>>68068260
>absurdist
no

but he's the best director.

no but he's the best at it

>>68068260
That has to be one of my all time favorite posters.

wtc?

No me and your mum directed an absurdist masterpiece last night

>>68068469
Ed Gein pls go

>>68068260
Godard was an one trick pony. None of his movies are authentic per se, I can recognize qualities on Pierrot Le Fou. Other than that he was just another self-aggrandizing moviemaker in the extensive catalog of french kino that aimed and failed to produce high art through masturbation of spirit. He made movies to be known as maker of movies, and not because he reached a certain state of emotional carthasis that made him compelled to paint his soul and its slices of emotions and thoughts in movie frames. He was too corrupt for that. He didn't make his movie with love, or even hate, or sadness. He made them with memetic, robotic discipline, and they feel as such. There's no enlightenment to be achieved from watching a sterile film with pretty pictures, like Stalker. His movies serve no purpose, they may seem deep in the eyes of uncultured cinephile, but for the patrician they are not impressive. They are inert totems in the center of the upvote culture.

>>68068965
>>>/reddit/

>>68069117
Hey, reddit!

>>68069298
says the teenager too dumb to understand godard

>>68068965
>There's no enlightenment to be achieved from watching a sterile film with pretty pictures, like Stalker.
Why is this sentence there?

>>68068965
heh, nice opinion friend :)

godard is still a god, your pseudo-enlightened opinion is still irrelevant. if you can't understand godard's work in terms of cinematic language, your opinion on him is already irrelevant to anyone even interested in movies.

>failed to produce high art
nope, his work is still up there, along with Stalker. neither are sterile, you are just insensitive to higher discourse than that of "love, hate and sadness". sorry, youre uncultured.

Breathless was shit, is PLF better?

>>68069901
breathless is one of his worst movies

>>68069647
I’ve never been able to appreciate any of his films, nor even understand them. I find his films affected, intellectual, self-obsessed and, as cinema, without interest and frankly dull... I’ve always thought that he made films for critics. Someone like Jean-Luc Godard is for me intellectual counterfeit money when compared to a good kung-fu film.

>>68070014
he made movies for high art audience and thinkers. it wasn't made for average movie audiences. his discourses are about linguistics while using linguistics in cinema to probably its fullest. yes movies aren't just intellectual masturbation, but his intellectual work is amazing and studying these movies is such a wonderful time. not for everybody though. which is a weakness but if you cant understand it then you cant really criticize them either, because theyre extremely powerful and thought through. he had plenty arguments about this with Truffaut, which conquered the audience.

there are other directors in the same field, notably and one of my favorite directors is Glauber Rocha. but again, selective audience is still a big issue in high art, although it is showing to be less and less with time.

>>68070259
the other anon is just quoting werner herzog. he doesn't have a thought of his own. he's a capeshitter.

Fuck Godard.