Own the rights?
8 out of 11 people found the following comment useful :- A remake of the Big Sleep as only the "Girl and a Gun" man can do it, 13 January 2009 Author: MisterWhiplash from United States
It's probably a given to note one of Jean-Luc Godard's notorious Godard-isms, likely the one that everyone knows even if they haven't seen a Godard picture: All you need to make a movie is a girl and a gun. While this is a pointed reference to the simplicity possible and/or inherent in the gangster picture or noir, and about how inexpensiveness should be taken usually into consideration. But at the same time, I think a picture like Made in USA or even something like Band of Outsiders or Vivre sa vie emphasizes that Godard was really the one to go for this in the only way that he could: all Godard needed to make a movie was a girl (his girl, pre Masculin Feminin which was immediately after Made in USA, Anna Karina), a gun (or sometimes more than one), and Jean-Luc Godard. Because, really, a girl and a gun is fine, but in the 1960s, with this man at the helm, it was just a little bit more.Called by the director himself as a "remake" of the Big Sleep, which perhaps makes the best sense of all, this is the hardest to find of the French New Wave wild-man-poet-anarchist's films not just with Anna Karina but in the 60s in general. Interesting, since this is, to my somewhat biased estimation (biased in that this was, to me, his absolute prime period before his very hit or miss period in the decades to follow), one of his most entertaining "B-movie" movies about movies. And not just about movies, but also about living with oneself, the politics of France, Walt Disney, and things pop culture flavored all around. This is another in a line of pictures Godard made that was very anti-capitalist while at the same time embracing to an extent (if only ironically) the images and names and attitudes of American pictures and pulp fiction and comic books and other things. There's such an array of references that at the theater I saw this film at, the Film Forum in NYC, they had to put up a glossary-key to fill people in.And as much as it's a love letter to wild quips, eccentric characters, guys in trench-coats and hats, Nick Ray and Sam Fuller (especially them as providing Godard's "love of sound and image" as noted at the start), bright colors filmed in wonderful Technicolor, stretches of time filled on a tape recorder about French politics, and to the dark and warmth of American B-movies, it's also a fine goodbye to Anna Karina. Here, as pretty and tough and contemplative as ever, going through some classic Godard scenes like when she and the detective who may have killer her character's lover explain to the camera what they are saying in a scene instead of playing it out, or just lying on the ground in a moment of existential upheaval, Karina shows how good she could actually be. While not her very best- I'd save that for Pierrot le fou and Vivre sa vie- it's a very memorable performance, and one that, like everyone else in Godard's films, knows so well about the performance as she's performing, that the "fiction" itself becomes wrapped around in the very documentary-like act of filming the movie.And that last part, I think, is the handle for this time period for Godard. What was essential to his craft, when it clicked just right, was that he could master together his love of quotations and pop-culture and movie references on top of a daring and sometimes wacky exploration of reality and fiction. Made in USA us based on a Donald Westlake crime book about a woman looking to find out who killer her man, but in Godard's hands the very act of this plot, joyously convoluted as the best possible homage/remake of Hawks' Big Sleep as could be outside of Coen brothers, is subjugated to scenes where actors talk to the camera about what they would normally just say to each other in a scene, or when they make point of, of course, that it's just a movie. It may be a "B-side" in the Godard 60s cannon as a NY Times review pointed out, but damn it all if it isn't one of the most enjoyable B-sides in all cinema.
4 out of 5 people found the following comment useful :- Paul or Bartender, never "Sir", 1 August 2009 Author: Andy (film-critic) from Bookseller of the Blue Ridge
There is no questioning the power of Godard. His cinematic talent reaches much farther than my mind could even begin to escape, and upon watching some of his lesser known films these days - his sheer imagination was something that is decidedly missed in today's film experience. Watching "Pierrot Le Fou", the vivid color, the uncontrollable ability to combine any genre into one frame, and the dedication of his actors was demonstrated. A less-fan of his "Breathless" film and more into his experimental work, "Fou" was right up my alley - yet, watching "Made in USA", I was completely flabbergasted. This film was confusing, colorful, intelligent, philosophical, brutal, and a slice of what America was producing at the time, while all the while being completely Godard. Destined never to be a favorite among purists, "Made in USA" requires more than one viewing and an accompanying owner's manual to navigate, but the final destination is worth all the work. Using Anna Karina as our guide, this spy-thriller (if I could say that) takes off with a huge step and never looks back. Do not watch this movie late at night or while doing anything that will cause you to glance away from the screen. Every moment in this film is necessary, every word that Godard has our actors speak - while at times confusing and thought provoking - is needed to tell this dis-narrative story. Godard is a master behind the camera for this film - giving us an early glimpse as to what was in store with "Pierrot Le Fou", his bold color and well read characters (each one is always holding a book - Bravo!), are just the crust. What made "Made in USA" stand out was the obvious connections to Walt Disney, the "Big Sleep", and nearly everything coming out of the 60s in America, but what makes Godard impressive, is that one needs to search to see it. He doesn't spoon feed you a narrative that makes your heart gush at the end, Godard creates challenging cinema that will not be enjoyed by all, but if developed - if watched over time - if studied, remains important even 43 years later. "Made in USA" is another Criterion release that looks and sounds perfectly, but - even with my discussion on how great Godard's work is - isn't the greatest release from the master. Yep, I am a Godard fan, but I am picky. I didn't enjoy "Breathless", but "Pierrot Le Fou" I hold very highly - and this - well, "Made in USA" is intelligent, but perhaps a bit too pretentious. The idea behind this film is solid, but it is the execution that had me nervous. Godard is eloquent in introducing us to certain characters and elements, but gives them names of his favorites like McNamara and Nixon that just feels weighted by symbolism and inside jokes. The viewing took place over the course of three days, not due to the diminishing subject, but because a rewind was needed to ensure that parts didn't go missing or lost. Crafting one part puzzle, one part social commentary, one part comedy is difficult - and for the beginning film watcher - this probably isn't the best film to first experience Godard. Here is what I liked - I loved not knowing. What was exhilarating about this feature was the unknown. The confusing dialogue, the menacing tape voice, the constant barrage of planes flying overhead (if that IS what that noise was), and the possible hope of knowing Richard's last name - keeps one wanting to finish, but getting there is a battle. The dialogue is either a love or hate moment. As there is no linear story, from the spoken perspective, and it is easy to get lost in Godard's cluttered words. For myself, it was at times refreshing - and at other times a disaster. Without a linear narrative, it was difficult to understand how one character fit within the scheme of events. What was happening between Paula and Mr. Typhus? Just thinking about it gives me a headache.The scenes that stood out in this film were the bartender moments (where you could call him Paul or Bartender, but not "sir"), the pinball machine in the garage, and the billboard store room characters. These made me chuckle and see the humor that Godard was demonstrating, but the others just felt murky and disjointed. Again, I would like to state that every scene was necessary, but were they great? The imagery was spectacular - giving us the color palette that he would later use in "Pierrot Le Fou" - and the cinematography followed suit. For me, it was just the language the bogged me down. I wanted to know these characters further, I wanted to further know the story of the skulled man, and who was double crossing who. "Made in USA" is an important film, I am glad to see it within the Criterion catalogue, but it is an advanced film. The average film watcher will not like this movie, even I felt lost sometimes - but I am so very happy that I watched it.In another review, this film was quoted as a "B-side" to the Godard cannon, and I couldn't agree more. Could I watch this movie again? Absolutely, but not right away. I look forward to re-exploring this piece of cinema, understanding what I missed, and seeing the inside moments that may have slipped by me the first time. "Made in America" isn't perfect, and I don't know anyone that can take a ten minutes of a tape playing discussing politics, but this self-proclaimed "B-side" finally has a release it deserves. Grade: *** 1/2 out of *****
3 out of 4 people found the following comment useful :- the ignored gem of a master, 10 September 2009 Author: bradlewis98 from United States
So Godard is not for everyone. I need to preface things here with that. Godard is such a polarizing figure some folks actually get angry at not just the director, but also with the people who enjoy his work. I've actually been accused a few times of simply pretending to dig the guy by those who didn't have the patience. But, for my money, when Godard was in his power (ie the Sixties) no one could touch him.Made in USA, so Godard claims, is a remake of the Big Sleep. But, and it should be noted up top, I don't think we can believe him. Part of the fun is dealing with how he will lie to you, treat you with contempt, and/or in general mess with your head. There are constant interruptions in the film, Godard forces you to face the fact you are watching a film and to size it up constantly. Godard doesn't exist to watch on auto pilot; he wants you to analyze the act of viewing. It can be infuriating, especially when he removes action sequences or very awkwardly names characters/places "Otto Preminger" or "Richard Widmark." The political statements get a little heavy handed as well, though treated with humor.As much fun as I find the film, and this entire period of Godard, watching a film like this or Pierrot Le Fou or 2 or 3 Things About Her or Weekend is work. You are expected to be actively involved. If you want to be told a story or feel like you are looking into another world, maybe Made in USA is not for you. And that's cool, these films are obnoxious and pretentious. But it can be extremely rewarding if you are willing to admit you may not "get" chunks of the film and maybe enjoyment will only kick in after thinking about the movie for a couple days. That sounds like faint praise, but Made in USA is an audacious, bold, exciting film that makes you confront what you always took for granted in classic Hollywood.
4 out of 7 people found the following comment useful :- "La mise-en-scene!", 26 April 2009 Author: Polaris_DiB from United States
*** This comment may contain spoilers ***
An opening title card thanks a friend of Godard's for teaching him to love sound and image. From there comes Godard's building of a narrative through just that, sound and image, except now the sound is structured much more like how the image is in film, by cuts instead of layers, as opposed to the usual synced dialog with music and sound effects underneath.The genre would be film noir except there isn't a bit of black in it. It's shot entirely in bright, luminescent, primary colors. The narrative is taken from The Big Sleep, but frankly doesn't even matter to how the movie operates, as in one scene Godard deconstructs the whole thing by pointing out that sentences don't have any meaning. In fact, the bar sequence of this film is it's finest part.This is apparently Anna Karina's last role with Godard, and his eye for her hasn't changed a bit this late in the game. She pretty much is the frame, rather than fills it. Everyone and everything else in this movie is only there to be framed by her.Savvy self-reflexive dialog ensues. "La mise-en-scene! La mise-en-scene! La mise-en-scene!" (mistranslated laughably in the subtitles of the print I saw as "The charade! The charade! The charade!" Oops.) According to Godard's dialog, this is a Disney film--with blood. I say it's a comic book, and a rather good one at that.I suppose one could say that this movie isn't "logical" (it certainly doesn't fit the more confined logic of Alphaville and A bout de soufflé), but I'd honestly be surprised if anyone watches this movie for the plot. It's surreal and stagy--that's what this movie is, not how it's made. And yes, it bears Godard's "signature" throughout.--PolarisDiB
Godard's transitional film, 24 November 2009 Author: (edoslan@gmail.com) from United States
In response to user Planktonrules, if you dismiss 'Made in U.S.A.' as too unconventional then Godard films really aren't for you. I did not find 'Made in U.S.A.' to be very unconventional in terms of its narrative structure any more than any film he made before it.With that said, 'Made in U.S.A.', is essentially Godard's cross pollination of his three main interests: his wife/muse, his political views and his love of films. This was made right before he really went off the deep end into Maoist political tracts and essentially still holds to a solid narrative while utilizing his typical Godardian techniques.Those include deconstructed narratives which remind you you're watching a movie, on screen text, film references galore (particularly to Otto Preminger), copious amounts of closeups of his gorgeous wife Anna Karina in her last film with the director and political rhetoric.And, if you're wondering, the genre he uses this time is film noir. Another thing people fail to note is that it's quite a pro-feminist move to cast Anna Karina as the lead reporter/detective, going quite the opposite than most in the genre.In conclusion, even without a solid knowledge of Godard's personal life reveals an entertaining film, that's surprisingly quick moving for Godard and further examination into his personal life reveals a lot of what this film says.So to all you naysayers who 'don't get it' and to those who love his films based on the fact that you're supposed to, hope that helps!
8 out of 17 people found the following comment useful :- A great Godard film with magnificent Anna Karina and young Marianne Faithful, 7 August 2006 Author: jeremy-giroux from France
This film is really great and is typical of Godard films. I've seen that someone said on this board that the film wasn't good because another director had to direct it and Godard hadn't the rights but I really think that all this is a matter of justice and doesn't concern Cinema at all (and Godard has to be written with only two "d" and not three...). Anyway, this movie is great. It's full of non-sense, it's very poetic and we follow the beautiful Anna Karina trying to find and kill the people who killed her husband. It's a new experience of Cinema in the way to make movies, to write dialogs... it's a kind of reinvention. And you can see many famous people at the time of their youth like English singer Marianne Faithful, french actor Jean-Pierre Léaud and french writer Philipe Labro. It's a non-conventional film by someone who really experiment Cinema as an Art : Jean-Luc Godard.
13 out of 27 people found the following comment useful :- Strange stuff!, 16 December 2002 Author: LeRoyMarko from Toronto, Canada
A cinematographic experiment by Jean-Luc Godard! Not too accessible. Interesting opening credits with just the initials of the cast. The colors are bright, contrasting with the usual black and white movies that Godard made before this one. At some point, the movie reminded me of the hit series "Twin Peaks" by David Lynch. But this is way more incoherent. In fact, it's hard to figure if there's anything to be made of this film. Still, Godard get to explore the fascination of the French for everything that comes from the U.S.A. Another interesting fact: some of the talks exchanged by the characters (ex. in the bar scene). A linguist would probably have some fun analyzing this. Some scenes are just painful to watch if you're tired (ex. the political manifesto on tape)! Anna Karina is great to watch, as usual.Out of 100, I give it 71. That's good for ** out of ****.Seen at home, in Toronto, on November 26th, 2002.
2 out of 6 people found the following comment useful :- Politics of Morality, 21 February 2009 Author: gts-14 from United States
On the surface this one was playful and cute like Karina's character but those qualities masked a frighteningly piercing introspection in both the lady and the film. Generously sprinkled with amazing philosophical/existential lines and dialog ("There's a door in front of me, and behind you") it was extremely exhausting but also equally rewarding symbolically: left and right as struggling but complimentary sides of a political yin/yang and perhaps representative of an individual heart's desire to evolve up to a higher social/ethical level of existence. The rolling stones' "as tears go by" hints at the sad but necessary inevitability of this evolution in a sentient heart, and USA "laissez-faire" ethics on one end of the spectrum and nazi fascism on the other both made the metaphorical moral discipline of communism seem pretty attractive to our heroine. Some very cool retro A/V equipment too.
3 out of 10 people found the following comment useful :- Being unconventional and creative is not necessarily a good thing...unless you like a film that appeals only to film snobs., 31 July 2009 Author: planktonrules from Bradenton, Florida
Well, here I go again. I've seen quite a few Jean-Luc Godard movies and disliked quite a few of them. But then, like a dummy, I come back for more! That's because again and again, I hear how brilliant and creative his films are and I want to see this. But, once again, I see pretentiousness disguised in the form of creativity and unconventionality. And, once again, I see rave reviews that give him the absolutely highest possible scores. Yet I wonder, who is the audience? I know I am a reasonably bright and intellectual person (who has seen and reviewed a bazillion films and has six years of graduate school under my belt) and yet I hated the film--so who is the audience other than a small group of Godard acolytes? The point to this film, I assume, is that what we say isn't important. People talk and talk--for no apparent reason. People have names like 'Ruby Gentry' and 'Richard Widmark' and no one acts the least bit like any person in the real world--more like folks who live in a Bizarro World. All this in a city called Atlantic City--a fictitious French town in the near future--much like Godard's Alphaville. There's a lot more to the film than this, but I had a hard time forcing myself to watch it and frankly don't particularly care what occurred.I think I am done. I have seen ALPHAVILLE, FIRST NAME: CARMEN, PIERRE LE FOU and quite a few other seemingly pointless Godard films. I am done trying to understand or see value in them. It seems that for every good Godard film I enjoy, I see three others that bore me to tears. I guess I'm just a neanderthal.
8 out of 22 people found the following comment useful :- godards communist manifesto, 10 April 2004 Author: kate_bush from paris, france
the critics call it incoherent and lynch-like and i thought from one point i started to loose it cause of my poor french, nevertheless godard's communist manifesto will really get u "high"!the cinematography is amazing with orange colour as base,amazing gros plan and surealistic dialogues that take you to another level!I think Godard tries to take a little bit of taty's magic and really manage to make a film of both totall irrationalism and clear political manifestation combined with the glamourous 70s feeling!Of course u can blame him for talking too much nonsense from time to time and some noises heard are really impossible to connect with anything on the film.But this is la Nouvelle vague,its take it or leave it and as far as im concerned its super stylistique and stucks in ur mind for quite some time!
Add another comment
