Some of the first words to greet us in this, within the first couple minutes, are "Il faut confronter les idées vagues avec des images claires." This translates in English to "We should replace vague ideas with clear images," or alternatively, "It is necessary to confront vague ideas with clear images." This strikes me as pretty funny since I think that sentence is an excellent summary of my criticism of Jean-Luc Godard as a filmmaker. I keep trying. I know he's held in fairly high esteem here and there; I've watched a few of his movies and enjoyed them. I've watched others and the most kind I can be is to express indifference. In the case of 'La chinoise,' I have no particular reason to be kind. "Vague ideas," indeed; this comes off like a haphazard smattering of thoughts so diffuse in their dispensation, and so loose in their assemblage, that I'm quite unsure how anyone is able to extract any meaningful substance from it. It's almost laughable at times, for the iteration by the actors of various phrases or spouts of ideology or philosophy come off like kindergarteners repeating lines for a classroom rendition of Shakespeare: they don't seem to have any idea what they're actually saying, and not only is the effort terribly contrived, but whatever meaning the words may have had in the first place is lost in the process. Just as much to the point, a lot of the script just comes across as pure "word salad," a panoply of buzzwords that aren't put together in a useful way, and some of it is plainly nonsensical.
I think there are many points of mutual interest on which Godard and I would have agreed; we might have shared a worldview in common at least in part. It's too bad that the more his pictures moved away from narrative storytelling with underlying themes, and more toward abjectly artistic construction or bare-faced sociopolitical exegesis and commentary, the less interesting he became. Not only less interesting, but also less intelligible - there are worthy thoughts spread throughout these ninety-five minutes, not to mention biting lines, some great shots or ideas for scenes, fine acting, splendid cinematography, and so on. Regrettably, it all feels like gobbledygook in execution, the cinematic equivalent of blowing dandelion seeds into a strong wind. Maybe some of those seeds will land somewhere and take root, but there's no reason to care even if they do. Then factor in the precise construction of this feature: the editing is sharp in and of itself, but as they are employed, the rapid cuts to This and That don't represent intelligence or artistry but obnoxiousness and pretentiousness. This is particularly true where Godard inserts inanely exact imagery in keeping with whatever the dialogue might be referring to at the time. Even the way dialogue is shaped is frankly irritating, such as when cuts between actors have them each uttering a single word in turn to complete a sentence, or another instance in which a speaker repeats single words from the sentences he just spoke, as if for accentuation, but to no meaningful effect. The intertitles are downright grating, save for the one that gratifyingly informs "last scene of the movie."
Again, those early words in 'La chinoise' seem all too on the nose. This film could have meant something. There are elements of it that get at least part way to striking a chord. But there are no clear images here, just vague ideas. One might posit that Godard was being cheeky and playful about it all and that disparity was wholly intentional, but the history of his career and relationships with other people suggest he was far too self-serious to have taken such an approach. And that just makes this movie all the more frustrating because it really emphasizes how spotty it was even in terms of its tone. By the time late in the last third that the picture actually does partly zero in on a more concrete active narrative, it's hard to care, and even less so because it then returns to the same empty, overblown ideations thereafter. I'm glad for those who get more out of this, and find it an impactful and worthwhile experience. They're welcome to it. I think 'La chinoise' is all too apt a demonstration of the filmmaker again prioritizing style over substance, with the result that the earnest, deserving content this might have claimed is subsumed. It rather seems to me that one has to be on the same very specific wavelength as Godard to truly appreciate his works, and that simply isn't me. Watch this if you like, I won't stop you, but to be blunt I think it's mostly just a waste of time that could be spent far more fruitfully, whether that means watching a different movie or maybe, you know, reading books from the same thinkers that get brought up in fits and starts here. Whatever. I'm done.
I think there are many points of mutual interest on which Godard and I would have agreed; we might have shared a worldview in common at least in part. It's too bad that the more his pictures moved away from narrative storytelling with underlying themes, and more toward abjectly artistic construction or bare-faced sociopolitical exegesis and commentary, the less interesting he became. Not only less interesting, but also less intelligible - there are worthy thoughts spread throughout these ninety-five minutes, not to mention biting lines, some great shots or ideas for scenes, fine acting, splendid cinematography, and so on. Regrettably, it all feels like gobbledygook in execution, the cinematic equivalent of blowing dandelion seeds into a strong wind. Maybe some of those seeds will land somewhere and take root, but there's no reason to care even if they do. Then factor in the precise construction of this feature: the editing is sharp in and of itself, but as they are employed, the rapid cuts to This and That don't represent intelligence or artistry but obnoxiousness and pretentiousness. This is particularly true where Godard inserts inanely exact imagery in keeping with whatever the dialogue might be referring to at the time. Even the way dialogue is shaped is frankly irritating, such as when cuts between actors have them each uttering a single word in turn to complete a sentence, or another instance in which a speaker repeats single words from the sentences he just spoke, as if for accentuation, but to no meaningful effect. The intertitles are downright grating, save for the one that gratifyingly informs "last scene of the movie."
Again, those early words in 'La chinoise' seem all too on the nose. This film could have meant something. There are elements of it that get at least part way to striking a chord. But there are no clear images here, just vague ideas. One might posit that Godard was being cheeky and playful about it all and that disparity was wholly intentional, but the history of his career and relationships with other people suggest he was far too self-serious to have taken such an approach. And that just makes this movie all the more frustrating because it really emphasizes how spotty it was even in terms of its tone. By the time late in the last third that the picture actually does partly zero in on a more concrete active narrative, it's hard to care, and even less so because it then returns to the same empty, overblown ideations thereafter. I'm glad for those who get more out of this, and find it an impactful and worthwhile experience. They're welcome to it. I think 'La chinoise' is all too apt a demonstration of the filmmaker again prioritizing style over substance, with the result that the earnest, deserving content this might have claimed is subsumed. It rather seems to me that one has to be on the same very specific wavelength as Godard to truly appreciate his works, and that simply isn't me. Watch this if you like, I won't stop you, but to be blunt I think it's mostly just a waste of time that could be spent far more fruitfully, whether that means watching a different movie or maybe, you know, reading books from the same thinkers that get brought up in fits and starts here. Whatever. I'm done.