Taken from Entertainment Weekly comes this review by Owen Gleiberman of the documentary about Godard and Truffaut, Two in the Wave. Dated May 27, 2010…

Godard and Truffaut: Their spiky, complex friendship is its own great story.
In the late ’50s and early ’60s, Jean-Luc Godard and François Truffaut were the Lennon and McCartney of the French New Wave. Godard, the detached, acerbic one, was eggheaded and vinegary, a playfully acidic intellectual bomb-thrower who, as time wore on, acquired a streak of bitter accusatory leftism. (He became the postmodern Marxist Debbie Downer of cinephilia.) Truffaut, in dramatic contrast, was presentable and bittersweet and more or less harmonious, oriented by nature toward the establishment (though in the beginning, he tossed bombs at it, too), with a latent penchant for bourgeois sentimental craftsmanship that was enchanting at its best, but could also turn cloying.
That little description is, of course, incredibly simplistic, in the same way that Lennon/McCartney contrasts always are. (Paul, we all know well, could rock just as hard as John, and Lennon had a vast sentimental side too.) Nevertheless, it would probably be nitpicking to dispute the essential truth of it. Truffaut and Godard, from their social backgrounds (lower-class French vs. wealthy Swiss) to their looks and vibes and fashion choices (robust, cautiously tailored domestic lothario vs. bespectacled, balding, unshaven eagle-eyed lothario) to the reigning spirit of their films, always had a basic temperamental yin-and-yang that defined the French New Wave. In Two in the Wave, a tart new documentary that just opened in New York, their relationship, as both friends and artists, is as rangy and alive, as present-tense fascinating, as the meatiest celebrity gossip. (I wish I could say that the movie was coming to a theater near you, but coming to a Netflix queue isn’t such a bad option for it.) An elegant and revealing scrapbook of a movie, Two in the Wave shows you how these two spiky, driven figures changed the face of cinema not just by tearing up the old rules but by making up new ones more or less on the spot. It’s a heady dose of New Wave nostalgia that really does feel new.
The movie contains no talking-head interviews, which is sort of a loss, but it does feature amazing footage of Truffaut and Godard at work and at play. The two started out as film critics who, from their perch at the center of the 1950s Paris cinema demimonde, could be as caustic as Simon Cowell. They were out to tear down official French film culture, and they did, though from the start, Truffaut had a gift for cultivating that same establishment. He maneuvered his brilliant and haunting first feature, The 400 Blows, into the 1959 Cannes Film Festival only a year after he’d been banned from it. The movie was a sensation, and Godard, coming around the bend with his revolutionary youth-cult crime caper Breathless – forget the jump cuts, it was a story told entirely in irony, a razory jump-cut splice through the very idea of emotion – enjoyed a similar blast of overnight celebrity. The two fed off each other, cross-pollinating ideas and finance schemes, even as the glow of success from those early films wore off.
Much of this material has been covered before, but Emmanuel Laurent, the director of Two in the Wave, does an incisive job of capturing exactly how Truffaut and Godard’s movies fit into the landscape of their time, before the directors (and the films) had ossified into legend. The central event in the history of the New Wave, apart from the original one-two punch of The 400 Blows andBreathless, was the May 1968 protest/riot/uprising in France that boomer lefties still get misty-eyed about. It was a national earthquake that shut down the Cannes Film Festival (sacrebleu!), and there’s a startling piece of footage from Cannes in which Godard, shaky and full of an anger he hasn’t figured out what to do with yet, accuses all the best young filmmakers – Polanski, “François” (who’s sitting right next to him), even himself – of making irrelevant films that ignore the concerns of “workers and students.”
This was the point at which Godard and Truffaut began to split apart like a married couple who’d been hiding their differences; they were just like John and Paul after the Beatles broke up. It all came to a head in 1973, when Godard, after walking out in disgust in the middle of Day for Night, Truffaut’s love poem to the conventional cinema, accused Truffaut of making a movie that was a “lie,” and Truffaut replied with a 20-page letter in which he nailed Godard – accurately, in my view – for being the incredible radical-chic hypocrite he had become, a man who believed everyone to be “equal” in theory only. (I actually like some of Godard’s films from this agit-prop period, like the 1972 Tout Va Bien, but the notion that any of them would appeal for one second to “workers” is an almost psychotic folly.) The two never saw each other again. Their greatest films live on, though. And in Two in the Wave, so does the romantically fraught, art-is-life mythology of a time in the 20th century when changing movies seemed like changing the world.
So are you a Truffaut person or a Godard person? And what are your favorite films of each of theirs? Here are mine: The 400 Blows and The Story of Adele H. (Truffaut) and Contempt and One Plus One (Godard).
Owen Gleiberman
http://www.ew.com/article/2010/05/27/godard-truffaut-and-their-spiky-friendship
Permalink
Leave a Comment
An analysis of Godard’s post-1968 work. Originally posted on the PopMatters website, May 13, 2011…

If it seems odd to accuse the critical establishment of neglecting or rejecting the films of Jean-Luc Godard, a figure whose stature within the contemporary cultural canon does indeed persist undiminished—the status of his rakish debut Breathless (1960) as perennial classic still uncontested, his name as a result emblazoned permanently in the annals of cinematic history—consider that this legacy, however firmly ensconced in the popular imagination or film-school curricula worldwide, extends only to those films produced within his first decade as a filmmaker. Godard’s career, contrary to what film history suggests, now spans a little more than five decades. And it has not yet concluded: Film Socialisme, a film few have seen and fewer still care about has, like so many of the films Godard has labored to produce across the last several decades, yet to even receive a proper North American release, nor is it likely to anytime in the near future. Of course, this new work’s very existence has helped illicit, if not the siren call of distributors, the usual sighs and chortles from Godard’s vocal dissidents—those influential mainstream critics for whom the arrival of a new Godard think-piece heralds an opportunity for nostalgia, for riffing romantically on their longing for “the old Godard”, rather than for going to the trouble of engaging with the present.
The latest wave of critics issuing sweeping dismissals and unfair sniping, occasioned both by the presentation of Film Socialisme at Cannes last May and by his having recently been given an honorary Academy Award for lifetime achievement (which he naturally declined to accept), approaches the ‘issue’ of Godard’s stubborn persistence in continuing to produce new, ever more challenging work in precisely the same manner critics have approached Godard’s work for nearly half a century: basing their evaluations, as Jim Emerson observes in an analysis of five decades’ worth of Godard press coverage in the New York Times, “on assumptions that Godard means to communicate something but is either too damned perverse or inept to do so”, his detractors betray their frustration—incited by confusion but masked by cultivated distaste—in poses as predictable as they are misguided. The pervading sentiment, seemingly Read the rest of this entry »
Permalink
Leave a Comment
Another review of this massive biography on the life of famed French New Wave director Jean-Luc Godard — this time by Salon senior writer Stephanie Zacharek from The New York Times, July 13, 2008…

A Girl and a Gun
Richard Brody’s Everything Is Cinema: The Working Life of Jean-Luc Godard is a story of transformation, a painstaking account of a lifelong artistic journey. Now we know how one of the greatest of all filmmakers — the man who so radically changed cinema in 1959 with his debut feature, Breathless — became an intolerable gasbag. That probably wasn’t Brody’s aim in writing this exhaustive, and sometimes exhausting, critical biography. As Brody, a film critic and editor at The New Yorker, makes clear in the preface, he still believes in Godard’s relevance, claiming that the resolutely not-retired filmmaker, who has lived in Rolle, Switzerland, for the past 30 years, continues to work “at an extraordinarily high level of artistic achievement.”
That’s a lovely, optimistic sentiment, but one that much of Godard’s post-1967 output doesn’t deserve: Empty shadowboxes like
First Name: Carmen (1983) or
Notre Musique (2004) seem designed to alienate viewers rather than draw them closer, which is what happens when any artist begins to live entirely inside his or her own head. It’s the artists we love best who are most capable of disappointing us, and anyone who has taken pleasure in the boldness of the movies Godard made from 1959 through 1967 — he produced an astonishing 15 full-length features in that period, beginning
Read the rest of this entry »
Permalink
Leave a Comment
This book review by Andrew Hultkrans comes from the Artforum website, May 30, 2008…

His Life to Live
In the October 1950 issue of La Gazette du cinema, a young Jean-Luc Godard, writing pseudonymously, penned a sentence that serves, for biographer Richard Brody, as a skeleton key to the legendary director’s often-inscrutable inner workings: “At the cinema, we do not think, we are thought.” Brody, a film critic and editor at the New Yorker, uses this key throughout his rigorous yet readable biographical study, as dauntingly massive as it is helpfully clarifying, to unlock the intensely personal and political influences that shaped the work of an artist as pivotal to the evolution of his chosen medium as Picasso and Bob Dylan were to theirs. Like Picasso, Godard is an artist of many phases, each with enough revolutionary singularity to have sustained the reputation of any other director; like Dylan, he was a meteoric phenomenon of the 1960s who suffered a motorcycle accident and retreated to domestic isolation in the ’70s, then slowly returned to cultural prominence in the intervening years.
For those who have seen only a fraction of the films, out of order, without any supplementary reading or cultural context, Everything Is Cinema is a revelatory, satisfying feast. What lingers is the realization that Godard, the ultimate auteur, whose oblique cinematic experiments pushed the medium forward and seemed aggressively, at times perversely, sui generis, is far more a receiver and a conductor than a generator — a deeply, often Read the rest of this entry »
Permalink
Leave a Comment
An essay from the Criterion website about this Truffaut film short (the sequel to his first film The 400 Blows). Written by Kent Jones, April 28, 2003…

On January 19, 1950, the seventeen- (going on eighteen-) year-old François Truffaut attended a 4 P.M. screening at the Cinémathèque française. He met a girl named Liliane Litvin. Truffaut was so smitten that he quit his job in the suburbs and moved back to Paris. According to his biographers Serge Toubiana and Antoine de Baecque, Liliane was an unconventionally beautiful young woman, so beautiful that Truffaut had to compete for her attention with his pals Jean Gruault (his future screenwriting partner) and Jean-Luc Godard. Liliane’s trio of suitors each individually tried to win her affection by spiking their conversation with literary references, but she promised herself to no man. Undeterred, Truffaut eventually installed himself in a hotel across the street from the Litvins’ apartment.
Toubiana and de Baecque reckon that it was with an eye to impressing Liliane that Truffaut began his dazzling rise to fame in the world of the Parisian intelligentsia. After winning an “eloquence competition” at the Club du Faubourg, he secured a plum job at Elle magazine (one of his assignments was a visit to the set of Bresson’s Diary of a Country Priest). He was already a Read the rest of this entry »
Permalink
Leave a Comment
A review of this French New Wave classic by Jean-Luc Godard, by John Boonstra, June 19, 2003 — taken from The Hartford Advocate…

It’s timely to catch the freshly restored print of Jean-Luc Godard’s A Woman Is a Woman hot on the heels of the recent Down with Love. What Love attempted and never quite achieved, Godard nails – a full 42 years before Hollywood would try to poke fun at itself in the same vein.
This was Godard’s third feature film. He was 30 years old; he’d been a film critic for the influential journal Cahiers du Cinema. He’d just married the Danish actress and model Anna Karina, 10 years his junior. Her exceptional beauty and the remarkable resume she acquired working for Godard (until their 1967 divorce) and other New Wave directors cinched her reputation as the thinking-man’s sex kitten of French cinema. The sheer playfulness Read the rest of this entry »
Permalink
Leave a Comment
From yesterday’s issue of The Guardian comes news that acclaimed French New Wave director Claude Chabrol has passed away at the age of 80. May he rest in peace…

The world of French cinema is in mourning for one of its greatest and most prolific directors, Claude Chabrol, who died today aged 80.
One of the founding fathers of the New Wave of French film, Chabrol was best known for his masterful suspense thrillers, subversive female roles and stinging critiques of the bourgeoisie. His first work, Le Beau Serge, was released in 1958 and he made more than 80 films, his last – a murder mystery starring Gérard Depardieu Read the rest of this entry »
Permalink
Leave a Comment

This review of Godard’s 1966 caper Made in U.S.A., starring his beautiful then-wife Anna Karina, comes from Flavor Wire, Jan. 8, 2009, and was written by Jason Jude Chan…
Fact Bleeds Into Fiction in Godard’s Made in U.S.A.
Early in Jean Luc Godard’s tensile girl-and-gun caper, Made in U.S.A., Anna Karina — the Gallic auteur’s early-career muse and ex-spouse — declares: “Now fiction overtakes reality.” But this said-and-done partition by a director who was only beginning to brazenly hoist his political banderoles is analogous to questing for El Dorado: it is nowhere to be found.
For Godard, it represents a depth charge in what he perceived to be the Sargasso Sea of film narrative, one more in a string of assassinate-cinema salvos that counts Masculin Feminine, Two or Three Things I know About Her, and La Chinoise as same-minded and culminates with Week-End, his satiric pile-up of misanthropy. With its legion of footnote-necessary references to American film noir and French apparatchiks, Made in U.S.A. comes across as dense, playful and surprisingly poignant — thanks to the almond-eyed Karina’s finest hour and half.
Above all else, the film is Godard’s professional postscript to their conjugal split. Karina is lovelier and more emotive than ever as Paula Nelson, just arrived in the France-tinged “Atlantic City” in search of her possibly dead, politically dissident amour Richard P___ (the allegorical Godard). Whisking in the late Donald Westlake’s noir story The Jugger, Godard spools out the murderous intrigue in his typical, hopscotching syntax. Karina finds herself careening between Raoul Coutard’s exquisitely shot locations, dodging secret policemen and government agents with the j’accuse names Richard Nixon and Robert McNamara.
Dedicated to his American idols, Nicholas Ray and Sam Fuller, the picture remains deeply personal for several other reasons. As Godard put it, “I wanted to oblige a friend [the famed producer Georges de Beauregard], to tackle the Americanization of French life, and to do something with the Ben Barka affair.” An exiled Moroccan leftist leader, Barka was France’s controversial 1965 watchword after his government-executed disappearance and murder. The whitewashing of the conspiracy and Barka’s link to cinema — he was to work on a film about decolonization, Basta!, with would-be filmmaker Georges Figon — gave Godard his carte blanche.
Alas, Godard’s “Atlantic City” is a demimonde populated by his tongue-in-cheek incarnations: a manikin who packs a ready-for-use toothbrush rather than a pistol; a writer named David Goodis (referring to the underworld novelist who François Truffaut sourced for Shoot The Piano Player) working on his would-be masterpiece, The Unfinished Novel; or a childish henchman christened Donald Siegel (Jean-Pierre Léaud looking bored) after the mid-century American doyen of genre pics. The narrative unfurls as a concentrated weft of these cultural references — additional nods are made to figures as disparate as Richard Widmark, Guillaume Apollinaire, and the Japanese filmmaker Kenji Mizoguchi. Musically, there are sounds as disparate as a galloping Schiller number and an enchanting, a capella rendition of Jagger-and-Richards’ “As Tears Go By” by a café patron who just happens to be Marianne Faithfull.
Yes, it’s all a bit much without a collated packet of the who-what-where-when-and-why for each soliloquy, for each insistent gesture. But with a tone that toes that fine line between mawkishness and outright mockery added to all the contextual citations, whence the basic loveliness? The haute and household fashions, the first-edition design of a book jacket, the way a cigarette is lit at so-and-so a distance — Godard’s aesthetic choices are out-and-out gorgeous even when his intellectual pursuits get fogged in translation.
Besides the famed Karina close-ups, Made in U.S.A. claims one of Godard’s wonderful codas: Karina and the journalist Philippe Labro (playing himself) advancing into the interminable green hills and blue overhead of France’s countryside. The two discuss Left-Right politics — “right and left, it’s a completely outdated question. That’s not at all the way to pose the problem” — but Godard chooses to fade out on a question that’s at once arguable and rhetorical: “Then how?” You’ll have to check out his later, didactic works for the answer.
Jason Jude Chan
Permalink
Leave a Comment
Next page »