6th HOF-Pierrot le Fou

[seanc]

Nominated By: Frightened Inmate #2

http://www.filmcaptures.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Pierrot_le_Fou_66.jpg

[Frightened Inmate No. 2]

I didn't write a description or anything, but this is one of my favorite movies. I'd have to watch it again to say anything substantive about it, but what I remember most is the brilliant and exciting use of color. It also has Karina and Belmondo in top form, my two favorite actors French actors.

[jiraffejustin]

This and Swan's nomination are the two I'm most looking forward to. Every Godard film I've seen, I've loved, and this from his hot 60s period. I'm expecting a high finish for this one.

[cricket]

I've been up and down on Godard so far; when I watched this last month, I was surprised how entertaining it was. Because I've seen it recently, I'm going to save it for one of the last nominations I watch.

[sumantra roy]

saw this today after almost 15 years...didn't leave much of an impact when I first time saw it, now, I think, it's a masterpiece...Bold, Daring, Subversive, Radical, Caricaturist...there are so many things that one can talk about here...mixing of genres, use of color, music, the plot itself...Godard always comes to me as a man with ideas...and he in a way, never turns it into an industry...he would throw an idea and move on...without bothering...much like the protagonists here, they don't care about money, wealth, safety, routine, indulgence, consumerism...

not everyone will like it though, a thing that can be said about almost all of Godard's films (except Band of Outsiders may be)...

[cricket]

Glad that you thought highly of it Roy. I think you're right about everyone not liking it though, and I think that would go for Band of Outsiders too.

[Swan]

I think I'm most looking forward to this nomination. I need to see more Godard.

[christine]

I think I've seen this many many years ago and don't remember much about it so looking forward to the rewatch

[gbgoodies]

This is what I wrote about Pierrot le Fou in my logbook thread, (without the spoilers).

http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=1257500#post1257500

This movie was interesting, but kind of chaotic too. It reminded me a bit of Bonnie & Clyde, with a couple in love and on the run, but the tone of the movie seemed a bit lighter. I thought the ending was kind of predictable in what happened, but not how it happened. I expected both of them to die at the end, but the way they died was kind of unique, and definitely unexpected.

Jean-Paul Belmondo and Anna Karina had great chemistry together, which made them a pleasure to watch. It seemed kind of strange that they sort of broke out into song like it wanted to be a musical, but it didn't really have the feel of a musical. The movie seemed to have an interesting use of colors, with the focus being mostly on red.

Overall, I kind of have mixed feelings about this movie. It's an interesting story, and it's fun to watch, but it just felt a little too "artsy" for me. Having said that, I think the arthouse mafia will probably love this movie.

3.5

[Miss Vicky]

This one struck me as a bit of a convoluted mess. It had parts that I enjoyed and I really love the look of the film and the use of color, but overall I wasn't a fan. Perhaps I just wasn't in the right mindset for it and a rewatch (far) down the road will change things, but for now color me unimpressed.

3

[Thursday Next]

I don't know what to think about this. It looks fantastic, the colours are amazing, but by the end I was thoroughly fed up with it. I liked the way it was filmed, and perhaps to the director this was the only important thing, but it seemed completely hollow. I can understand the concept that the style is the substance, but I think the film would have to be sharper, simpler (and maybe shorter) to completely pull that off; what charm it has is stretched thin over the 110 minutes running time. The dialogue was pretentious nonsense and it irritated me. It would have made as much sense without subtitles, perhaps I would even have enjoyed it more. And the characters were completely obnoxious. But then again, bits of it were good. Some scenes were hilarious, like the very end, Pierrot/Ferdinand's death almost redeemed the whole thing.

What is interesting is that another of our nominated films, Sonatine, is apparently influenced by Pierrot le Fou. I wouldn't have made that connection myself, but I suppose I can see some similarities at certain points.

[rauldc14]

Hopefully I can find this one soon.

[mark f]

Anyone who gives it more than 2 is very easily amused. :)

[Sane]

This is a very difficult movie to get into but overall it ends up being very good. It appears quite superficial but if you view it as Godard basically putting the breakdown of his marriage to Karina on screen then it has great depth. Someone willing (and able) to put in the effort to dig down into it will possibly be rewarded. I was ... eventually :)


rating_4

[Thursday Next]

It's funny, because I felt that it was easy to get into it at the start, but meandered along and became less interesting.

Should we have to know about the director's private life in order to appreciate a film? It may add an interesting dimension to it, but I don't think it should be essential to understanding it. Context is important, but a really good film ought to be able to stand on its own merits.

I don't agree that people who don't like this film aren't 'willing and able' to 'put the effort in'. If it has to be an effort, then perhaps something about the way the film is communicating its ideas is flawed?

I'd give it more than a 2, but I see what mark f is saying when he says people who like this film are easily entertained - I think liking this film does depend a lot on finding the characters and their antics cute, whether they're murdering people or painting their faces yellow and performing skits about Vietnam.

[Sane]

Should we have to know about the director's private life in order to appreciate a film? It may add an interesting dimension to it, but I don't think it should be essential to understanding it. Context is important, but a really good film ought to be able to stand on its own merits.
I'm sure people like it without any context but finding a way to interpret what was going on was what worked for me. Whether we have to know about the director's private life or not depends on the film. Many films are very personal and an understanding of that can change the interpretation. Whether we "have" to or not is up to the viewer.

I don't agree that people who don't like this film aren't 'willing and able' to 'put the effort in'. If it has to be an effort, then perhaps something about the way the film is communicating its ideas is flawed?From a personal perspective I disagree completely. I always want to be challenged to find meaning in a movie. That's was the point of "willing and able". If someone else wants to have it all made clear for them then that's fine but for me a requirement to put some effort in to understanding is definitely not a flaw - it's the opposite in many cases.

I'd give it more than a rating_2, but I see what mark f is saying when he says people who like this film are easily entertained - I think liking this film does depend a lot on finding the characters and their antics cute, whether they're murdering people or painting their faces yellow and performing skits about Vietnam.It is too judgemental to decide why other people like a movie rather than just accepting their reasons for why they did. I'm not easily amused and didn't find anything about the characters cute. I liked it because of how it depicted something that is inherently complex and sad in a mostly light hearted way and I found that once I connected with what was really going on it was quite meaningful. Definitely a flawed movie, like all of Godard's, but very good.

[mark f]

I have basically stopped giving my opinions anymore in these Hall of Fame threads. I still pop in occasionally, but you guys have plenty of opinions and most who care about mine already know them. I know that many people think I rate films too low, but I still say there are a lot of ratings to go around, so why not use them when you think they're appropriate? If some filmmaker wants to share his personal life with his fans in what they both consider creative ways, that's fine, but shouldn't a little statement of that fact be presented up front to let everyone in on the joke? It may not ultimately mean to some what it means to Sane (sorry about that) and others, but fair is fair. I've seen Pierrot le fou three times, and if my health holds up. I'll probably watch it some more too. It may strike me as being more shallow than deep, but I'll undoubtedly get something more out of it. Now, I'm off to watch another of my beloved Hollywood blockbusters, Six in Paris, directed by Douchet, Rouch, Pollet, Rohmer, Chabrol and Godard. Happy watching!

[Gatsby]

Pierrot Lé Fou

Watched it last night, having been interested by the discussions. This was my first Godard so I didn't really know what to expect, other than some word about colors and connection to the director's personal life, which made it even more confusing.

Well first off I liked the breaking of the forth wall, which I adore every time it's done in any movie. The peculiar editing was, peculiar, but albeit unnecessary sometimes, if only felt like Godard trying too hard to be special. But in a few cases it was used creatively to my content, such as the sudden switch from a throwing of a cake to an explosion, looking like the cake causing the explosion. I had a chuckle from that. The colors give a good look, but nothing else.

I have mixed feelings about the ending. I mean, it was hilarious and I see it as a powerful ending but at the same time it was kind of disturbing. The films itself doesn't have much of a build-up, especially to the characters, and just killing off one at the end felt cruel.

3.5

[Sane]

If some filmmaker wants to share his personal life with his fans in what they both consider creative ways, that's fine, but shouldn't a little statement of that fact be presented up front to let everyone in on the joke?
Well, that's up to the director but I would hope not. IMO it's up to the viewer to find an interpretation that works for them ... or not ... there is no requirement for them to do so.

It may not ultimately mean to some what it means to Sane (sorry about that) and others, but fair is fair. I've seen Pierrot le fou three times, and if my health holds up. I'll probably watch it some more too.Why sorry?

It may strike me as being more shallow than deep, but I'll undoubtedly get something more out of it.Again there is no requirement for anyone to get anything out of any movie and thinking that a Godard film is shallow is a very common opinion. Doesn't mean that someone who disagrees is easily amused though ;)

[Sane]

Pierrot Lé Fou

Watched it last night, having been interested by the discussions. This was my first Godard so I didn't really know what to expect, other than some word about colors and connection to the director's personal life, which made it even more confusing.


I should point out that what I said may not actually be true - it was just how I interpreted it after reading a bit about the film. Prior to watching this I didn't even know that Godard and Karina had been married but there were things that made me think the film was more personal than some of Godard's others (like the breaking the fourth wall bit you mentioned) and then I read on a website that this was about the time their marriage started to really struggle and Karina had cheated on him.

Who knows with Godard, what I said could be completely wrong but it worked for me.

[Thursday Next]

From a personal perspective I disagree completely. I always want to be challenged to find meaning in a movie. That's was the point of "willing and able". If someone else wants to have it all made clear for them then that's fine but for me a requirement to put some effort in to understanding is definitely not a flaw - it's the opposite in many cases.

It is too judgemental to decide why other people like a movie rather than just accepting their reasons for why they did.

But don't you think it's equally 'judgmental' to assume people's reasons for disliking a film are that they didn't put enough effort into understanding it?


Pierrot Lé Fou
I have mixed feelings about the ending. I mean, it was hilarious and I see it as a powerful ending but at the same time it was kind of disturbing. The films itself doesn't have much of a build-up, especially to the characters, and just killing off one at the end felt cruel.


That it was hilarious and disturbing at the same time was what I liked about the ending! I thought it made complete sense that it would all end in death, but the way in which it happened was still delightfully unpredictable.

[Sane]

But don't you think it's equally 'judgmental' to assume people's reasons for disliking a film are that they didn't put enough effort into understanding it?
.

Sure, but I didn't make that assumption. I made no comment on why people disliked it - I commented on on what I thought was required to "possibly" like it.

[neiba]

Just finished watching Pierrot, le Fou!

So... I really don't know how to rate this...
For starters, I have a new platonic passion: Anna Karina! What a woman!
As for the movie: it looks like a compilation of unrelated brilliant short stories! Godard manages to express all his ideas about life, love, cinema and literature without any concern of connecting them. This makes it hard to watch, but it doesn't makes it less genius! It just keeps taking you from one scene to another! The important is not the story but everything Godard wants to say!
I am not sure but I think I loved it! :p

[seanc]

My second Godard and right now I am not a fan. I have said it many times, if your going to throw narrative out the window you have to grab me with the characters. In both this and Breathless Godard thinks much more of his characters than I do. I don't find them compelling, and I certainly don't find them cool which to me seems to be the intention. I prefer the cinematography in this one to Breathless, so for that reason I rate it higher.

[cricket]

I just finished watching this for the second time, after first seeing it about three months ago. Unfortunately, I didn't like it nearly as much this time around. I like Godard, but he's a funny director for me. My favorite film of his(Contempt), is one that I love enough to nominate for a Hall of Fame, but I just don't know how many other members would like it. On the other hand, his most famous film(Breathless), is a movie that I didn't like at all. Everything else I've seen from him has been somewhere in the middle, with each of those movies having fairly dramatic ups and downs. As far as this movie goes, even though I still thought it looked fantastic, it just didn't seem as fresh this time around. I loved the first twenty minutes and the last ten, but the rest of it was a bit of an inconsistent and annoying mess for me. If he said "My name's Ferdinand" one more time, I would've screamed. I'm also someone who doesn't like the breaking of the fourth wall. There were other parts I didn't care for, but there were also things I really liked. I liked Belmondo in this after not liking him in Breathless, and I always love Karina, but I just didn't have the same overall enjoyment this time around. With the tie-in to the 60's list, I feel that this was a good nomination, but this was a very uneven viewing for me. 2.5

[Guaporense]

I also liked Contempt more than Pierrot le Fou.

[Guaporense]

I don't know what to think about this. It looks fantastic, the colours are amazing, but by the end I was thoroughly fed up with it. I liked the way it was filmed, and perhaps to the director this was the only important thing, but it seemed completely hollow. I can understand the concept that the style is the substance, but I think the film would have to be sharper, simpler (and maybe shorter) to completely pull that off; what charm it has is stretched thin over the 110 minutes running time. The dialogue was pretentious nonsense and it irritated me. It would have made as much sense without subtitles, perhaps I would even have enjoyed it more. And the characters were completely obnoxious. But then again, bits of it were good. Some scenes were hilarious, like the very end, Pierrot/Ferdinand's death almost redeemed the whole thing.

Agree completely.

What is interesting is that another of our nominated films, Sonatine, is apparently influenced by Pierrot le Fou. I wouldn't have made that connection myself, but I suppose I can see some similarities at certain points.

There is a million movies that claim to be influenced by Goddard's movies, there is even a Cowboy Bebop episode is named after this movie.

[Guaporense]

But don't you think it's equally 'judgmental' to assume people's reasons for disliking a film are that they didn't put enough effort into understanding it?

As a researcher whose job is to think I don't find thinking about anything actually an "effort", but I think about things that I find interesting not about things I find boring. I think that there is no such thing as effort put into understanding a movie and then finding it interesting/rewarding but the inverse: the fact that you might find something interesting makes you automatically think about it effortlessly. The Goddard movie I found the most interesting was Alphaville.

That it was hilarious and disturbing at the same time was what I liked about the ending! I thought it made complete sense that it would all end in death, but the way in which it happened was still delightfully unpredictable.

I though it was cliche though that's because the trope was copied so many times later.

[bluedeed]

Guap, I've brought it up several times before. It's Godard, not Goddard. The difference between a rocket scientist and a Swiss experimental filmmaker. Sorry to be annoying but it hits my nerves every time I see it.

And on the topic of Godard, I'd like to bring up that I just saw Rohmer's The Sign of Leo, another early Rohmer film in which Godard plays a small role. It's a really strange offshoot that has nothing to do with he plot. We spend a minute or so just watching him pace back and forth. We also see him repeatedly play back the same part of a classical piece on a record, listening intensely each time. I though this moment was a perfect illustration of Godard, the classical modernist.

[Friendly Mushroom!]

So this is where Daniel M's avatar originated from!

https://33.media.tumblr.com/0b9a5498d0d3ad6d7fff4a0adb4319a7/tumblr_mhvdir730e1qkyz1oo1_500.gif