Review of For Ever Mozart (1996) by Greg S — 30 Apr 2012

"For Ever Mozart" is one of Jean-Luc Godard's several monumental achievements. In Ebert's Great Movies review of Ingmar Bergman's "Persona," he quotes: '"How this pretentious movie manages to not be pretentious at all is one of the great accomplishments of `Persona,' " says a moviegoer named John Hardy, posting his comments on the Internet Movie Database.' This line I think may be considered in determining an opinion on the films of Godard. To a certain extent, I understand when people say that he is a fake, I of course think he is a genius and if he is phony, he certainly creates an justified illusion that has me completely absorbed in his work. After all, film is something fake disguised as reality, if that makes any sense. Also, Godard is one of the greatest, if not the greatest in developing a mise en scène; in a specific frame or shot, he has the ability to create countless ideas or evoke several thoughts from the viewer. How does he imagine all this? I also wonder how he chooses his actors, which seem to be "models" in his later works. One of the most important aspects in film is for a director to create something profound with simple means; directors such as Tarkovsky, Ozu, or Kiarostami (and others) have this quality. In "Stalker," Tarkovsky is able to create "the Zone," which does not look different from any other landscape, but convinces us that it is a place where normal laws of physics do not apply.

In Kiarostami's "The Wind Will Carry Us," there is one shocking sequence involving a man just flipping over a turtle with his foot, Ozu's films are probably more objective, but he can also evoke dense feelings from the viewer with means that seem simple. In "For Ever Mozart," the ending just consists of a hand turning the pages of Mozart's notes! A dialogue in the film states, "It's what I like in cinema. A saturation of glorious signs, bathing in the light of their absent explanation," this quote to me echoes Tarkovsky's statement about "the unspoken elusiveness" in the cinema. In the history of film there are plenty of essential pictures that are groundbreaking in one way or another, I personally think that almost every film of Godard's breaks new barriers and I hope one day he will get his due. I have heard the critic Mark Kermode say that every time he sees "The Exorcist," it is something new (it is his favorite film), I simply am unable to understand this. To me, a film like "The Exorcist" is so objective or driven by a story, so how can it be something new every time you watch it? Not that there is anything wrong with that, I would discover new things in a film like "For Ever Mozart." Going back to the film, there are political references that I almost have no clue of, even to literature and what not, except I recognized Shakespeare and Albert Camus. In one scene two people from a film making crew are in front of an ocean and one of them says that there is not enough water, and calls the production office! There are plenty of beautiful images too; I enjoyed this film very much, even with some of its puzzlement, along with wonderful music. Jean-Luc Godard is a grandmaster among masters!

Enough of my ramblings, here are some quotes I loved from the movie:

"War is easy. It's sticking a piece of metal in a piece of flesh.".

In "I think therefore I am," the "I" of "I think" is not the same as the "I" of "I am." Why? The relation between body and spirit has yet to be shown. Between thought and existence. The sensation of I have of existence is not yet a "me.".

My master once said: "I conceive of nothing as infinite." "How can I conceive of anything as infinite?" "Listen," I said. "Imagine a space, and that beyond this space is more space, and farther on, there's more and more." "It's never-ending." "Why," asked my master? I was stupefied. "If it ends," I shouted, "What's beyond it?" "If it ends, beyond it is nothing," he answered.