5/10
Is An Alternate View of These Vapid Characters Permitted?
14 April 2013
For anyone interested in the history of film, this is a must-see, in the same way Birth Of A Nation or GWTW are must-sees; One can see the brilliance D.W. Griffith brought to early cinema in his epic recreation of his own Southern version of the American Civil War without admiring the sketchy politics that lie at it's roots, without rooting for the Ku Klux Klan to rescue Lillian Gish from the freed slaves. In the same way, I give Godard's film a high historical rating although I personally find the characters a drag, and their aimless lives less than fascinating.

Regardless of the brilliant avant-garde cinematic techniques that pepper the Band of Outsiders, one is also stuck with the characters, an aimless lot without a lot of talent, charm or magnetism, rootless folks who ignore others completely as long as they can run about and steal and make noise and act like unruly children. Late in life they have discovered they can be naughty--but without talent or insight or much else than self-indulgence, after a while watching them get's to be a drag. So you can run screaming through the Louvre and feel free and make noise and annoy the other patrons and guards? If you missed your adolescent years, it's a shame, but rootless behavior in and of itself doesn't create much of anything save a picture of self-indulgence.

One can appreciate the new vision of cinematography that frees the narrative from ancient strictures--but one also gets tired of a supposedly "free spirit," Arthur, setting up Odile for failure, using her body for his own instant gratification without any eye for consequences; simply put, he's a loser, and why do I want to spend two hours with him? I recognize Godard's contribution to the New Wave, but also find his characters tiresome in their attitudinal posing and aimless vapidity.
18 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed