« Morgan, a suitable case for treatment | Main | The current cinema, "More cowbell" edition »

January 07, 2012


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


"But from an architectural standpoint, Godard’s films are phantom structures with missing doorways and unfinished walls, moss-covered stairways and half-assembled plumbing. To a great extent, this is deliberate, of course. In his later films, Godard takes strands of narrative and builds over and under them, extends or atomizes certain motifs to the point where they become unrecognizable as elements of one single narrative." - razor sharp criticism right there.


I'll second that. This is really great stuff, and a nice reminder of the freedom that the internet offers. With unlimited space, why aren't more sites offering conversations like this? Also nice to hear from Kent again, as he's seemed largely absent from the various sites he used to post at. Thanks for this heads up Glenn.

James Keepnews

Such a pleasure to read such an informed discussion between such thoughtful writers on film -- thanks indeed, Glenn. The "phantom structures with missing doorways and unfinished walls" observation struck me as well, edo. I'm not at all sure how much I agree with it: G. does certainly make a great show of shattering conventional narrative approaches/expectations, an approach that, for all its evident gaps/jumps/elisions/you-name-it, seem far too considered, to say nothing of (to continue Kent's metaphor) sharp and real, to feel like resulting from a "phantom" form. But it definitely conveys -- quite beautifully -- the experience of watching Godard, where the ultimate "completion" of the work must come from a rigorously engaged viewer willing to do the heavy lifting of reconciling those aporia into something resembling a consistent whole.

Oh, for a universe where these gentlemen could have a regular show on the teevee and be the Siskel & Ebert for the 21st...


A hearty thanks for this link. It really is a rare treat - there's quite a bit of good film writing out there on the interwebs, but stuff like this is a cut above, and a rare treat. It's too bad, as Daniel says, that Kent hasn't been writing and commenting as actively, so this felt overdue, if anything. It's such a great concept - why can't there be more stuff like this? Maybe, Glenn, you could get something like this going on at least a semi-regular basis? Eh?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Tip Jar

Tip Jar
Blog powered by Typepad