treywillwest Godard's films often seem more like essays than "movies" per se. While this film can be called narrative only in the loosest definition of the term, and contains much of the direct philosophizing that has characterized Godard's late oeuvre, it struck me as being so immediately and intensely cinematic. This is absolutely a film. What do I mean by that? I guess I mean that it can't, perhaps shouldn't, be analyzed and translated into an essay synopsizing its ideas, which are undeniably rich. First and foremost, this is a work about the images on screen, and what images they are. I didn't get to see Goodbye to Language in 3D, but I can only imagine it to be an almost overwhelming experience. The painterly grace of Godard's imagery cannot be overstated. (To think of the lively but crude camera-work of his early films when compared with the spectacular aesthetic grace on display here is to imagine an incredible artistic journey, perhaps the most radical maturation ever witnessed by an auteur.) Using a variety of different cameras and mediums, this seems to be Godard's most urgent attempt to capture life- in-the-world through cinema. The dude is really old now, and I suspect he may intend this as a final statement, him saying goodbye to the language to which he has devoted his life. I also think it might be Godard's single most affirmational work. There is still plenty of the sardonic world-weariness we have come to expect from the man, but at heart this is a work about the way joy gives birth to pain, yet somehow manages to occasionally interrupt and sooth pain. Godard seems to be embracing life as he prepares to leave it, perhaps in hope of achieving the state of mind of the dog that is one of the film's three main characters: to love something more than one loves one's self.

Steve Pulaski Four years after French auteur Jean-Luc Godard's Film Socialisme, he comes back in full-force, toying with the 3D medium along with sticking to his vague methods of storytelling and development with Goodbye to Language. Godard continues to break down every cinematic convention, even over fifty years after revolutionizing just what cinema could be with his barrage of films from the French New Wave period. With this film, he bids farewell to language, focusing explicitly on the beauty of images and the erratic tonalities editing and visual manipulation can bring, continuing to play with the medium he hasn't kept his hands off since the 1950's.Goodbye to Language is more of a video essay than a conventional film. The bare basic plot follows two young lovers who share sexual intimacy, disjointed, philosophical conversation as if they've just been greeted with Enlightenment principles, and your usual monogamous quibbles. Interjected in the chronicles of this love story are the random adventures of a stray dog named Roxy, who comes between this young couple as the seasons fade into one another and as she wanders through different locales.The film could be summed up as an analysis of dualities in the world. Godard explores the idea of nature vs. metaphor, dividing the film into two segments of each. He explores the contrasting positions of male and female, European influence and Middle Eastern influence in modern day France through use of symbolic representations, man and nature, man and animal, and even idea and metaphor in one particular scene. This focus on dualism in every day life sets Goodbye to Language apart just a tad from most of Godard's contemporary offerings, which have been even more opaque and difficult to define.At a certain point, I ceased taking notes on the film from a critical thinking point-of-view and simply begun taking notes on what I saw. Goodbye to Language features some of the most striking imagery I have yet to see in a Godard film. Seeing it in 2D, however, for the first time ever, I felt like I was robbed of something. Godard's interest in 3D filmmaking in the last couple years stems from his interest in technology and its timestamp on culture and culture's progress. He claims that 3D has yet to really be defined in purpose, and that, like cinema, calls for rampant exploration and manipulation. While most use 3D as a flash-in-the-pan gimmick, Godard seemingly uses it as a way to manipulate the viewer in terms of perception and visual order. One particular scene is said to go from one single shot to two separate ones, which could be viewed clearly through the left and right eye, before assembling back into a single 3D shot. I assume that wasn't the only subversive use of 3D in the film, and I feel had I been fortunate enough to watch the film with that added benefit, for the first time, I would've had an experience that really would've affected the film and not just alter the medium I used to watch it.As is, in its 2D state, Goodbye to Language is still as frustrating as any Godard film. At the end of the experience, I find myself simply going over specific scenes rather than attempting to subscribe a meaning to the film entirely. The film is littered with fascinating shots that say more than narration ever could, with one particular shot being captured on a canted angle, showing the hands of three people at a small stand, two of which playing with their smartphones, the other paging through a book. Welcome to information gathering in the present day. So rarely has the current world been summed up so cleanly and elegantly in one unconventional shot. Another scene is just fascinating to look at, going from a canted angle showing the aforementioned couple naked before slowly panning to the right, readjusting itself to be a more traditional, straight-on full shot, before tilting itself again, this time to the right.Many videographic changes are present here too. While some scenes are saturated with so many unique colors, movement, and almost psychedelic visualizations, others are presented like soap operas, with very dark and almost artificial sets and moody color schemes to match. Stray musings coming from scattered, mostly unidentified characters like, "soon everyone will need an interpreter to understand the words coming from their own mouths" are heard on a frequent basis, showing that Godard is constantly thinking and feeling rather than showing or telling.The final Godardian principle Goodbye to Language adheres to is the fact that it's a lot more interesting to discuss than it is to sit through. Ambiguity is too specific to define the project, for not only does it barely qualify as a film but it's so indistinct that it can hardly be assigned any defining term. Beautiful visual poetry and scattered quotes of brilliance lurk all around this film, and my lower star rating is more out of compromise and downright uncertainty rather than an absolute truth. This is a work that can't accurately be defined nor accurately rated. It's far beyond the stars, some would say.NOTE: Finally, consider one of the most striking musings on the duality between imagination in reality, which comes at the very beginning of the film in form of a title card, a true Godardian convention if there ever were one. It reads, "those lacking imagination take refuge in reality." If Goodbye to Language proves anything, it's that Godard has found purgatory between those two locations.Starring: Héloïse Godet, Kamel Abdeli, Richard Chevallier, and Zoé Bruneau. Directed by: Jean-Luc Godard.

socrates99 As far as treats are concerned, Héloïse Godet is it in this maddeningly annoying 3-D movie. We men get to enjoy seeing her naked. And for the ladies there's a little bit of male full frontal nudity as well.But there's no doubt the man is outshone by the resplendent Ms Godet who attended a screening at Roger Ebert's Film Festival this April 15th. She was gracious and as attractive as she is in the movie, but she related a surprising tale of never having seen the dog that shares a lot of footage with the actors in this movie. Add a couple of the other oddities here that I will keep to myself as they border on being spoilers and Godard's intent is clear.I've never been to Paris, but I've heard again and again that people there don't pick up their dog's droppings. This movie is a clever and effective answer to those who wonder why dogs are allowed to dirty the city's streets with so much impunity. I can't say I'm not a bit swayed, but if it were up to me I'd have people love their dogs AND pick up after it.Godard's argument is more substantial than you'd expect, but judging by the discussion of his film tonight, his attempt to educate us cretins is likely to be a wasted if audacious effort. Still, if you insist on seeing this movie, and if you will try to follow his argument, you just might enjoy it enough to not feel insulted.

jon1410 On 1st viewing of Godard's Goodbye to Language,you have no narrative, just a man and a woman,later a dog.There is repetition: the use of a new technique,3D,without rules,to show how a child or animal sees the world,with the use of primary colours in spring or autumn,or colours drenched ,bleeding out of the object.He uses heavy inter-titles like 'Nature' or ' Metaphor'.Godard wants to go beyond language,while paying homage to words at the same time.He quotes lavishly many writers,poets, thinkers,philosophers,painters,and plays the work of different musicians, where the music plays then goes dead. Alternatively, the screen goes black while people are speaking or music is still playing. Godard wants to have no preconceptions,just see through his lens the world nakedly, reflecting the world through these new techniques.We wander in forests,look up at trees,see the beauty of flowers, roam with a dog by a lakeside or as it rolls in snow,or in urban settings focus on a chair in the foreground. Subject: the idea is simple: a married woman and a single man meet.They love,they argue,fists fly.A dog strays between town and country.The seasons pass.The man and woman meet again. The dog finds itself between them.The other is in one,the one is in the other and they are three.The former husband shatters everything.A 2nd film begins:the same as the 1st, and yet not.From the human race we pass to metaphor.This ends in barking and a baby's cries.Freud and the art of film began at the start of the 20th century,they both in some ways are parallel developments, exploring reality, based on new techniques.Godard shows us perception and consciousness,how an animal's eyes are unclouded by consciousness. Godard shows human beings weighed down by interpretations,needing interpretation.He uses 3D film in this baffling experimental drama,turning the technology on its head(no car chases,nor animated dragons or objects hurling towards the screen) by using his 3rd dimension to send contrasting images to each of the viewer's eyes or-in one particular haunting sequence-to add spatial depth to the sight of a man sitting on a toilet,pooping.This is a kind of equality we all share. The idea that existence is about trying to reconcile the "real" world with the subjective experience of the world, and the names and notions we use to catalogue and define the world--but the digressions are what make it sing. "I will barely say a word," says a voice on the soundtrack--maybe Godard?--adding, "I am looking for poverty in language." While the film is drenched in the rich sensual experience of Godard's visual language.An interesting motif is images of running water,water lapping shores of a lake,sea water,a river in full spate,rain falling,even the water of a shower:the importance of water in the origin myths of heroes, and dreams linked to childbirth.He quotes Monet as painting what he doesn't see.We as human spectators, look at the observable universe.To scientists,numbers and the laws of science are real,independent entities,but they are constructions of human thought attempting to seize something of the universe.There is no transcendent perspective,we are dreamers.We can only really see ourselves when we are looking into another person's eyes.The camera captures everything it sees-we passively like the camera comply-and yet not seeing anything. As though Godard is making the movie for the camera and for the sake of the film itself.There are no conventions of plot or character.One of the characters says she "hates character". Density,compression,digression,montage are utilised freely.Lettered Texts are printed on top of each other or over images.We get ideas tossed at us like Hitler's rise to power coincided with the invention of TV,or will Russia ever be a part of Europe,without ceasing to be Russia?That a new Godard film is an event,something that may better be seen in an art gallery:as distribution in the UK by Studiocanal has folded and it's been rushed to DVD.This is a shame as the full 3D experience can only be gained in a movie theatre. in Goodbye, Godard's use of 3D is a matter of using the screen (with its illusory extra dimension of depth) as a multimedia space in the true sense: he's creating both a painting and a sculpture.Obscure,maddening,obsessed with history and cinema.In a word: awesome!