4 ms·

Personally, I would take Fellini over Godard any day of the week. I'd much rather watch La Dolce Vita over Breathless

keiferski 4y ago
I'm a fan of both, but one thing I've noticed RE: Fellini vs. Godard is that Godard's films are much lighter, more "breezy", and easier to watch. This makes his work feel more modern to me. Fellini, in comparison, has always seemed quite heavy and serious, even if the plot and subject matter is frivolous.
- beezlebroxxxxxx 4y ago
  That makes sense for early career Godard, mostly because at that point he was working in the similar milieu as the other New Wavers, and playing with the Hollywood form. At that point, American films were flooding into France following WWII and you could go to the Cinematheque Francaise and watch an entire director's ouvre in a day or two. Godard, Truffaut, and the other cinephiles used to spend hours watching movie after movie and began to notice the Hollywood styles and trends. When they went to make movies they brought that knowledge of Hollywood style, along with a punk sensibility revolting against the "ancien regime" of French film style. Later Godard was far more intense and a difficult watch as he played with the form of filmmaking, digital video, and even his role as a director itself. His later stuff, like Goodbye to Language is fascinating but also, at times, difficult to get through and quite different than the direction that most New Wavers went, notably Truffaut who, if anything, got more and more accessible as his career progressed (and still made brilliant movies). His history of film, Histoire(s) du cinema is probably must-watch viewing for any big-time cinephile / film buff. It is commentary on the entire 20th century by way of cinema.
  - keiferski 4y ago
    Yeah you’re probably right, I’ve mostly just seen his earlier films. I’ve been meaning to watch Histoire.

I'm a fan of both, but one thing I've noticed RE: Fellini vs. Godard is that Godard's films are much lighter, more "breezy", and easier to watch. This makes his work feel more modern to me. Fellini, in comparison, has always seemed quite heavy and serious, even if the plot and subject matter is frivolous.

beezlebroxxxxxx 4y ago
That makes sense for early career Godard, mostly because at that point he was working in the similar milieu as the other New Wavers, and playing with the Hollywood form. At that point, American films were flooding into France following WWII and you could go to the Cinematheque Francaise and watch an entire director's ouvre in a day or two. Godard, Truffaut, and the other cinephiles used to spend hours watching movie after movie and began to notice the Hollywood styles and trends. When they went to make movies they brought that knowledge of Hollywood style, along with a punk sensibility revolting against the "ancien regime" of French film style. Later Godard was far more intense and a difficult watch as he played with the form of filmmaking, digital video, and even his role as a director itself. His later stuff, like Goodbye to Language is fascinating but also, at times, difficult to get through and quite different than the direction that most New Wavers went, notably Truffaut who, if anything, got more and more accessible as his career progressed (and still made brilliant movies). His history of film, Histoire(s) du cinema is probably must-watch viewing for any big-time cinephile / film buff. It is commentary on the entire 20th century by way of cinema.
- keiferski 4y ago
  Yeah you’re probably right, I’ve mostly just seen his earlier films. I’ve been meaning to watch Histoire.