*. Pauline Kael: “It gets to you.” Or else it doesn’t. It hasn’t gotten to me yet. I’ve gone back to some of Jean-Luc Godard’s work recently and developed a greater appreciation for it (and I’ve always liked films like Alphaville and Weekend, at least when I’m in the mood), but Pierrot le Fou still leaves me cold.
*. I’ve never been sure what Godard’s point is here, and (as usual) his own disingenuous and contradictory explanations for what he’s up to are no help at all. There are lots of nouvelle vague stunts but they all seem like empty distractions to me. And I’m not even sure what it was I was being distracted from.
*. There are critics who will tell you what the point is. Which makes me wonder if the point was to enlist the critics. In his Criterion essay on the film Richard Brody refers to Jean-Paul Belmondo as “a handsome, vigorous leading man.” Vigorous maybe, but Belmondo was one ugly fellow. His pairing with stars like Jean Seberg and (here) Anna Karina is a beauty-and-the-beast French specialty. I always thought that was something behind the pairing of Vincent Cassel and Monica Bellucci (who were married at the time) in Irreversible. Cassel was vigorous too, but not handsome. As David Lee Roth once said, most music critics like Elvis Costello’s music because most music critics look like Elvis Costello. So perhaps Belmondo was Godard’s way of playing film scribes.
*. Within the movie itself we get a cameo by Samuel Fuller at a cocktail party, who tells us that what movies are all about is “in one word: emotion.” An odd invocation of purpose, I would have thought, for a film like this. But in the interview with Karina included with the Criterion DVD she talks of how there’s “a lot of sentiment, there’s a lot of emotions in every scene.” I don’t see any of this, but Brody’s essay suggests I may be looking in the wrong place: “Rather than have actors act out emotions on-screen, Godard wanted to find a way to signify emotion and thus to arouse it in the viewer — so that emotion would go from the filmmaker to the viewer not analogically but in concentrated, sublimated form, by means of style.”
*. I’ve tried, but I have to say I find this explanation by Brody to be even more mystifying than his calling Belmondo handsome. Emotion is not expressed by the actors. I got that. Ferdinand really is a fool, so stuck in his own head that he can’t even see Marianne as a muse, and Marianne is clearly just toying with him. Where the style represents a sublimated emotion, however, escapes me. I didn’t have any emotional response to Pierrot le Fou at all.
*. So what’s it about then? I come back to this because the story is disposable. Godard was writing the script as he went along, and called it “a completely unconscious film.” I couldn’t really follow what was happening. So what does this parade of images and music mean?
*. David Thomson, another sympathetic, even admiring, critic has his own theory. He sees Ferdinand and Marianne as representing the division between words and feeling, which “is not just a weather system for the couple, it’s the storm in Godard’s own head between being a writer or a filmmaker.” Alas, I can’t say I’m feeling much of that either.
*. Thomson also calls this “the last great romantic movie.” This echoes Godard’s own assertion that he wanted “to tell the story of the last romantic couple.” As I’ve said, I don’t see how this applies to Ferdinand and Marianne, neither of whom seem to be in love. And in so far as there’s a masculine-feminine binary being developed I don’t think it’s very illuminating either (as well as being a long way from progressive). Men read Joyce and women read fashion magazines. Welcome to the Age of Ass. And a pop-art movie by a guy who rejected the central tenant of pop — that it’s about liking things — by showing how much he despises all of modern life and culture. Weekend was more honest in its nihilism.
*. I don’t want to pile on the critics here, but Godard really has been a critical darling, and very nearly only a critical darling, throughout his career. In the 2012 Sight & Sound poll Pierrot le Fou ranked as the 42nd-greatest film ever made as chosen by the critics (it actually tied with five other films in that spot). I don’t get it. I don’t find it interesting to think about or even to look at, as devoid of emotion as it is of thought. That may sound like a real put-down, but the thing is I don’t hate Pierrot le Fou. I just don’t think there’s anything to it at all.
Alex on Film 
And this is one of the good Godards. I guess he served his purpose in terms of 60’s deconstruction, but I’m not hearing so much love anymore. And it would seem the nature of criticism has changed a bit too, since the examples you give seem raher outdated now. There’s a case to be made for the likes of Je Vous Salut Marie, but not for his awful King Lear; Godard’s bag of tricks only worked when he was kicking against the tide.
He had his moment, but most artists only have a big decade when they do their best or most important work and Godard has hung around long past his sell-by date. I do like some of his stuff from around this time, but this movie is just irritating.
I think his work is over-inflated in terms of critical importance.
I think Breathless meant something, especially with the editing. Not sure he was good for much though aside from making a statement.
Or A Band Apart, these films were game-changers and very influential. But style overtook substance and storytelling was less important than artistic events.
He had an eye for the ladies too. In a good way. Seberg and Karina were irresistible.
Molly Ringwald too.
Sounds a bit high-faluting. I won’t be rushing to view this one.
Not essential viewing. Especially when you can enjoy the backyard and the barbecue.
Indeed!
“Most music critics like Elvis Costello’s music because most music critics look like Elvis Costello.” What? Since when?
I think Roth said that sometime in the early ’90s. Don’t they look like Elvis Costello now?
Just because he wears glasses and a suit? Stereotypes, Alex! The only journalist I can think of is Robbie Collin, and he doesn’t even review music…
Isn’t Robbie a hipster? And wouldn’t that be EC today?
Actually, I don’t think we have music critics anymore. Or much in the way of film critics. So whoever writes this stuff can look however they want. No one knows you’re a dog on the Internet.
Woof woof! I think you both know a top critic! very popular. Much admired. Controversial. Fearless. Bear-baiting a speciality.
Typical hypocritical Torygraph readers!
Who?
Sigh.
Excessive sighing may be a sign of an underlying health condition. Examples can include increased stress levels, uncontrolled anxiety or depression, or a respiratory condition. If you’ve noticed an increase in sighing that occurs along with shortness of breath or symptoms of anxiety or depression, see your doctor.
Could be caused by exposure to imbeciles.
Well, I don’t know too much about your home life, so I couldn’t say.
I don’t think I can get the Telegraph in these parts. I have to rely on public broadcasting. Which is lately given over to interviews with the oddest characters.
Online.
Paywall.
Thought you were saying to read the Telegraph online.
Disc drive.
You shouldn’t say such things about your fellow bloggers – Fraggle, Booky, Alex… They hold you very highly in their lives.
Yup, I’m a big fan of their work. The online imbecile I refer to is YOU.
Ouch! That’s a dagger through my heart. Really. I believe you’ve told me not to give in to cyber bullying before, so I’m going to call on Alex to try and defuse this situation. Alright?
I’m too busy finishing up this quiz on movie villains. Or anti-heroes. Think the category is kind of broad. Also annoyed at the presence of a cartoon on the list.
My quiz? One or two of them I may have taken a bit of artistic license, but all for the sake of the quiz. And I disagree – a cartoon can be an antihero Alex. Take Rick from Rick and Morty. You watched that show? Classic example of an antihero.
Never saw Rick and Morty. Oh well. I got answers for most of them.
I’ve had some good guesses so far, it has to be said. Good luck. Wouldn’t be surprised if you won though. Party pooper.
Don’t think I’ll win. I missed on a couple that I think are probably pretty easy.
Alex, I have sad news. Unfortunately, while you have many great guesses, you’ve guessed the film. I was looking for the character names. I don’t know what you want to do, but right now I can only accept two answers. Sorry!
Whoops. My bad. I’m used to these being “name the movie” quizzes. I suppose I could Google the character names where I don’t know them but maybe you should just delete my guesses. Let someone else win this week!
Alright, sorry for taking your time Alex. You would have won from the amount of correct answers you got.
Fraggle would have bested me. She writes poetry, you know.
Haikus, I heard. I think she’s pondering the idea of setting up a poetry offshoot of her current blog…
I’ll smash his skull like an egg. That’s stop any cyber bullying at the root cause! He says he’s never had to delete a comment, but my reign of terror is just beginning!
My tolerance is an ocean of forgiving.
Wise words! Poop face!
Alex!
No one is coming to save you, hahaha
I believe it’s, “no one can save you now.” Not “no one is coming to save you.” Because that’s a terrible line.
Both are true. Looks like Mr Wibble hasn’t got the energy to defend you. Hahaha!
Lord Wibble, to the likes of you.
Who made you a lord, slobber chops?
Acclamation by my fellow peers of the realm.
Can I have names and contact numbers? You may be masquerading under false pretenses?
You could take a look at Burke’s Peerage. Us nobles aren’t listed in the telephone book you know.
Pics or it didn’t happen.
Thou’rt a saucy knave.
Wut? Who am I talking to now, the Venerable Bede ?
“Wut.” Egad. I’m beset by gormless villeins.
Gadzooks!
Gadzooka Joe.
King King vs Gadzooka
Sorority Babes in the Slimeball Gadzookarama.
How Stella Got Her Gadzooks Back