Whistle Stopper Political Forums



   Homepage Links
Menu
Apparel
Baby
Beauty
Books
Classical Music
DVD
Digital Music
Electronics
Gourmet Food
Personal Health Care
Jewelry
Kitchen & Housewares
Magazines
Miscellaneous
Music
Musical Instruments
Music Tracks
Office Products
Outdoor Living
PC Hardware
Photo
Restaurants
Software
Sporting Goods
Tools & Hardware
Toys
VHS
Video (DVD & VHS)
VideoGames
Wireless
Wireless Accessories
Information
Payment Methods
Shipping
Safe Shopping
Contact Us

 Search:   

Whistle Stopper - Passion

Passion
List Price: $9.98
Our Price: $26.09
Your Save: $ ( % )
Availability:
Manufacturer: Fox Lorber
Starring: Isabelle Huppert, Hanna Schygulla, Michel Piccoli, Jerzy Radziwilowicz, László Szabó
Directed By: Jean-Luc Godard
Average Customer Rating: Average rating of 3.0/5Average rating of 3.0/5Average rating of 3.0/5Average rating of 3.0/5Average rating of 3.0/5

Buy it now at Amazon.com!

Audience Rating: R (Restricted)
Binding: VHS Tape
EAN: 9781572523128
Format: Color
ISBN: 1572523123
Label: Fox Lorber
Manufacturer: Fox Lorber
Number Of Items: 1
Publisher: Fox Lorber
Release Date: 1999-10-26
Running Time: 88
Studio: Fox Lorber
Theatrical Release Date: 1982

Related Items

Spotlight customer reviews:

Customer Rating: Average rating of 1/5Average rating of 1/5Average rating of 1/5Average rating of 1/5Average rating of 1/5
Summary: Zero Stars For Dull
Comment: Do not listen to the film buffs who call this "art" and a series of vignettes that defy any meaning, its worthless and boring. The whole film has no interest to offer, what it tends to portray is stuffy French poseurs who smoke and talk about nothing in particular, that isn't very entertaining. I was dragged to the ending finally and was exhausted by the absolute uselessness of this picture and of Godard himself who isn't a very capable film director.

Customer Rating: Average rating of 4/5Average rating of 4/5Average rating of 4/5Average rating of 4/5Average rating of 4/5
Summary: Passion
Comment: This film was made well into the (seemingly) third phase of Godard's career, with his more linear narratives occupying the 1960's and his overtly political films (including his work as a member of Dziga Vertov) comprising much of the 1970's. Less didactically Marxist in tone (perhaps due to disillusionment), the third "postmodern" period consists, roughly, of the 1980's through the present. Although "postmodern" is an agreeably irritating modifier for this period, since the term is thrown around with more randomness in current social theory than is deserved, it is appropriate for this period--and its appropriateness explains why it has been received with such animosity, as evidenced in other reviews in this page. In other words, if you are expecting the tone and the linear constructions of, say, Breathless or A Woman Is a Woman, you are likely to be (angrily) disappointed.

Admittedly, all of Godard's films could easily be considered postmodern (or at least, high-modern), but the last period, in which Passion may be situated, best exemplifies this "tendency." The "plot" (if it may be called one) is threadbare and beside the point. The construction is disjointed. The tone is ironic and self-aware. The themes are, largely, theoretical and often focus on the nature of art itself (and film, in particular). In short, the film is an affront to all modernist expectations in film. That is, a person who would ask half way through the film, "What is going on?" is looking for elements of film that Passion does not have to offer.

It is easy to cast aside a work like this, condemning it to "pretentiousness" or self-indulgence, but it is important to remember that it is film (and television, of course) that has been the only "prominent" art form to evade change: Today's commercial successes and even critical favorites follow pretty much the same formulas as films in the 1930's. There have been minimal efforts, by and large, to stretch this medium beyond these limits. Godard is one director who has consistently attempted to challenge the traditional narrative form and to explore less familiar territory.

On to the film Passion itself... The rough outline consists of a director (Godard-like) attempting to make a decidedly uncommercial films featuring "re-enactments" of famous paintings. As might be expected, the financial backers are none too thrilled about a sluggish, aimless production by a neurotic director. Meanwhile, a factory-worker (Isabelle Huppert), with whom the director is having a relationship, attempts, unsuccessfully, to organize a revolt among her co-workers, and a desperate, self-effacing hotel owner (Hanna Schygulla) similarly forms an attachment to the director--perhaps as an only means of escape from her otherwise dreary existence. (It is interested to note that Schygulla also appeared in Fassbinder's Beware of a Holy Whore, a film also about a creatively-impotent director working under disastrous conditions, but beware of Beware of a Holy Whore: it is a shrill and thoroughly bad film that seems a little too derivative of Godard's later style to be taken seriously.)

All in all, Passion is a successful film. It insightful (and ironically) connects disparate themes (e.g., the factory worker's fight for her very livelihood, and the director's struggle to bring about his "vision"). Despite the comic elements of the film, the overall impression one takes from it is a sort of empathetic frustration at passions left diverted or unfulfilled.


Customer Rating: Average rating of 2/5Average rating of 2/5Average rating of 2/5Average rating of 2/5Average rating of 2/5
Summary: Prententious and Overbearing!
Comment: The more films I see by Godard, the more he shocks me, in a bad way! What this movie basically is, is, a excuse to see beautiful women naked for no apparent reason! Godard tries to shove this off as "art" but all the while we know what we're watching. A pretentious, boring, unsatisfying, porno! Godard tried pulling this stuff off before in "Two or Three Things I Know About Her". He created absurb questions such as "Why is blue called green?", and tried to make it some profound, earth shattering question. And the worst part of it is, people are suckered in to really thinking this stuff is "heavy". That it's so profound in it's meaning. When it's nothing more than junk! This movie is about a director (I assume someone pretty close to the real life Godard) who wants to make a movie with no story, in the style of paintings by Goya and such. He keeps on stating for the next 90 minutes that you can't write stories unless you live them. Or at least it's something of that nature. He then takes on two affairs, I'm not quite sure why, it's not really explained. When he's on the movie set, he does nothing but complain about something, claiming the lighting is wrong, or, why won't people leave him alone and let him make a movie about nothing ( Didn't we have a tv show like that lol). But in the background, I think they're filming some sort of Roman movie. We see men in Roman style costumes walking along side naked women, and horses. This movie is "more put together" than other Godard films. He didn't film this in his famous "disjointed" style. But even though it's shot "normally", the movie has no being. It wants us to believe we're watchng "art", but no one is that stupid to believe that. I know right now I must seem like I absolutely hate Godard, but that's not true. I do, believe it or not, have respect as a filmmaker, I'm a wannabe one, so in a sense I do look up to him. But, I know a bad movie when I see one. If you really want to watch Godard's films I suggest watching "Breathless" and\or "My Life To Live". Two movies that show Godard to be in fine form. But whatever you do, stay away from this one!

Customer Rating: Average rating of 3/5Average rating of 3/5Average rating of 3/5Average rating of 3/5Average rating of 3/5
Summary: Must art forbid character development entirely? Really??
Comment: I understand that cinematic luminaries contributed to this film, and that art-house power is claimed for it. Yet no reasonable excuse is provided for the discontinuity among events. It may mimic the filmmaking process in which a producer/director's attention will be diverted many times per day, but it is still preferable to reveal a more cogent story. It is preferable because otherwise it is simply too easy to allege a movie.

The people behave stiffly throughout. The characters are caricatures. The issues raised are flat and uninteresting, and are as undeveloped as the characters.

The dubbing is quite bad. There are long stretches during which there is absolutely no connection between lip movement and sound.

I am not opposed to art in film. It is possible to incorporate disjunction into a film and create art that lacks a clear story. My point is that this movie basically fails. Three stars for the attempt, and because I admire the character who dances. She is about the only one who received a moment in which to behave authentically.


Customer Rating: Average rating of 4/5Average rating of 4/5Average rating of 4/5Average rating of 4/5Average rating of 4/5
Summary: Strange, surreal, often wonderful.
Comment: This is a semi-autobiographical film about a Polish director making some tableaux vivants of clssical works of art, some of which are amazinngly beautiful. Contrasted with these are the mundane elements of his private life. It owes someting to Truffauts Day for Night, but being Godard, it's infinately more complex and ambiguous. My favourite scene takes place in factory, where someone asks why you nver see factories in movies. Vintage Godard!


Editorial Reviews:

Jean-Luc Godard's 1982 film about filmmaking, art, life, and love is an often stunningly beautiful work about a Polish film director (Jerzy Radziwilowicz) re-creating in tableaux vivant some masterpieces by Goya, Rembrandt, El Greco, and others. While Radziwilowicz's director is criticized by his film's backers for lacking a story, a number of actual stories take place among the characters working on the film--yet Godard keeps them all at enough of a distance that they can't take over his deconstructed narrative. As he often does, Godard calls upon the elements of filmmaking (and, for Passion, painting and classical music as well) like forces of nature, and then arranges them so that their powers are their very point. Passion may not be one of those ordinary, lightly accessible valentines to the art of making movies, but it has more fervor for the form than most directors could ever feel. --Tom Keogh


Buy it now at Amazon.com!

 
Copyright © 2000-2005 Whistle Stopper. All rights reserved.
powered by My Amazon Store Manager v 2.0, © Stringer Software Solutions