kacirdigim, anlamadigim o kadar cok sey var ki! Bu filmi bu sartlarda nasil 'puanlayabilirim'?

Deneysel görselliği ile Godard'ın havada uçuşan aforizmavari cümlelerinin gösterdikleri uyum şaşırtıcı derecede yüksek. Umarım Godard'în yaptığı son iyi film olmaz. Aslına bakarsan, filmi adıyla Godard'ın sineması arasında bir bağlantı kurunca, bu son filmi olsa şık olur diye düşünmüyor da değilim.

To be fair, i don't think watching this in 2D quite does it justice. This film was clearly designed for it's particular format, and i can imagine under the correct circumstances some of it, like the super-saturated nature shots, would be pretty mind-blowing. As it stands, it's a string of often-familiar, quintessentially Godard-ian motifs dressed up in a particularly experimental context, engaging at times and irritating at others. Still more than anyone should expect from an 84 year old man.

Godard's latest essay-film, dealing with the human tendency to try and break down the world with philosophy, a tendency which only leads to further confusion...while a dog which wanders through the picture, unaware of all this madness, is closer to reality than we'll ever get. A lark for the 84-year-old auteur, who gets to play with a new toy (3D, used to intriguing effect), and tosses modern philosophy, toilet humor, vintage cinema, and ample nudity into a crazy new salad. What more can I say?

"Soon, everyone will need an interpreter to understand the words coming out of their own mouths." I feel as though this quote lies at the heart of this "movie", which I would relate more to long-format video art a la Julien or Warhol than anything else. The plot is more of an assemblage of formally striking images, along with philosophically dense and hyper-referential dialogue. Godard's thesis is complex and often confounding, but the experience was arresting and requires repeat viewings.

Intense. Of course Godard had to make a 3d film. Unlike marvel, the hobit, etc. the 3d effect serve a cinematic purpose. The film is nothing but nice experiment. Always great to see films that challenge the concept and definition of the art form.

Now I know who Godard is! He is the Jean-Sol Partre character in Michel Gondry's "L'écume des jours". Which, btw, is a recommendation to check that film out. Because there's love there, and wit, and spellbinding images, and sophistication about life. This is its exact opposite.

Godard once again delivers a politically and philosophically charged piece of anti-film, but this time in stunning 3D. If that juxtaposition doesn't interest you, there's also a very lovely dog, a lengthy poop scene, and convoluted sound bites delivered by a naked couple, whom Godard mostly shoots from the neck down. The cinematography may be the director's best since Contempt, and some of the finest shots of 2014 come rapid fire one after another. A difficult film, but one to see for sure.

The decentering moment in cinema. Of course, that makes it completely maddening at times but it all weirdly comes together at the end. I'll agree with the detractors, it *does* seem way longer than 70 minutes, but I've never seen a film in which every single moment matters so much. This is the closest anyone has come to translating Derrida to film since Godard's own Comment ca va? That's a film about words, this is about their limit.