2 ou 3 choses que je sais d'elle (1967)

User Rating:

7.0/10   

Director:

Jean-Luc Godard

Writers:

Catherine Vimenet (letter)
Jean-Luc Godard (writer)

Release Date:

17 March 1967 (France)

Genre:

Drama

Plot:

In this film, 'Her' refers to both Paris, the character of Juliette Janson and the actress playing her...

Plot Keywords:

Paris | Prostitution | Vietnam | Film Essay | Writers

US Showtimes:

(register to personalize)

Cast

Joseph Gehrard	...	Monsieur Gérard
Marina Vlady	...	Juliette Jeanson
Anny Duperey	...	Marianne
Roger Montsoret	...	Robert Jeanson
Raoul Lévy	...	John Bogus, the American
Jean Narboni	...	Roger
rest of cast listed alphabetically:
Yves Beneyton	...	Young man
Juliet Berto	...	Girl talking to Robert
Helena Bielicic	...	Girl in Bath
Christophe Bourseiller	...	Christophe Jeanson
Marie Bourseiller	...	Solange Jeanson
Marie Cardinal
Robert Chevassu	...	Meter reader
Jean-Luc Godard	...	Narrator (voice)
Blandine Jeanson	...	Girl
Benjamin Jules-Rosette	...	Man in basement
Jean-Pierre Laverne	...	Author
Jean-Patrick Lebel	...	Pécuchet
Anna Manga	...	Woman in basement
Claude Miller	...	Bouvard
Hélène Scott	...	Girl playing pinball

Also Known As:

Deux ou trois choses que je sais d'elle (France) (alternative spelling)
Two or Three Things I Know About Her

Runtime:

87 min

Country:

France

Language:

French | Italian

Color:

Color (Eastmancolor)

Aspect Ratio:

2.35 : 1

Sound Mix:

Mono

Certification:

Australia:M | Argentina:16 | Finland:K-16 | Sweden:15

Filming Locations:

Paris, France

Company:

Argos Films

Trivia:

In the scene where Juliette drops off her daughter at the day care/brothel, there is a painting on the wall of a screen shot of Nana (Anna Karina) in Vivre Sa Vie.

Quotes:

Narrator: There is increasing interaction between images and language. One might say that living in society today is almost like living in a vast comic strip.

Movie Connections:

Referenced in À la folie... pas du tout (2002)

Soundtrack:

Quartet no. 16

One long puzzle

Okay, hands down: this is quite possibly one of the most boring movies I've ever seen. And I love everything I've seen by Godard till now: I love the madness of "Weekend", the free-spiritedness of "Masculin, féminin", the colours of "Pierrot le fou" and "Le mépris". Supposedly, according to some critics, this one has it all: great cinematography (which, admittedly, it has), great story, great film in and of itself.

Now: the story. What story? There's no story in here. Believe me, I sat for all ninety minutes trying to figure out what the hell was going on. For the most of the time, you either see a woman speaking directly to the camera (and the women look good, but they bore me immensely) or a collage of non-related shots narrated by someone who likes whispering (his whisper actually reminds me of the unseen killer in some of Dario Argento's pictures and it is in fact one of the coolest things about this picture). Nothing in this picture makes it all glue together. I can sort of try to trace a story in here, but it's just a waste of time because even then, the story is about as minimal as it can get, and from what I see, merely an excuse to blabber on about existential and political philosophy. Worthless brouhaha, that's what it is. Nothing ever really happens, and I tried to stay focused till the movie ended when I finally sighed of relief.

These are the same philosophies that Godard introduced in "Alphaville", but when there's only philosophy and not a trace of a good, cohesive plot or a drama, this movie should have been reduced to, and I'm being generous, an essay. That would have been interesting. This isn't. The greatest scene in this picture occurs when the protagonist enters a café and the narrator speaks about cosmos and various other interestingly universal things when Raoul Coutard, Godard's cinematographer, zooms in on the contents of the café visitors' coffee cups. It looks amazing, and the movie should be seen only for this particular scene; the rest is up to you, but I'll pass on this one. It's too heavy, too abstract, it's art, and presumably very intelligent. But it doesn't get me going at all, and it tries to maintain my interest, but fails miserably for the most of the time. Not good.