How can a film be pretentious? A film is a thing - it lacks the ability to have emotion, or in this case, pretension. I can understand a director being pretentious.
Cronenberg is instant gratification for me. Regardless of whether weâre talking about his early period or his later efforts, his flicks never fail to entertain me. I really donât care about underlying rationales for various narrative devices found in Cronenbergâs work, as it is of no importance to me whatsoever. At the end of the day, Cronenbergâs oeuvre predominantly consists of shlocky pulp fiction, but thatâs not a bad thing per se, itâs just a conspicuous characteristic of his filmmaking. I think he is regarded as one of the most important filmmakers of all time by virtue of his influence in miscellaneous horror subgenres relating to body mutation and mutilation, but that doesnât mean heâs necessarily one of the best filmmakers out there, he was merely crucial in molding the horror genre in general. Who cares. All in all, itâs just yucky-yucky fun revelling in its own repugnance. Cronenbergâs reasoning behind his plots probably springs from psychoanalysis, which is something I donât preoccupy myself with at all. All I care about are his dexterity in the technical department and the grimy aesthetics of his filmmaking.
And I love Scanners and other early Cronenbergâs efforts, theyâre neat little low-budget flicks with a very distinct atmosphere and flavor that I cherish. Sure, theyâre cheap, but theyâre fairly well-made, gutsy, raw and edgy garbage, I love it.
I feel a lot of Godardâs filmography hasnât stood the test of time. While I still enjoy some of his movies such as Vivre sa vie, Ă bout de souffle, Le petit soldat, Alphaville and Le MĂ©pris, a lot of his stuff is slavishly reliant on the transposition of Brechtian dramatics of Verfremdungseffekt (or whatever) into the language of cinema, which manifests itself in his perplexing montage and theatrical interjections. Once you strip the somewhat confusing exterior, what remains is the usual set of Marxist themes the French intelligentsia of the 1960s would occupy themselves with while sipping coffee in posh cafes. Heck, even Welles laughed about the superficiality of Godardâs worldview and politics. Godardâs editing methods definitely influenced the way subsequent generations of directors would view and craft movies, but his cinema is so inextricably intertwined with the zeitgeist of the 1960s, they feel a lot more dated than other Nouvelle Vague examples and theyâre no longer trĂšs chic or at least not as chic as they used to be back in the day.
While a movie or any other work of art is an admittedly abstract creation subsequently divorced from its own creator, it is inevitably tinted by its creatorâs artistic and intellectual sensibilities, which translate into the final product. No work of art is perfectly balanced and all imbalances are a reflection of directorâs attention to different details and aspects of the executed material. If a movie seems obsessively preoccupied with its own meaning and encasing its internal philosophy while having nothing particularly original, interesting or enlightening to say, I guess you could call it pretentious. You can still enjoy some movies in spite of them being pretentious (ehm, ehm⊠Refn⊠ehm, ehmâŠ), but if the said pretentiousness overrides all other merits, then I suppose it can debilitate the work in question quite a bit and then you can call it pretentious. I guess you could call pretentiousness a form of creative self-absorption if that makes sense: something intended to stroke oneâs ego without conveying anything of worth or anything meaningful, something pompous, internally vacuous and rather meaningless. Well, thatâs at least what the word means for me, itâs art criticism though and it can be applied to any example, but that doesnât mean it doesnât exist, itâs just descriptive and not something intrinsic. Just because a characteristic may not be universally agreed upon doesnât mean it doesnât exist. I hope any of this makes sense.
You should see La Chinoise then. Iâd rather blow my brains out than re-watch that piece of crap. Alphaville is definitely not the most pretentious Godard, but there is definitely a fairly conspicuous strain of vacuous intellectualism easily detectable in a predominant portion of his body of work, outside of Le MĂ©pris perhaps and a few others.
1 Like
yes, wanted to write something like that, but I hoped someone would do that instead 
ah, rather not, Iâm interested mainly in scifi, oh wait a minute maybe La Chinoise is sf, quick wiki check: âThis dark French comedy by Jean-Luc Godard focuses on a group of students who have embraced Maoist ideals and strive to incite revolutionâŠâ
Jeeezus Christ. Okay, Iâm out.
You might want to watch Le MĂ©pris and Ă bout de souffle because theyâre considered his most representative and generally digestible works and theyâre pretty good for the most part, but yeah, otherwise steer clear of Godard. AFAIK Bill San Antonio likes Pierrot Le Fou, but I hated it myself. Iâve spoken to a person that I thinks most of Godardâs most successful work came out in the 1980s, but on the other hand, El Topo apparently hated PrĂ©nom Carmen⊠so yeah, Godard is quite polarizing for a bunch of different reasons. Watching some Godardâs films feels by and large like a chore.
Ou, Jack Palance. And plot looks quite interesting. Iâll give it a try.
1 Like
Strictly speaking you are of course right, but a movie reflects the film makersâ ideas and in the case of Godard these ideas are rather thin, theyâre the kind of neo-marxist ideas and pretentions many left-wing film makers had in these days. A movie has of course no emotions, no brain either, yet we still speak of âstupid moviesâ and I think few of us will have trouble imagining what is meant in that context: we call the movie stupid, but blame the director and/or screenwriter
1 Like
I think they are actually rather complex.
Godard is still interesting, at least with the films he made up to Weekend (1967) and the films he made in the first half of the 80s. These are mostly fun to watch, and have often some poetic qualities, which gives them a repeated-viewing-value.
Not one of my favourite directors though, and I doubt that I give any of his films a 10 on my entertainometer, but also none of them gets less than a 6. (of the above mentioned time slots)
Yes films do not have a brain, but ultimately films are made so that we can use our own brains, it was Samuel Fuller who said it all in a Godard Film Pierrot le Fou about what cinema is.
âŠin one word emotions
I couldnât agree more, and itâs been my moto since I first watch it
1 Like
Saw Midsommar last nightâŠ
Napoleon (Gance, 1927)
At 5 1/2 hours, this is the 2nd longest film Iâve seen - the longest being The Human Condition (9 hours).
After many many years I decided to rewatch two Tarkovskiâs sf classics. I didnât think much of them back then so I was curious, if I would see them in different light nowadays:
Stalker - I watched a minidocumentary about production of the movie and was shocked by some information, for example that film probably had something to do with Tarkovskiâs death. Three russian baldies wander through the Zone and they discuss various themes in hardcore philosophy mode. Well, there are some interesting scenes, but to be honest, book seemed to me a lot more engaging than this overlong cinematic masturbation. 40%
Solaris - Once again a movie which is constantly present in best sf movie lists. Not in mine though. I thought I couldnât take it. The idea wasnât probably very original even at the time Lem wrote about it, ideawise, it is just a normal Star Trek episode, with more philosophy shot in and protagonists blabbering to no end about their condition strange situation evoked in them, instead of analyze the situation and use it for their advantage. I didnât like it all. 30%
I like Solaris, but this ^^^^ is still a pretty fair summary.
Ouch, Stalker is an all favorite of mine, with Andrei Tarkovsyâs being one cinematographic genius. Even if not, for me at least the best work of the director, Stalker is one of those works that you donât just watch you have to experience it, the director himself said that those who watch the film searching for a meaning will miss it, Stalker much be watch like watching the view while travelling.
Yes we could make a dissertion or write a book about Stalker, is it about time, relegion, the meaning of life or just life with no meaning at all. Much more than the possible metaphores
A great piece of cinema in my view
3 Likes
They are enthusing about Stalker on the BBC4 Film Programme right now.
Iâm also ambivalent about Tarkovski. He can seem ponderous, but I think heâs one of the very few directors who fully demonstrates the unique powers of cinema.
Iâm fond of Solaris and intend to revisit his other films.
1 Like
Yeah, I can put both movies in âdonât get itâ shelf (âbut one day I mightâ).
Soldier of Orange (1977)-
1/2
The Hitcher (1986)-
John Wick Chapter 3-Parabellum (2019)-
Trinity Is Back Again (1975)-1/2
Men in Black:International (2019)-
Just finished watching the 5 seasons of Hell on Wheels - really enjoyed this series.
You canât go far wrong with railways & guns in the 1800âs.
The only downside was Dominique McElligott being killed off so soonâŠ
I really need to give this a try. 
Stalker is also a top favorite of mine.
Yeah, me and the wife enjoyed these too.