Cinéma Cinémas - Godard - 1983

[@brunom2670]

Brillantissime !

[@emmanuelgilliot6128]

Godard dit beaucoup de vérités

[@2156-f9r]

I think it's reasonable to say I'd kill for this to be translated into English

[@angelmarin6401]

You do not know what you say

[@Sebek1000]

would you pay $100

[@DustofClouds]

Still interrested ?

[@fabiengerard8142]

Learning French would be definitely more reasonable.

[@somniansvulpes]

I like to do translations, so I'll translate it for free. But don't ask me for any explanation of what he says, I couldn't give it, it's very disjointed, obscure and hard to follow even for a frenchspeaker, this is basicaly Godard speaking without any frame for ten minutes. ---------------------------------------- Title: "Godard speaks of TV, cinema and Henri Verneuil" - Interviewer: To be interviewed by television... - Godard: It's to catch up some news, to reach some, to give some and to catch up some. It's rare to see a union representative speaking to his base, he always says "the base told us that...". He is here but the base we can't see them, they are not even behind. - Interviewer: To be interviewed for television... - Godard: TV people they always say "don't give us orders, let us do it the way we want", but when we let them they don't do anything. So, we simply need to will, to will and to have some interests, and to work this will and this interest. An interview can be repeated. Or it is advertisement, but in this case we should do it more frankly. Advertisers are the only one who know a bit how to make some [something breaks offscreen] images and sounds... the sound is still going on here [about the thing that broke]. - Interviewer: To interview someone is to meet him... - Godard: I don't think so, otherwise we would see each other more often. Me, I go every day to the television but you don't go every day to see me. I don't think so, really... I don't want to be mean. But you don't have the means. It would be long to describe... - Interviewer: Cinema is better than life... - Godard: You take one film, this one "Passion", they are 200 shots, it means 200 splices... But a TV director, how many splices does he have in one program ? He has all the splices of the films. So since he has 10 programs, it gives him 10 times 200, already 2000 for one day. And you multiply it to 365, it makes 730 000 a year. And each day he thinks to the 730 000 splices he has to do. And we can multiply again 730 000 by 365... Your director makes 12 millions splices... So how do you want him not to be smashed ? It's not possible, it's not human. Nobody can do it. Even Hitler couldn't do this much, but he only had the radio at the time. But this is the reality of the work. And there is a work bearable for a human. People who made movies, De Funes, me, Verneuil, Couzinet in the past, we did a human work, a work bearable. And a work that represented something of love. And this is what we brought. In the love of cinema there is somehting of the love of life. - Interviewer: How can we speak of cinema in television ? - Godard: A movie is already an advertisement for some emotion, so we shouldn't have to make any advertisement of this advertisement. We should only give the title, and it should give enough informations... The thing is that you can only do it with words, and those words are not real words. There is no research of the words to say during the interview. It takes time. A good interview can't be done in cinema. Simply because the reels cut every ten minutes and impose a certain rythm. So this is why it arrived very late in movies, and on the influence of television. However, today it can be done, but it's not made correctly because people have no interest in it. There are some fundamental things about it... We can't show to a laborer one hour of his work, it bores him. Obviously, his work is boring, and he accepts it like this. He doesn't know how to see it in an other way, so he doesn't want to see it again... During the shooting of this movie [Passion], I asked myself about it, since I wanted to see inside, but it was forbidden, they told me "No Jeannot, forbidden, you can't look here", only closed doors. So I asked myself if, as a director, I had to do a movie for a caliph, I would be his prisoner, and they offer to save my life as a flimmaker only if I choose weather I want to have the eyes gouged out or the hands cut. I would have a tendancy to chose the eyes gouged out. Of course, the eyes gouged out it looks more painful than the hands cut, since the hands it can cicatrize. But from the point of view of the work, it seems strange, but hands would miss me more than my eyes. We forget we have two eyes and that those two eyes do a synthesis... The problem with TV is that it is a cylcops. The camera has only got one eye. And the other eye we can only see it the following day, or three days later. But the video has two eyes. There is what we see, what enters the lens, and we have the feeling that the light... There are two movements. We send light from behind, and this is what we want to see. But with TV we only have it because we have the TV set in front of us, and we are closer here to the average citizen, the receptor is not a magical place... And I like magic, but I prefer good magicians. The people who make cinema today, considering their extraordinary salaries, are bad magicians. And if the movies are bad it's because their living conditions are bad. We could'nt say anymore that Verneuil is worst than Straub, or things like that... To be able to express a judgement, it should be needed that when Verneuil does a movie, or when he does a script, the script should appear on television. It should be seen one way or another. Because I think that the movies they do are atrophied. I'm atrophied. Rivette is atrophied. And I don't even speak of Verneuil, because he already was atrophied at the beginning, but he is even more now. And it's the law. We live in a world like this. When it's raining, you get wet... It's because of this monster... But the complicity of the spectator and of the governement, and of the big companies who want to make images at an industrial level is tremendous. So, to speak of cinema, we should support cinema because it is the only one to make fictions, in one way or another, otherwise there is none. And people need it, so it's needed. The only things wich have sucess in TV, in every country of the wolrd, are movies. Then comes the matches, then the variety shows. The rest comes far behind. So it's simply that the living and producing conditions of a movie are bad. And it's the same, weather it's for a good one or a bad one. Even the worst, like a one from Delannoy in the past, or one of Verneuil today, even the worst have something between work and love, a certain way of mixing both, wich makes that this is effectively a dream job. Cinema still makes people dream, they don't know what it is but they think they know, and it makes them dream. We don't know how it's done, we keep to pretend we don't know - even though everyone knows it very well... And it's this need of fiction that keeps it going. Otherwise people wouldn't go anymore to the factories, they wouldn't go to the Mediterranean Club. If they still go to the Mediterranean Club it's because there is a movie of De Funes, of Rivette, or me. Otherwise they wouldn't go, it is too awful... We never speak of anything else, there is no other domain, we don't speak of the polar bears, or ice hockey, or astrophysic, we should better speak of cinema in TV. If we think of the proportion, the number of times that the word is pronounced, that someone says it, it's unbelievable... 4000 people are doing cinema in France, and you look at the number of hours of broadcast that it represents in TV, in opposition to the schools days or ice hockey... So, there must be some profund and instinctive reasons of survival of this medium wich create this situation... And we can deal with this situation... But I prefer... Well, everything is fine.

[@ailecballester]

❤quel charabia

[@amonavis73]

Godard... L'escroquerie cinématographique du 20e siècle.

[@jimmylaporte2310]

Godard... Son extraordinaire sensibilité ne supportait pas l'escroquerie que rien ni personne n'a su approché de trop près le principe cinématographique de la République des images du 20e siècle." Puisque le peuple mange tous les jours, il doit lui être permis de travailler tous les jours. "et de rêver , méconnu par le sens social et maltraité par le conseil " et tout particulièrement un caractère masculin très marqué excitait en lui une sorte de malaise physique "qu'il n'a pas supporté au 21e siècle , l'algèbre du libéralisme extrême proprement dite quand on connait son mal moral , et les spéculations d'un ordre créancier " il faut savoir soigner son âme comme on soigne son bras ou sa jambe," amputés

[@amonavis73]

@@jimmylaporte2310 waaa!!! Vous avez un style extraordinaire!! je n'ai absolument rien compris à ce que vous racontez! Notez bien que je ne dis pas ça pour être agressif ou désagréable! C'est juste que j'ai rien compris. Cordialement.

[@jacobmorgenstein6788]

Ce type est chiant comme la pluie

[@fabiengerard8142]

Manifestement ça vous dépasse un peu...

[@lookingglasscooper1687]

Faquin

[@jimmylaporte2310]

"C'est seulement à travers l'amour et l'amitié que l'on peut créer l'illusion momentanée que nous ne sommes pas seuls."