Monti is right. Not only any French film course, but any course on film
history could use a couple of weeks on Godard. But why not 4 films, 2
each week in a double screening so that you could get *A bout de Souffle*
*Vivre Sa Vie* *La Chinoise* or *Made in The USA* and one of the 80s
masterpeices as well: say *Sauve Qui Peut* or *Hail Mary*(comes with the
seminal short by A.M. Meiville (sp?) *The Book of Mary* and also a handy
text book in the form of the anthology af essays about *Hail Mary* that
just came out.) In the eighties Godard begins work on the image as such.
The cinemographic problems he tackels in thsi period are still at the for
front of formal problems of the cinema (for example "what does it mean to
decompose an image and how do youi shoot an image from behind?)
As for the original post on this thread which said that the poster found
that students didn't like Godard, I always thought that part of the job of
the film scholar in the university was to teach students how to see films
that they initially resist. Why show them what they want to see? What does
that theach them? Well it can teach them stuff about the cultuire from
which those films emerge and thats all to the good; but surely our job
invovles teaching the students how to see certain thinga that are not yet
visible to them ( and how to hear what is not yet audiable to them) At the
level of the relation between the students and the film text we ought to
be broadening a few horizons by presenting difficult material. This might
not be a popuylar veiw, but I think that what is at stake here is at the
at the heart of what we do.