The following anecdote is of the type that would probably send quite a few film aficionados holding their palms to their head, but it illustrates a point about the general perception of Godard so many years after Breathless. Probably about six years ago, certainly long before I graduated college and probably before I had even seen another Godard movie other than Breathless, I went online and discovered to my shock that the man is not only still alive, but still making movies. It is sort of silly to assume otherwise, but nevertheless the international perspective on Godard weighs his importance decidedly on his very early work and the stuff that he makes these days go largely ignored by all but the dedicated auteur-theorist and art-house cinema periodicals. Taking De l'origine du XXIe siecle on it's own, I can sort of see why. Godard is still using the form for all its worth, but in a way that, because of his own radical use of that form, is not very radical anymore.
This movie was commissioned by the Cannes Film Festival in 2000, and true to Godard's iconoclastic nature, he delivered by presenting a montage of footage on Nazi and war atrocities mixed up with a veritable "Name the Film" game of assorted footage from Gigi, Ugetsu, The Shining, and even Godard's own Breathless, and more. You get elegant footage of dancing interspersed with a pre-R. Kelly golden shower, dark black and white contrasted with faded color overlaid by celluloid decay, copies of VHS copies, and mixes/plays with sound to boot. And I can't really say it offers a whole lot that hasn't been covered before.
In my opinion, the best and most direct way to understand Godard is that he is a post-structuralist, and in this movie alone you are simply expected to be patient with Gold The Gold The Gold Of Of the Gold The Origins The Gold Of the Century The Origins of The Century of Gold of the 21st Century Origins. Certainly his point is readily accessible, that the 21st century derives from the events of the 20th century, which were informed by some major global developments, amongst them being stuff like, say, fascism, and other things like, say, cinema. Also, true to the word-fragmenting title-sequence, the montage itself is almost frustrated with its inability to juxtapose everything all at once, and opens up the opportunities for not only two sequential cuts to inform each other, but attempts to make each cut inform every other one within the movie. One gets the feeling this was meant to be watched in a loop, also fun considering the theoretically sequential understanding of historical events and also the way dates are presented in reverse order, and unconnected actually to clips that are featured after them (this movie did not get made at that time, nor at the other time either, nor is there a relationship, even though there is, and Godard shows that relationship by putting them together--that is to say).
But on the other hand, Godard can also just be simply understood as a provocateur, and what better way to anger the Cannes board than connecting filmmaking, even his own filmmaking, with fascism and human tragedy (especially since, reports say Godard's major frustration with filmmaking was the lack of coverage of the Holocaust). I do not know how the Cannes board reacted, but honestly I wouldn't be surprised if they loved it. After all, the types of people that invite the likes of Godard enjoy being confronted.
In other words, this movie is somewhat interesting but ultimately not a very profound statement.
--PolarisDiB
This movie was commissioned by the Cannes Film Festival in 2000, and true to Godard's iconoclastic nature, he delivered by presenting a montage of footage on Nazi and war atrocities mixed up with a veritable "Name the Film" game of assorted footage from Gigi, Ugetsu, The Shining, and even Godard's own Breathless, and more. You get elegant footage of dancing interspersed with a pre-R. Kelly golden shower, dark black and white contrasted with faded color overlaid by celluloid decay, copies of VHS copies, and mixes/plays with sound to boot. And I can't really say it offers a whole lot that hasn't been covered before.
In my opinion, the best and most direct way to understand Godard is that he is a post-structuralist, and in this movie alone you are simply expected to be patient with Gold The Gold The Gold Of Of the Gold The Origins The Gold Of the Century The Origins of The Century of Gold of the 21st Century Origins. Certainly his point is readily accessible, that the 21st century derives from the events of the 20th century, which were informed by some major global developments, amongst them being stuff like, say, fascism, and other things like, say, cinema. Also, true to the word-fragmenting title-sequence, the montage itself is almost frustrated with its inability to juxtapose everything all at once, and opens up the opportunities for not only two sequential cuts to inform each other, but attempts to make each cut inform every other one within the movie. One gets the feeling this was meant to be watched in a loop, also fun considering the theoretically sequential understanding of historical events and also the way dates are presented in reverse order, and unconnected actually to clips that are featured after them (this movie did not get made at that time, nor at the other time either, nor is there a relationship, even though there is, and Godard shows that relationship by putting them together--that is to say).
But on the other hand, Godard can also just be simply understood as a provocateur, and what better way to anger the Cannes board than connecting filmmaking, even his own filmmaking, with fascism and human tragedy (especially since, reports say Godard's major frustration with filmmaking was the lack of coverage of the Holocaust). I do not know how the Cannes board reacted, but honestly I wouldn't be surprised if they loved it. After all, the types of people that invite the likes of Godard enjoy being confronted.
In other words, this movie is somewhat interesting but ultimately not a very profound statement.
--PolarisDiB