Talk:Jean-Luc Godard

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anything about his antisemitism?[edit]

No, I thought not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.121.97 (talk) 14:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For those who do not know what is being referred to, Godard has a long history of opposing Zionism, where the accusations of anti-semitism originated, and subsequent to that different political activists have analyzed his language to look for anti-semitic tropes. The general consensus has always been that he's not an anti-semite. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
'Anti-Zionism' is by definition antisemitism. I couldn't give a flying squirrel about the 'general consensus' - his own words are sufficient proof that he was a vile Jew-hater. Obviously, Wikipedia - itself institutionally antisemitic - will not address this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.154.173 (talk) 19:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I personally have no problem with Zionism, but the fact needs to be affirmed that anti-Zionism is not inherently anti-Semitic, and there has been no evidence presented that he was an anti-Semite. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 07:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alphaville[edit]

I deleted the sentence which gives away the ending of Alphaville. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.30.19.26 (talk) 01:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 1[edit]

Under 2: Godard and politics, this claim appears:

"..most of which remained unfinished or were refused showings.."

I call this a claim because I've never read that any of those films "remained unfinished", only that they were rarely shown. Does anyone know of a basis for this statement? If not, it should really be removed. --Chips Critic 23:11, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Criticism"[edit]

I took out the section entitled "criticism". Seemed to NPOV to me. It was just one quote by one Situationist saying he sucked. Someone out there thinks everyone sucks. It seemed like a sloppy attempt at balance.

Swiss?[edit]

The introduction describes Godard's nationality as Swiss, whcih I don't understand. He may be ethnically Swiss, but (to the best of my knowledge) he has lived his whole life in France, and is a French citizen.

Godard was born in France from a Swiss family. He was thus at first of French nationality. However, he became a citizen of Switzerland in 1940 so that he would not be drafted in France (WW2 at this time). Multiple sources in French and English for this fact, for example the Cannes festival website. The French version of wikipedia calls him a French-Swiss director.

USferdinand 05:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. He was 10 at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.121.97 (talk) 14:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the year was 1950, so I'm guessing that may have been a typing error. I'm not sure what motivated the bizarre taunt above, apologies for that. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 20:42, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he lives in Vaud. Many articles online make this clear.

Yes, Swiss[edit]

Godard has not been living all his life in France. He has been raised partly in France and partly in Switzerland and he has actually both Swiss and French citizenship. In the Fifties he went back to Switzerland to avoid being drafted into the French army and then he left Switzerland for South and Central America to avoid being drafted into the Swiss army. How can anybody be ethnically Swiss, given that Switzerland is made by Italian, French and German geographic, linguistic and cultural areas? 18/10/2005

Godard has lived and workeed in Rolle, Switzerland from the mid seventies to the present. 11/9/06

Godard has kept his French passport all his life, and I know for a fact that he votes in France. Thus, he cannot not be a French citizen. As for not "being drafted in 1940", that's highly dubious as he was 10 years old at the time.

Jean-Luc Godard: A Response[edit]

Jean Luc Godard

In writing about Jean-Luc Godard, the author portrays a revolutionary, innovative, and alluring film maker. Godard is portrayed as being anti establishment (specifically anti-Hollywood), and is credited with the creation of a "loose on-the-run" formal quality that is unique to his style. The author credits Godard with the establishment of the "Nouvelle Vogue" or the French New Wave, which championed new ways of making and directing films. Jean-Luc Godard is seen as a prolific movie genius, instating new trends on how movies should be made and what message they should carry. In A bout de Soufflé (1960), the usage of real life settings, the cutting of scenes, and the fluidity of the story--solidified and formed the basis of what New Wave style stood for. However, Godard is not only seen as an artist, but also as a politically and socially conscious individual. He was part of the intellectual and artistic movement of post-WWII that, inspired by Marxist theories, championed social reforms and class equality. His impact on films survived the end of the New Wave movement, thus becoming one of the most influential film makers in French cinematic history. The reader is led to assume that Marxist and existential theories formed the base for Jean-Luc Godard's films. However, no overt Marxist message is ever present in any of his films before Week End (1969), in which he attacks consumerism and the "excess of the bourgeois trends". In his other films his political stance goes only as far as to demonstrate the complexity of social and class problems, refusing to take a clear stance on the issues. He allows for his viewers to think about the issues and formulate their own individual thoughts on the different issues. The reader can also deduce that the French Latin Quarter, in the post WWII years, was the breeding ground for anti-establishment movements and a haven for those that felt ignored, cheated, and oppressed by the post-war governments and phenomenons. It was in the Latin Quarter, the cine clubs, in which Godard started to champion and foment ideas of what would become the Nouvelle Vogue. It is also safe to assume that the continuing conservative de Gaulle years and his continuous frustration at the way things were going forced Godard to change the way his movies were made. At the beginning of his film career, his movies were highly influenced by film history and tradition; in the end he denounced cinematic history as being part of the "bourgeois" and being without merit". The most convincing arguments made by the author about Jean-Luc Godard have to do with his craft. There is no doubt that he was a genius when it came to creating films and conveying powerful messages that tackled social and class issues. The author stresses Godard's political affiliation as the base for all his works and cites Le Petit Soldat, which dealt with the Algerian War of Independence, as an example of how Godard used politics in a way to teach people about the complexities of the issue. In Le Chinoise (1967) he portrays the French youth as having been influenced by the ideas of the French communist party, demonstrating that Godard was in tune and was an active member of the subculture forming at the heels of de Gaulle’s restrictive right wing state. This movie foreshadowed the events of May 1968 and it served to give voice to the youth that formed part of the French sub cultural movement. The least convincing argument was in respect to the New Wave movement itself, the reader can't help but question how radical and how anti establishment the movement was. The author cites the start of the movement as having been begun as a form of movie criticism. Godard's films were critically and commercially successful, making it clear that the movement and to an extent Godard, worked within and had the acceptance of the broader society. The author made use of many different bibliographical sources. There was usage of books and films that dealt with the artist and his craft, however, the use of primary sources was limited. He based his writings on the interpretation of others and the evaluation of Godard's work was based on what film critics had to say. The author did do a good job of separating Godard's life into stages, signaling his changes from radical innovator, to extreme Maoist, to a more conventional character. There is a synopsis for every stage of Godard's work and an explanation of why the changes in trends and quality of the work occurred. He should, however, explore more thoroughly the events of 1968 and Godard's involvement with the latter. There should also be a closer inspection of his work post 1968 and why in the start of the 1980s Godard changed his philosophy and became “mainstream”.

Sorry to disappoint you after such a long post, but there is no 'author' - this is a collaborative project between many users. You seem to know a lot about Godard, so please contribute some of your knowledge to the article rather than this page. To get started, I recommend you click on the 'Help' or 'FAQ' buttons at the top of this page, so that you can learn about the Wikipedia project and decide how you can contribute. Essential rules are: try to maintain a neutral point of view, and avoid original research (only supply verifiable information). The Singing Badger 22:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absence of Criticism[edit]

Is this article implying that there is no substantive, intelligent critique of Goddard's work as a director? Ruthfulbarbarity 04:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An intelligent critique of Godard is an oxymoron. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Climenole (talk • contribs) 01:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The verbal concept "intelligent" is not opposed to the verbal concept "critique." Therefore "intelligent critique" is not an oxymoron [sharp/dull].Lestrade (talk) 20:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]


Godard has often been accused of sexism, which I think should be dealt with in this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.230.86.238 (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The problem with the accusation of sexism against Godard is that Godard, to a certain extent, was working in fields where sexuality as a question was constantly being dealt with. Therefore, I fail to see how he can be sexist. I say that we shouldn't develop any critique of Godard for being sexist, but rather that we should consider what sexism is without Godard. What would sexism mean to us without Godard? Automatically, it seems as if we need Godard's work to even allow us to understand sexism. It is thus an oxymoron, a contradiction. It is impossible to even get at sexism without Godard. Therefore, sexism on the Godard wikipage is totally irrelvant. It does not belong there, because I have just proved that it is irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Climenole (talk • contribs) 05:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is a strong feminist reading in most of Godard's new wave work. Where has he been criticized as being sexist? The reason the female characters are often presented as materalistic, prostitutes, etc is part of his critical aesthetic. Vivre sa Vie and 2 ou 3 choses.. in particular have strong feminist tones, detailing the commodification and exploitation of women in society as well as using prostitution as a general metaphor for proletariat life under capitalism. The characters are meant to be viewed objectively as humans. Essentially calling Godard sexist for making films with prostitutes in is the same as calling him an imperial capitalist for making films with oil company logos in. Szaala4 (talk) 13:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Divorce with Anna Karina[edit]

I think they divorced in 1967 (but I can find any dates between 1965 and 1968). In the French version, they divorced around 1966 in Godard's page and in 1968 in Karina's page USferdinand 11:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to EVERYTHING IS CINEMA by Richard Brody (page 186) JLG and Karina were divorced in 1964, after she had an affair Maurice Ronet. This is a quite important fact, since they made three more films together after this date: Alphaville, Pierrot le fou & Made in the USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.83.3.192 (talk) 14:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Photo???[edit]

We need a photo for this article (Lowdark Innuendo 14:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

--- I just emailed jean luc godard to ask for a cleared photo if i dont hear from him ill email janus films to ask for one--Kr4ft (talk) 20:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Current activity[edit]

We haven't heard anyhting about Godard since Notre Musique in 2004. Does anyone know what's going on with him? He's 77, and I have no idea the state of his health. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 20:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Godard recently completed a short called Une Catastrophe for 2008 Viennale Film Festival and he is currently busy working on his new film Socialisme. The trailers of the film have been out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Godardmelville (talk • contribs) 21:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Artistic licence[edit]

I have just watched an interview with J-L Godard regarding his direction of the car crash scene in Le Mepris. I find i difficult to believe that his choice of staging was determined by anything more than the cost of wrecking an Alpha & that his explanation was extremely disingenuous. 121.91.214.205 (talk) 05:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't watch the scene carefully enough. They had the car in excellent condition, and they wrecked the car. The car is shown wrecked, after the crash. They went to the expense of wrecking the car. Yet the film does not show the crash. Most filmmakers would have shown the crash, but Godard made a conscious decision not to show it. What's not to get? Furthermore, it is worth noting that Le Mepris was the only movie Godard made that was financed from the get-go by an American studio. It was his biggest budget movie he ever made. Your argument makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.77.84 (talk) 06:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: The One Man Edit War[edit]

The IP who is changing the dates on Masculin, féminin and Two or Three Things I Know About Her insists that the years of those films are 1965 and 1966 respectively. He challenged us to check with IMDB which would prove him right: I did and it of course states that the years for those films are 1966 and 1967 respectively. He then goes on to ignore this and state he has lots of books backing him up. I believe he is now blocked for edit warring and lack of civility, but I would like to bring this issue to this talk page. I have two links (of many possible links) which of course show that Masculin, féminin is from 1966 and Two or Three Things I Know About Her is from 1967. I hope this settles everything: I hesitate to feed anything, but in the interest of transparency, we should address and settle this here. freshacconci talktalk 22:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to have been long settled, but I'll just add for official consensus that yes, the films are respectively released in 1966 and 1967; 1965 and 1966 is when they were initially shot. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 07:27, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most famous Godard quote[edit]

"Cinema is truth twenty-four times a second" could should be included somewhere in this article. Paul Fieberg, Paul@feebs.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.96.85.140 (talk) 12:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of Citations[edit]

The entire article as I found it today is very inadequately referenced. This is inexplicable given the notability and the abundance of sources. I've added some citations (to the introdutcion and the section 'Film Criticism') but I think this requires special attention. Bubka42 (talk) 10:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV[edit]

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bad reference to French version[edit]

English version of 29 june 2014 at 02:04 contains a bad reference to the French version. It erroneously points to fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Parvulesco I randomly looked at a much older version, where the error also ocurred. (The French version can be reached from e.g. the German version.) I don't known how to correct this error. 81.232.46.72 (talk) 19:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Jean-Luc Godard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Breathless" vs "A bout de souffle"[edit]

Hello All,

I"m just writing to inquire about how we are referencing "breathless" in the article. In my experience, when you write the English name of a foreign work, then quote it's original title, it can then on be referenced by the original title.

This, to me, gives the work the proper respect and is more correct than the alternative. It's not inherently disrespectful to the work to call it its English name but I wanted a quick write up to probe for opinions on the matter to reach a mutually beneficial conclusion for the article in question :) Chewbakadog (talk) 22:35, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:COMMON, we go by whichever name is commonly used in English sources. I believe the English title is used far more often than the French title. If I was writing an academic paper on the film, I'd personally go with the French title, but for an English-language encyclopedia, if the English name is more common, it's the one that should be used, even in subsequent mentions in the article. freshacconci talk to me 23:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted Chewbakadog's edits for the policy reasons givne by Freshacconci, which I agree with, and which accord to common sense. BMK (talk) 00:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dziga Vertov Group[edit]

I've changed the description of the Dziga Vertov Group under the Films section of Revolutionary Period from socialist-idealist to just socialist a couple times, and both times it has been almost immediately reversed by the same person. This does not appear to me to be an accurate description of the Dziga Vertov Group, considering it was formed as a Marxist film group. Marxism is philosophically materialist, and in complete opposition to idealism. I'm curious as to why someone is so adamant about the group being referred to as something that doesn't appear to accurately describe it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alistoriv (talk • contribs) 00:55, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Jean-Luc Godard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jean-Luc Godard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Death[edit]

In honour of Jean-Luc Godard, I thought I might just write down one of the great quotations from his chef d'oeuvre, A Bout de Souffle:

"C'est quoi votre ambition dans la vie?" "Devenir immortel et puis, mourir"

"What is your goal in life?" "Become immortal and then, die"

May he rest in peace EcheveriaJ (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that—to which I offer this:
"Nearly everything is really interesting if you go into it deeply enough." - Richard Feynman Cl3phact0 (talk) 06:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

npov[edit]

it calls him “arguably” the most influential filmmaker blah blah blah. Should not be using “arguably” from a neutral pov 2601:249:4380:53E0:0:0:0:DB7B (talk) 00:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While I see you point, "arguably" could be a neutral pov if it is generally an accepted position. An example (which is the first thing that came to mind) is spaghetti carbonara is "arguably" an Italian dish. Would you agree that this is a neutral pov because it is a generally accepted thought? Jurisdicta (talk) 02:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your rebuttal isn't true. Saying whether something is an Italian dish is factual because we can determine whether it's an Italian dish. We cannot determine who is the most influential French filmmaker. The argumemt part here is a clear expression of POV. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 09:15, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:07, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Today's wordsmithing edits[edit]

Greetings Wikipedians! I have endeavored to smooth out the writing; specifically certain sentences addressing multiple thoughts, strung together with "and." The section title "Anna Karina and A Woman Is a Woman" doesn't seem appropriate because it mostly talks about "The Little Soldier." The statement that "Little Soldier" was the first time Godard worked with Karina was confusing because she first appeared in "A Woman Is A Woman", which was released before "The Little Soldier." Here again, that complexity can be addressed in the separate article about The Little Soldier. Subor doesn't need to be mentioned in this section there's further discussion of the film later in this article (which I found disjointed) and a whole separate article about the film.Cordially, BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 12:57, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jean-Luc_Godard&oldid=1194319280"