Recommended reading

4 Comments

• edo says:

  January 8, 2012 at 1:48 pm

  “But from an architectural standpoint, Godard’s films are phantom structures with missing doorways and unfinished walls, moss-covered stairways and half-assembled plumbing. To a great extent, this is deliberate, of course. In his later films, Godard takes strands of narrative and builds over and under them, extends or atomizes certain motifs to the point where they become unrecognizable as elements of one single narrative.” – razor sharp criticism right there.

  Reply
• Daniel says:

  January 8, 2012 at 9:51 pm

  I’ll second that. This is really great stuff, and a nice reminder of the freedom that the internet offers. With unlimited space, why aren’t more sites offering conversations like this? Also nice to hear from Kent again, as he’s seemed largely absent from the various sites he used to post at. Thanks for this heads up Glenn.

  Reply
• James Keepnews says:

  January 9, 2012 at 11:57 am

  Such a pleasure to read such an informed discussion between such thoughtful writers on film — thanks indeed, Glenn. The “phantom structures with missing doorways and unfinished walls” observation struck me as well, edo. I’m not at all sure how much I agree with it: G. does certainly make a great show of shattering conventional narrative approaches/expectations, an approach that, for all its evident gaps/jumps/elisions/you-name-it, seem far too considered, to say nothing of (to continue Kent’s metaphor) sharp and real, to feel like resulting from a “phantom” form. But it definitely conveys — quite beautifully — the experience of watching Godard, where the ultimate “completion” of the work must come from a rigorously engaged viewer willing to do the heavy lifting of reconciling those aporia into something resembling a consistent whole.
  Oh, for a universe where these gentlemen could have a regular show on the teevee and be the Siskel & Ebert for the 21st…

  Reply
• Zach says:

  January 9, 2012 at 3:37 pm

  A hearty thanks for this link. It really is a rare treat – there’s quite a bit of good film writing out there on the interwebs, but stuff like this is a cut above, and a rare treat. It’s too bad, as Daniel says, that Kent hasn’t been writing and commenting as actively, so this felt overdue, if anything. It’s such a great concept – why can’t there be more stuff like this? Maybe, Glenn, you could get something like this going on at least a semi-regular basis? Eh?

  Reply