I was well aware of the notion of Gallic charm, but I had never witnessed Gallic swagger, and I learned in a flash that there were kinds of sophistication—and fun—far beyond my ken that awaited discovery in, and even defined, adulthood.
He was twenty-six when it was released, and its success took him by surprise. He had trained for a career in the theatre and never expected to remain in movies. Godard, Belmondo, and the world got lucky. To the role of Michel Poiccard he brought an athleticism that is jumpy yet seductive, antic yet erotic; he is at once self-mocking and self-pitying, filled with inchoate fury and boundless ambition. Belmondo launched his career with an artistic high point that any performer would have trouble replicating.
He became greatly in demand, and, although he had little confidence in his future in the movies, he grabbed the opportunities that came his way and did three, four, five films a year, quickly becoming a staple of the mainstream of French cinema.
But his roles sat uneasily upon him. Godard at the time was in a state of artistic and emotional crisis, and in Belmondo he found the perfect counterpart for both.
The duo never worked together again. Connections Edited into Bande-annonce de 'Pierrot le fou' User reviews 86 Review.
Top review. My third Godard.. With my third Godard I begin to discern the outlines of the bigger picture, the paradigm, I think. This seems to be the modus operandi he evolved throughout his career, expression tweaked into a collage, invented, borrowed or burrowed with constant citations, and the exploration of the language of cinema, what can be expressed and will it break down in the process to reveal something.
That breakdown is desirable here and I welcome the attempt and the breach. As such, I'm starting to anticipate more the essayist Godard of later decades, films like King Lear, Notre Musique or the Histoires films, than these New Wave films where irreverence is an aspiration.
In Pierrot characters recite verse or poetry, comics and paintings describe the action, and no opportunity is wasted to point out the artifice of film.
Godard is forcing open a pathway in an unknown direction, but no goal or end in mind, the path seems tedious, perhaps only serving the transition to a destination that will be reached in the future. What I noticed immediately is that Godard again never misses a chance to react to the world. As JP Belmondo moves around from frame to frame in the opening party, Godard points and laughs at the banality of bourgeois life. This reminds me of my perception of the hammer-to-the-face Bunuel approach: church is bad, bourgeoisie is bad.
A better film would begin to understand that people obsess with cars and fetishize them, their Oldsmobiles or Alfa Romeos, in the same manner that film fans obsess with film, or at least attempt to explain the difference. I don't get that from Godard. Just around the corner from all this however, Samuel Fuller explains the allure of cinema for us.
Whereas in Breathless the author who quips profound banalities even as he oogles at Jean Seberg is anonymous, here Godard choses a person of his affection. So the narrative is cool in the face of it, but is Pierrot thoughtful? What I get here is a film that reacts and expects the same from me, a film that is sometimes an aesthetic object of desire I liked for example the driving scenes with the colored lights gleaming in the windshield of the car, again the artifice of it , but I don't get a film that perceives and is or makes me aware.
I don't get the understanding, only the passing cynicism and contempt. Does Godard reserve some of that cynicism for himself, I can't tell. I know I liked the scene with the corpse in the apartment did present time turn into a flashback there to show us how the crime was committed or did Anna Karina kill twice? It's in these moments that Pierrot is surreal in a pure form that, even though the word is bandied about as a synonym of weird, few have accomplished.
In the end Pierrot the romantic fool defies death one moment and is a coward in the face of it the next. To get back to my first paragraph, I can see that the only way for me to appreciate Godard's work is as the koan of the Zen Buddhists, the short anecdote that means nothing in the face of it, demands an answer, and can only be answered when the mind is ready for it.
The answer itself again means nothing, it's the proof that the mind is unlocked, the koan only the tool for it. Pierrot means nothing to me, but is it part of an ongoing koan that can be understood as we apprentice to this cinema and does it unlock something? Knowing that Godard was a Maoist at some point in his life, I'm inclined to not have any hope, but he grew out of that and it's that later period of awakening or disillusionment?
I'm setting my eyes on. FAQ 1. Why Marianne always says "Pierre" to Ferdinand? Details Edit. Release date January 8, United States. France Italy. French English Italian. Nori Pierrot. Box office Edit. Technical specs Edit. Runtime 1 hour 50 minutes. Related news. Oct 15 Indiewire. Oct 5 Trailers from Hell. Contribute to this page Suggest an edit or add missing content. Top Gap.
0コメント