13.7.11

An aside, or: sounds familiar




-

In Nouvelle Vague or Puissance de la parole, he wrote maybe two or three lines, if that. He rarely reads entire books. He takes a few extracts, usually the best ones, but it's sometimes a bit random. He pecks at books like a hen in the garden.

--Luc Moullet on Jean-Luc Godard, Jean-Luc selon Luc, 2005 (video).

I ask about the significance of the llama and the donkey in Film socialisme... 'The truth is that they were in the field next to the petrol station in Switzerland where we shot the sequence. Voilà. No mystery. I use what I find.'

--from a compellingly poorly conducted interview with JLG in The Guardian, 12/07/2011.

Godard wrote nothing: what good is writing when so many things have already been written? Such is his motto.

--Luc Moullet, The Cosmic Film, 2005.

4 comments:

Matthew Flanagan said...

Image: JLG/JLG: Autoportrait de décembre, 1995.

JeanRZEJ said...

Each word that Godard writes launches a thousand treatises on the meaning of that word. If he actually wrote scripts, read books, made non-improvised films the world's productivity would probably stagnate entirely. We're lucky that he has such narrow intentions. Either that or we're unlucky to have so many writers theorizing about his every move. I side with the latter. Don't worry, he'd never read this whole comment.

Matthew Flanagan said...

'Each word that Godard writes launches a thousand treatises on the meaning of that word.'

? If only...

Andy Rector said...

When Godard was considering making a film of Daniel Mendelsohn's book on the the Holocaust, THE LOST, Mendelsohn, who indeed would've been given warning upon warning about having this "anti-Semite" consider his book, said that when they met and he saw Godard's copy of his book, it was full to the brim of notations in the margins, post-it notes marking pages; "He read my book like a Rabbi does the Talmud." Similarly C Champetier, who is probably a reliable source, said Godard would rewatch the entirety of each film he was considering for HISTOIRE(S), even when it was just a fragment that was called to mind...

Moullet isn't theorizing. Nor is Matthew.

JeanRZEJ seems to be bullshitting.