In 2011, Jean-Luc Godard declared that film is over. This begs the question of what exactly we should call his 2014 “film” "Goodbye to Language." For those unfamiliar with the French filmmaker, he is generally considered one of cinema’s foremost authorities on filmmaking, criticism and structure (although his Marxist leanings may blanche at the thought of being an “authority” in any sense). With his early films like "Breathless" and "Pierrot Le Fou," Godard forged the path of post-modern cinema with self-reflective styling, a mix of high and low culture, and increasingly politicized messages. Now he seems concerned with tearing down all of the communicative elements of the medium.
"Goodbye to Language" plays like a joke. Godard sifts through all the techniques typically associated with personal cinematic expression and degrades them down to the level of playful pastiche. The picture is full of obtuse angles, esoteric quotations and spliced musical queues that never finish, let alone resolve. As far as a story, you’d be a smarter person than I if you could find anything resembling a successive series of events. It brought to mind the fractured nature of mindlessly clicking through vacuous YouTube videos at three in the morning.
In the 1960s, Godard pioneered the concept of the Auteur; the idea that the director is the primary author of a film, and all the dozens of people who work on a film (i.e. actors, producers, directors of photography) are merely vessels through which the director can manipulate to reach his or her ideal vision. Godard didn’t create this concept alone, but he is traditionally considered its poster boy and auteur theory rejuvenated the American film industry and world cinema in general. Now 85, Godard has rendered coherent personal expression obsolete. Vague visual motifs and recycled philosophic meanderings bring to the forefront of cinematic thought not only the question of originality, but also the question of conveying meaning.
Now, this isn’t meant to be a formal review of "Goodbye to Language," but rather a think piece about where cinema is headed. Will it be one of Snapchat, with seven-second attention spans and blatant appropriation and bastardization of culture, as Godard seems to predict? The laudatory critical reaction to the movie seems to vindicate this idea, but then again Godard’s intentions are never clear. Is his breakdown of traditional narrative structure simply a provocation of grand proportions, a nihilistic and pretentious pronouncement that he alone has contributed all there is to contribute to the medium? Godard’s frustrating puzzle of a movie may bear fruit to some, but its onslaught of ideas and formal elements almost seems intended to beat its viewer into submission. Now that Godard has broken down cinema, is it time to rebuild?
Ultimately, "Goodbye to Language" left me more indignant than passively acceptant of its worldview. Its cleverness and intellectuality didn’t inspire a sense of youthful discovery and beauty, as it seemed to do in many critics. Yet, in railing against what I perceived as baroque excess and cold deconstruction, it inspired a lot of thought and this jumbled response (you can decide whether that’s a sin or a virtue). It defies traditional metrics of appreciation, and it should be commended for that. It is more a visual essay on film form than a “real” movie.
Should we embrace Godard’s willfully obscure presentation of life through cinema? Is simplicity of vision something that’s impossible to reach anymore? I think one of the greatest modern innovations in cinema in the ability of every person to direct life with his or her smartphone. Will this proliferation and awareness of individual style serve to greatly expand the form of film, or will the universality of it make personal expression nonexistent? Hopefully, like Godard’s movie, you were able to sift through this essay and come across something intellectually provocative enough to warrant reading it.
