JEAN-LUC GODARD is trolling us! That’s the only way I can explain the hot mess that is Goodbye to Language. Here are some alternate titles I came up with while I sat through Godard’s latest: Goodbye to Coherence, Goodbye to Everything Else I Could Have Done This Morning, Goodbye to Sanity.
Goodbye to Language is only 70 minutes long, but it feels much longer. Yes, it’s in 3D, though for no discernable reason. I usually like snooty, plotless French movies, but Goodbye to Language‘s focus barely shifts from Godard’s dog—and when it does, it goes to people mainly just sitting on benches and talking, or leering shots of a naked woman’s body. They’re boring subjects, overlaid with some of the worst pseudo-philosophizing I’ve ever heard, along with pretentious dialogue about bowel movements, Google, and saying no to life.
This is to say nothing of the movie’s technical problems, which led the two other critics at my screening to conclude that Godard is so famous even his mistakes are considered meaningful. If Goodbye to Language‘s numerous glowing reviews and warm Cannes reception are any indication, they’re absolutely right, and Godard is trolling us. Good for him, I guess?
Granted, Godard is old. Maybe Goodbye to Language really was a good-faith effort—a (very expensive) film experiment. But I’m reminded of another now-ancient director who came up with Godard in the ’60s during the French New Wave: Agnès Varda. Varda is 86. Her subject matter has changed as she’s aged, but her movies have only gotten more interesting. Varda gives a shit. I can’t confidently say the same of Godard. That’s too bad, but it doesn’t make Goodbye to Language worth your time.
I recently saw Godard’s “Goodbye to Language” and after reading Ms. Burbank’s review I think she missed the point of one the most significant films of the 21st century. I don’t think the film was a mess, but was an abstract painting on film. Part of the reviewer’s problem was finding coherence, but I think that was precisely what the film was about, making sense of many images and metaphors. I think Godard is clearly trying to develop a new film language through creating new film metaphors. The reviewer apparently missed this while talking to other reviewers during the viewing. I did not find the film “snooty”. Maybe it was the quotations of famous writers or the scene about the Shelleys in Geneva. Not sure where snooty. The film did have a minimal plot, but Godard gave up plots years ago. As for the technical issues (which to reviewer did not elaborate), Godard is one of the most technical directors and would argue the technique of being our of focus was intentional creating a disorienting effect for the viewer. The dog had a problem with the dog, which entered about a third into the film. I Godard made it pretty clear that the dog was provided to make about about animal rights, and how we have taken animal for granted on this planet. Mostly my comment is that there was a lot to taken away from this film and I think the reviewer missed what the film and the filmmaker were giving. This is a film that should not be missed by Portland viewers, even though it is a difficult film, as most of Godard’s films are.