[rohrpost] <raum3> So. 25.8. Godard: Eloge de l'amour [DivX]

[sebastian@rolux.org]

   kino raum 3 -- ziegelstrasse 20 -- 10119 berlin -- http://bootlab.org/raum3/
________________________________________________________________________________



Michèle Halberstadt:    Sonntag, 25. August, 21:00 Uhr, Raum 3, Ziegelstrasse 20
How is a film born?
What comes first? An    Copy Cultures (2): Burn, Hollywood, Burn!
image, a sound?
                         Jean-Luc Godard: Eloge de l'amour [DivX]
Jean-Luc Godard:
First comes a           Hollywood befindet sich im Krieg. Das erste Ziel dieses
commission that         Krieges ist die schnellstmögliche Wiederaneignung der
corresponds to an       Distributionswege, d.h. das Verbot all jener Techniken
idea or a state of      und die Zerstörung all jener Netzwerke, die es seit Ende
mind I'm in. It's a     der neunziger Jahre Millionen von Menschen ermöglichen,
commission that I       digitale Filme autonom zu verbreiten.
initiate. I try to
give myself and the     Angesichts der Tatsache, dass via DeCSS<1>
other person the        entschlüsselte und als DivX<2> auf die Datenmenge einer
desire to make a        CD komprimierte DVDs über Filesharing-Netzwerke wie
film. Sometimes, I      Gnutella<3> binnen weniger Stunden veröffentlicht und
suggest a subject.      übertragen werden können, hat die Motion Picture
Sometimes, it starts    Association of America nicht nur die blosse Diskussion
with an idea I can      von Copyright-Umgehungen kriminalisieren<4> und das
describe in a couple    Hacken verdächtiger Rechner legalisieren<5> lassen,
of lines and it goes    sondern versucht mittlerweile sogar, durch die
down well.              Implementierung von "Digital Rights Management"<6>-
Naturally, there's      Systemen ein Verbot sämtlicher Hard- und Software
some guile involved,    durchzusetzen, die den Computer als Universalmaschine
as there is in          von einem blossen Abspielgerät für Multimedia-Content
everything to do        unterscheidet<7>.
with production. And
finally, it becomes     Das letzte Ziel dieses Krieges ist die vollständige
something of a          Kontrolle der Produktionsmittel, d.h. nicht nur der
nuisance, because       Widerruf des Versprechens der Computerindustrie, wir
then you're stuck.      alle könnten in naher Zukunft an unseren "Digital Hubs"
What you come up        eigene "Desktop Movies" herstellen und weltweit
with later has to       verbreiten, sondern die präventive Unbenutzbarmachung
fit into the            aller technischen Mittel, die eine revolutionäre
original proposition    Umwälzung der digitalen Eigentumsverhältnisse in
and the producer        Aussicht stellen. "Burn, Hollywood, Burn!"<8> ist längst
starts complaining      nicht mehr der Schlachtruf von Public Enemy, sondern
if you change it.       eher der Slogan von Apple.
And he can't
understand how you      Im ersten Teil des Abends wollen wir einige der unten
could have come up      aufgeführten Abkürzungen erklären, eine Einführung in
with such an            die technischen, rechtlichen und politischen Bedingungen
appealing idea that     des Filmekopierens geben und der Kriegslogik des "War
turns out impossible    against Piracy" bis an ihre möglichen Grenzen folgen.
to realize.
                         Im Anschluss zeigen wir eine DivX-Kopie von Jean-Luc
Michèle Halberstadt:    Godards "Eloge de l'amour" aus dem Jahr 2001, der
In the case of this     hierzulande noch immer keinen legalen Kino-Verleih
film, what came         gefunden hat, so dass wir an dieser Stelle - von einer
first?                  Vorführung auf der Berlinale abgesehen - eine
                         Deutschlandpremiere ankündigen können. "Eloge de
Jean-Luc Godard:        l'amour" erzählt vier Momente dreier Liebesgeschichten
Here, it was the        und zugleich eine Geschichte des Widerstands gegen die
title. I had a vague    Filmindustrie der "Vereinigten Staaten von Nord-
idea that had a         Amerika".
title. I had in mind
something usually       Der dritte Teil des Abends besteht, wie gewohnt, aus
known as a so-called    Getränken an der Bar<9>, dazu diesmal ein besonders
love story; my idea     schönes MP3-Set von DJ PowerBook.
was to relate it
counter-                <1> http://slashdot.org/search.pl?query=decss
chronologically.        <2> http://slashdot.org/search.pl?query=divx
Something of that       <3> http://slashdot.org/search.pl?query=gnutella
idea remains. I         <4> http://slashdot.org/search.pl?query=dmca
thought of starting     <5> http://slashdot.org/search.pl?query=mpaa
with the end, then      <6> http://slashdot.org/search.pl?query=drm
say, four days          <7> http://slashdot.org/search.pl?query=palladium
earlier, then six       <8> http://rolux.net/banners/apple.hollywood.gif
months earlier, a       <9> (Da ich für einige Zeit nach New York ziehe, wäre
year earlier, and so         das auch die ca. vorletzte Gelegenheit, gemeinsam
on, and conclude             zu viel zu trinken... /Sebastian.)
with the beginning.
I injected some
thriller elements
later but it turned
out disastrous, a
nightmare. Then came
the idea of dealing
with couples. But by
that point all the
contracts had
already been signed
for some time.

Naturally, there's
always a bit of ruse
involved, but not
only. It's like the
painter who sets off
for the woods or the
seaside. He'll
eventually paint a
landscape or a
seascape. But the
thing is, he sets
off. And the idea is
strong enough to
keep him going.

So I thought of
these three couples,
but almost
immediately I
stumbled over the
adults. I had
started with a
preposterous story
and in the end I
thought that I
couldn't, one
couldn't, describe
an adult. Adults can
only be dealt with
in story form. In
the street you don't
say, there goes an
adult. You say,
there goes Paul and
there goes Fabienne
or there goes a mad
killer. You tell a
story. With the
others, young people
and old people,
there's no need to.

The same goes for
painting. When you
have a painting of
an adult, he's a
card player. Only
the novel can pull
it off. The Red and
the Black, The
Brothers Karamazov
aren't just little
storylets, like
Julia Roberts movies
are, they're real
stories.

Michèle Halberstadt:
Other filmmakers
would say just the
opposite: "I have
nothing to say about
young or old people,
but with an adult I
have a story to
tell."

Jean-Luc Godard:
Yes, that's true,
but out of principle
I've always chosen
to do what others
aren't doing. "No
one does that, so it
remains to be done,
let's try it." If
it's already being
done, there's no
point in me doing it
as well.

Michèle Halberstadt:
There's a certain
turmoil in being
adult...

Jean-Luc Godard:
Yes, you could write
about the film
saying that: it's
the story of someone
who becomes an
adult. Besides, his
servant says it:
"he's the only one
trying to become an
adult."

Michèle Halberstadt:
How do you come to
deal with the
present in black-
and-white and the
past in color?

Jean-Luc Godard: I
didn't want to treat
it chronologically.
In view of my age, I
was leaning more
toward a narrative
film, one that
happens through
Eglantine and
others. I had to
give this feeling.
So I thought it
would be more
appropriate to work
against the
generally accepted
idea of showing the
present in color and
the past in black-
and-white, as in
newsreels. On the
contrary, I wanted
to find a way of
intensifying the
past.

Michèle Halberstadt:
Is that what gives
the impression that
the past sheds light
on the present?

Jean-Luc Godard: No,
I think that color
is closer to us
because it's the
present tense of
film projection,
emotionally
speaking. I've
always loved
Proust's novel. When
he speaks of
Albertine in the
imperfect tense, the
reader experiences
it in the present.
Especially as an
adolescent.

Michèle Halberstadt:
Eloge de l'amour is
very structured,
more than usual.

Jean-Luc Godard:
That's because it
took a lot of time.
It's strange, but
there's always been
a blank in my films,
about an hour into
the screening. I
find that lots of
films slump around
this point and since
the script is a life
buoy, the director
pulls out of it by
filming the script,
but in the process
he loses the cinema.
Here, there was a
blank an hour in.
The first part ends
at exactly an hour
into the film, the
blank is there, but
this time it's
accepted as such and
what goes with it is
accepted as such,
too. That's because
of age, and time,
too, the time you've
spent making the
film. The problem
was that it was a
long, disjointed
shot, in several
sections, and the
mixing was
difficult. It was
something of a
strain.

Michèle Halberstadt:
Why did the film
take so long?

Jean-Luc Godard:
Because I was a bit
lost, but I kept
trying to do it
anyway. In fact, you
have to just do it
and then you have to
cut later. It's
harder in film
because it's a very
social world, with
problems of time,
money, people and
psychology.

So it's much more
difficult than, say,
with a painter or a
novelist, to go:
"We'll shoot this,
but we know we're
shooting to move on
to something else;
still you have to go
through this it's
practice. You shoot
to practice, not to
come up with a good
shot. You practice
because the game is
coming up in two
weeks." It's hard to
do that, besides
you're not aware of
it, but later,
during editing, you
suddenly say: "All
this goes and this
is all that's left
in the end." And
this time I said:
"It's a miracle!"

It's like when I
make a good shot in
tennis. I don't say
to myself, "bravo,"
I say, "Oh, I
could've missed
that!"

So the film was shot
in several sections.
In February, then in
September. Then in
Brittany. At that
point, I didn't know
what I wanted to do.
It was a bit
frantic. I didn't
really know, but I
must have heard
something. My
vacation in Brittany
was with family.
There were too many
personal things. I
couldn't tell the
difference between
what was personal
and what was the
film.

I remember that JLG
on JLG was a film I
shot very quickly
because one day I
read in the
contract: "Delivery
in a month." But the
film was about me,
it answered to me.
Whereas with Eloge
de l'amour I had to
answer to the film,
but I realized that
I was asking the
film to answer to
me, and that wasn't
clear. So Brittany
wasn't easy to get
in the can, as they
say. Then I acted in
Anne-Marie
Miéville's film,
which did me a lot
of good, but we had
to put everything
off for four months,
so the production
turned out
disjointed.

Michèle Halberstadt:
You haven't filmed
Paris in a long
time, not since
Masculin Féminin.

Jean-Luc Godard:
Even before that, it
reminded me of the
first New Wave
productions. It was
illegal to shoot
outdoors, in the
streets and cafés.
But we wanted to
shoot there, not
only because it
wasn't done, but
especially for
emotional reasons.
They were places we
loved, where we
spent our time.

Michèle Halberstadt:
And it's been a long
time since we were
last shown Paris in
this virtually
timeless way.

Jean-Luc Godard: The
Paris of Eloge de
l'amour is modern-
day Paris. There's
something timeless
about it, because
it's past is there.
You haven't seen
Paris in a long time
because Paris is no
longer used as a
film element. Not
many people use the
setting they're
shooting in as an
element of the film.

Nowadays, if you
film a car driving
through a Paris
street, it's, for
example, Thierry
Lhermitte who's
driving, and he's
taking the car to go
see Sandrine
Bonnaire. Things
aren't filmed for
their own sake. The
location manager
doesn't even go out
to inspect the set,
he sends an
assistant.

For Eloge de
l'amour, we said: we
must have
Montparnasse, and
Seguin Island
because I wanted the
girl to live in the
suburbs. I wanted
her to walk home and
for there to be a
route between the
two, so that she and
the boy have time to
talk.

Michèle Halberstadt:
But the choice of
Seguin Island wasn't
innocent?

Jean-Luc Godard:
It's something
finished, the
remains of another
era, which we won't
see once Pinault has
repainted it... The
image allows us to
resuscitate things
we no longer think
about. It's history.
That's what the
cinema is about,
too. The past behind
the present. The
background to the
present. The young
man talks of the
empty fortress. In
1968, they called it
the workers'
fortress... We go
back a lot, even as
we move forward.

Michèle Halberstadt:
The film deals with
several kinds of
resistance. The
Resistance of our
grandparents, the
resistance to
America, and, of
course, your
filmmaking which
resists...

Jean-Luc Godard:
Yes, the artistic
act is an act of
resistance against
something. I
wouldn't call it an
act of freedom, but
an act of
resistance. The
birth of a child is
an act of
resistance. He must
stand on his own two
feet very quickly.
Animals, too, have
to stand on their
own even more
quickly than humans.

The Resistance of
World War II is
something we have
difficulty finding
out about. It comes
back again roughly a
half-century later,
just long enough to
skip the generation
of the parents.
Later, it goes down
in textbooks and
people's memories.
I've always been
absorbed by the mid-
century, by the
Second World War,
which were the years
of my innocent
adolescence, and
which I felt guilty
about later.

Emmanuel Astier once
said that there was
a brief moment early
in the Resistance in
which money wasn't
an end but a means.
I can understand
that. If, when you
make a film, you
manage to create
something, and money
is a means and not
an end, then that's
production, if it's
genuine. Then come
the other sectors,
which in France all
deserve their names.
Language clearly
describes the tree
terms: production,
distribution and
exhibition.

In Hollywood,
there's no more
production, all
that's left is
distribution, which
is under the thumb
of exhibition and
television
broadcasting. In
television, there's
no more production,
except a few pockets
from time to time,
certain sporting
events or
interviews. Besides,
we say wildlife
programs, not
wildlife film
production. We talk
of a TV network like
we do a food
distribution
network. When
producers like
Darryl Zanuck and
Louis B Meyer made
40 films a year,
they weren't making
films on an assembly
line. Today it's
very difficult.
Renault car ads tell
it like it is. In
the past, they used
to say automobile
manufacturers. Today
we say automobile
creators.

Michèle Halberstadt:
Nowadays, things are
no longer enough in
themselves. When did
we stop seeing
things for what they
are?

Jean-Luc Godard: The
problem is that
directors take a
camera but they put
themselves in the
camera's place. The
camera needs its
independence. When
they want to do a
drawing, and pick up
a pencil to do it,
that pencil has
autonomy. It
resists, it doesn't
do just any drawing.
Nowadays, we take a
machine and the
drawings come out
ready-made.

I often look at
people, at certain
faces, and I think:
"I would need a
camera to look at
that." But when they
look at the face of
a young girl or an
old woman, does that
face exist beyond
them? The real
reverse shot hasn't
been found. The
Americans, the ones
of the north, as she
says in the film,
soon beat the shot /
reverse shot to
death, making it
into a trivial ping-
pong game devoid of
all meaning. The
director no longer
tries to have two
people look at each
other, listen to
each other, think of
each other, which is
already six
possibilities
multiplied by six,
which amounts to
years of film! You
can show your worth
in a first film,
because you have 15
to 20 years of life
behind you. Later,
for the second film,
you only have a year
behind you. You
can't show your
worth.

Michèle Halberstadt:
Were you aware of
that right from your
first film?

Jean-Luc Godard:
It's something I
knew, as a critic. I
knew that the first
film is always too
long. Inevitably so.
By some kind of
miracle, when I was
told that 2 hours 30
was too long, I cut
an hour. That's what
happened on Robert
Rossen's All the
King's Men. After
seven or eight
different edits,
Rossen told his
editor (Robert
Parrish): Just use
what you like in
each shot. He won an
Oscar! I did like
him, without
realizing it...

It's hard to see
what you're doing,
nowadays. Either you
are very sure of
what you're doing
and highly prepared.
Or, on the contrary,
you start with the
sense of a line,
knowing that it's
this but not that,
and thinking that
something will work
out, even if it has
its ups and downs.
But then you need a
confidant or a
partner. You can't
come up with all the
answers by yourself.
You often have to
say things out loud.
And just as you say
it, when you hear
yourself say it, you
come up with the
answer.

For instance, on
this film, when at
the end you hear the
lines of the
opening, I wondered
if we should just
hear only Putzulu,
or if we should add
other voices to his.
I asked Anne-Marie
and when I heard
myself formulating
the question, I
immediately realized
that no, I shouldn't
add the other
voices. It was
precisely the mere
presence of another
voice than mine that
allowed me to
understand this.
That's the real role
of a producer, and
it's a role that has
virtually vanished
today. I think that
if a film is a
success, even a so-
so film, it's
because there was a
minimum of give-and-
take, understanding
and complicity among
a few persons out of
all those working on
the film, which got
around and was seen
by the audience.

Michèle Halberstadt:
At what point do you
know what works and
what doesn't?

Jean-Luc Godard: If
you write: she
arrived one moonlit
night, it's hard to
realize immediately
that it's bad. You
have to shoot it to
understand that it's
bad. It happens
sometimes. You shoot
something, the crew
is there, you know
it's bad but you
can't say, no, we
won't shoot this,
it's far too bad.
You have a certain
feeling, and you
can't express it,
you're not quite
sure. The cinema is
also a copy of the
real world.

Sometimes, a take...
you do eight takes
of a scene, you
don't sense that
doing eight takes,
for whatever reason,
is a clinical sign,
a symptom. If the
film is good, the
symptom is correct.

Michèle Halberstadt:
You like to watch
the rushes?

Jean-Luc Godard: Not
really. I haven't
enough complicity
with the crew.

Michèle Halberstadt:
What is striking,
seeing you on a set,
is the solitude you
seem wrapped in.

Jean-Luc Godard:
Yes, but that's
because of my
nature. I don't much
care for the
shooting. What I
really enjoy is
searching. The
conversations I want
to have interest no
one, I think, apart
from a friend. It's
something that goes
back to my
childhood, the fear
of boring others
with things that
don't interest them.

So, there's no doubt
that I resist my
crew, which is my
first problem.
That's why I was so
happy on the set of
Après la
réconciliation. I
was in my place, I
didn't need to be
spoken to, I was an
actor, I listened to
others, I had a role
to play. Whereas the
director is the
captain. I sea
novels, I've always
enjoyed the stories
of seconds in
command on a ship.
They serve as a
link, we find out
things through them.
But there's no one
on my films to act
as a link.

I had something of a
link with my
maternal
grandparents. Then,
too, during the time
of the Cahiers du
Cinéma. After that,
I stopped looking
for one. At the
Cahiers, when I
aired an idea,
Rohmer would say:
that's stupid, or
that's fine. On the
set, I have to say
what we're doing.
It's normal, but it
would be nice to
have some input from
others. But there
isn't any. So I
think: "You have to
give children
instructions,
because if you
don't, dinner will
never be ready."

Michèle Halberstadt:
Is that why you
never had children?
Because of the
overwhelming
responsibility that
it implies?

Jean-Luc Godard: I
think so, yes. I
felt that I wasn't
up to it. I would
have been afraid of
not being good for
them.

Michèle Halberstadt:
Why do you say
you're not cut out
for casting your own
films?

Jean-Luc Godard: I'm
not cut out for it
because I don't know
my motivations well
enough, or my
relation to the
film, when I do the
casting. I hire
people out of
security or personal
preference, "if the
woman is pretty,"
but in any case I do
it too fast, so as
to reassure myself,
to make sure the
pantry is adequately
stocked.

I'd seen Bruno
Putzulu in Guiguet's
Les Passagers. He
struck me as
truthful. I took him
for that. Cécile
Camp I chose for her
tone of voice. She
was very sincere. It
was neither simple
not pleasant for
her. But what came
out was fine. She
has a beautiful
voice when she gets
a hold of it. We
recorded some sounds
by themselves 35
times, like Bresson.

Michèle Halberstadt:
Is Bresson a model
for you?

Jean-Luc Godard: A
model of conscience.
He doesn't put it in
his suitcase, like
all those Papa Ubus.

Michèle Halberstadt:
The scene where she
talks to Putzulu on
the phone is very
good.

Jean-Luc Godard:
After a take like
that one, you'd like
to see a technician
come up to you
afterwards or the
next day and say it
was good. That would
help you talk about
it or something
else. I don't know
the technicians.
They know everything
about me. Who I live
with, how much I
earn, what I'm
thinking about, what
I'd like to talk
about. But I never
know a thing about
them, never. I
invite them to eat
every day for two
months. It's my
initiative, it comes
from a personal
desire. But as for
them, I wouldn't
know whether they
had children or
not... It's a
strange
relationship. It's
only cinema, you're
at peace and yet
there's a war
rumbling.

Michèle Halberstadt:
Whereas you like to
talk...

Jean-Luc Godard:
Yes, to argue, in
the philosophical
sense. But nobody
likes that anymore.
Often, I'd rather
see journalists hate
a film and talk
about it, because
then you have a
purpose. Whereas
when they say: it
was great, it moved
me, that's terrible
because what's there
to say after that?

Michèle Halberstadt:
Eloge de l'amour is
a more serene film.

Jean-Luc Godard:
That comes from age
and also a bit from
the contacts I have
with Anne-Marie's
grandchildren. We're
two associates
who've been in this
profession for a
long time, and
who've stayed
together.

When I make a film,
the best moment for
me is when I'm
looking for a clue,
a direction. There
are possibilities.
If you only have one
or two friends, it's
more difficult. In
the past, there were
more of us and there
was a total
confidence. Today,
as filmmakers,
relationships are
rather lacking. But
you still can. You
have the technical
side, which can be
reassuring or
tortuous, but it
exists. It's yours.
It's a privilege.
You have to deserve
it, you have to do
things right.

Michèle Halberstadt:
Sometimes images
return several
times, like waves
breaking on the
shore. Is it to slow
down the course of
things?

Jean-Luc Godard:
Yes, it's to remain
in the time frame.
Cinema is an art of
space and time, but
not the narrative
time of an average
novel. In films, you
have to give, but
first of all you
have to receive.
Audiences no longer
give because with
television you stop
giving. There's only
the receiving end.

Michèle Halberstadt:
In some shots you
use the freeze
frame, like the
start of a shot
where you think
you're seeing a
painting.

Jean-Luc Godard:
When we did the
transfer to 35mm, I
liked this fixed
image, so we used it
a bit. But I use it
without being able
to say what I'm
doing. If I think,
this looks like a
painting, I don't
keep it. If I think,
that looks
purposeful, then
it's no good. But
the moment you feel
before you can put
something into
words, the moment
when you come up
with the idea, you
feel happy.

Michèle Halberstadt:
In writing on the
film, Jean-Claude
Biette talks about
the right to be
lyrical.

Jean-Luc Godard:
Lyricism was
something that
existed in silent
cinema and which
disappeared, as if
we were ashamed of
it. For instance,
you couldn't call
Brotherhood or
Wolves a lyrical
film... I regret not
knowing how to sing,
otherwise I think
I'd sing a lot.
Being lyrical means
singing, too. The
cinema is a lyrical
art form; some
moments in editing
are like musical
phrases. It doesn't
take much. It comes
fairly naturally to
me.

Michèle Halberstadt:
How did you come to
think of Françoise
Verny?

Jean-Luc Godard: I
was looking for
someone authentic,
who would either use
his own name, or be
a non-professional.
I saw actresses and
I felt I needed
someone who would
find it painful to
do, to be part of
the story. That's
when I thought of
Françoise Verny.
She'd been one of
the queens of Paris
literary production,
a bit like Lucie
Aubrac was a queen
of the Resistance.
That's what Jean-
Henri Roger says
towards the end of
the film when he
talks about his
celebrity past.
Françoise naturally
brings a past to the
character.

Michèle Halberstadt:
And Claude
Baignières and Rémo
Forlani?

Jean-Luc Godard:
Originally, I wanted
the film to have a
documentary aspect.
I thought that Edgar
could go to
Soulages, but
Soulages wouldn't
hear of it. I
looked, then came
this idea about the
art dealer. I saw a
photo of Baignières.
I've known Forlani a
long time. Finally,
only Jean Lacouture
played himself.

Michèle Halberstadt:
You've sometimes
worked with name
actors. Was that
part of the
commission?

Jean-Luc Godard:
Yes, usually.
They're name actors
but on the decline.
So for me they
exist. I can believe
in them. And they're
happy because they
sense my interest.
They feel a real
gaze, a real
respect. I have this
respect for Johnny
Hallyday and Alain
Delon. The respect I
had for Depardieu
has died, because
when we started the
film, he began to
fade away himself.

Michèle Halberstadt:
The cinema films the
mortal.

Jean-Luc Godard:
Cinema films
illness, not good
health. When you say
that happiness does
not make for a
story, that's what
it means.

Television brazently
aggravates that. It
can do that because
we're no longer
watching.

Michèle Halberstadt:
Whereas when you
watch films, there's
still hope.

Jean-Luc Godard:
Exactly. You go to
the movies to see
differently.
Audiences go in the
hope of seeing
something other than
what they see in a
TV series. But if
they go to see
Mademoiselle, then
in that case... they
deserve what they
get.

Michèle Halberstadt:
I've always seen a
parallel between you
and Serge
Gainsbourg.

Jean-Luc Godard: I
thank you. I'm very
fond of Charlotte
For Ever. I was
thinking of the
duality between the
work and the person.

Michèle Halberstadt:
We admired the
musician but hat
trouble with the
public persona. With
you it's the
opposite. We respect
the man more than we
look at the work.

Jean-Luc Godard: The
paths have moved
apart. I've remained
a memorialist of
this profession in
all its qualities.
I've always liked
every aspect of
cinema. This world
of film, which is
the world in
miniature. Films
come into being at a
certain moment, they
bloom, they live,
grow old, die, all
within a brief
period of time.

No other industry
does that. Bring
together people who
have nothing in
common, apart from
the boss's will, to
discuss and create
together. I like
this working core,
which functions on a
life-size scale and
projects what it has
done on a larger-
than-life scale. And
it's accessible to
everyone.

That's what we were
just saying. I like
to talk, to discuss,
but I always end up
talking by myself.
So I don't see
things any clearer
because no one
answers me. Take
journalists. I like
to talk about them,
about their position
or their newspaper,
but they don't. You
have to talk about
specific things. For
instance, I'd like
to discuss with
Serge July, to know
why he gives himself
a raise. But not to
get into an
argument, just to
discuss things.

Michèle Halberstadt:
You say that putting
Godard on the front
page of a newspaper
hurts your film.

Jean-Luc Godard:
That's what I
believe. I don't see
how that can help
the film. I don't
understand why they
put Zidane's photo
on the cover of a
soccer magazine
instead of putting
the ball. For me,
when they talk about
Godard, I think
about my father.
Godard was his name,
not even, it was his
father's name.

Michèle Halberstadt:
In Alphaville,
someone says to
Lemmy Caution:
"You'll endure
something worse than
hell. You'll become
a legend." Can we
say the same about
you?

Jean-Luc Godard:
Yes. What bothers me
about that is the
discrepancy between
this legend, what's
shown from the
outside, and what's
inside me.

[interview ripped
from DVD]


________________________________________________________________________________

   raum 3 mailing list                         http://lists.minordomo.org/raum3