Well, I’ve been asked to give my opinion of this film, so…
Godard was doing this kind of in-yer-face stuff decades ago, and he hasn’t changed. Not that he has any need to – the French love him. But I still don’t get what having naked actors reading from books is all about. There’s the occasional off-beat touch, like when someone just walks into frame and drags a ‘character’ off. Or when a passer-by in the background sees what is happening, then walks forward and becomes part of the action (what there is of it). A novel way to introduce someone. But there’s little of this, and he’s done it all before. Except that…
He’s now got a dog to keep him company. So we follow the dog around and watch it swim and poo (I closed my eyes dear reader) while he tells us that dogs are the only animals that love you more than themselves. Really Mr. Godard? That’s so deep. But really, honestly, it’s not. It’s dog-lovers’ twoddle, and can be seriously challenged on a number of levels. Which is true of every other pearl of wisdom he offers us. It’s all rather like having an endless stream of those Facebook images with captions attached thrown at you. I spent at least twenty minutes thinking, “Yes, but…” until I gave up.
Then there’s the 3D. It’s excruciating. If a student turned this in they would fail the course. I had to keep closing my eyes, and after several times of doing so I found I was napping. Meanwhile four people snuck out…
And watching this further I realised there’s something amiss.
We’re meant to believe this is all done lo-tech: GoPros, DSLRs etc. with huge IAs, and just thrown together. They (Godard and cameraman Fabrice Aragno) are showing us their bold 3D experiments, in the raw. But really, I can see that someone’s been fixing this in post. The parallaxes may have been horrendous, but the vertical, rotational, lens and other errors are (by comparison) minimal. They’re still there, but much less so than should have been the case with the rather slapdash approach to 3D that is in evidence during shooting. This really should be totally unwatchable, but someone’s been messing with it.
So I went to IMdB to see who got credited with the editing, and no one is. Are we meant to believe Godard edited this himself? No way. 3D editing involves a huge learning curve. The fixes needed here require complex equipment and the skill to use it. Language gives the impression of being a 3D film made with minimal resources, and snubbing the high tech approach we usually see, but in fact that’s not the case at all.
EDIT: Or maybe I’m wrong! This blog is generating some disagreement from folks who think the 3D is just plain terrible and see no reason to believe that any substantial fixing has taken place at all!
To my amusement I see the IMdB keywords are: “dog | excrement | flatulence | experimental film | 3d” Pretty accurate I think.