The Image Book

I've seen a lot of weird movies. But this is too weird for me. Maybe a few years, or a few more bizarre movies, will lead me to appreciate this one. Right now it's not gonna happen. I give it a 5, simply because I found it aesthetically pleasing, and it seems like something I could like.

This film is not for everybody, so if you dislike it, it's okay. But for me, this is really the best film I have ever seen. And I've seen Felini, Tarkovsky, Antonioni, Bertolucci, Haneke and many other great filmmakers. But GODARD IS THE GOD OF MONTAGE. Sometimes I even forget that he's 88 years old. I just can't imagine how the hell he does these kind of things at his age. This is my first review in Imdb. I just got registered, so I can write a review on this film, because everybody was complaining about how bad it was. I just realized I don't even have words to review. Sorry. This is it. At least I can tell you that you need to watch this before you die.

For years Jean-Luc Godard has been reducing his cinema to increasingly symbolic and minimalist layers. If in the 70s and 80s, his work already called attention to an "absence of script", which in fact was a text with broad lines that played for the improvisation on the scene in the following decades until the work of the actors began to be kept to a minimum.

His films today are like collages of history and reflections on the subjects to which he have more interest: history and cinema. And the parallelism that one has with the other.

The prolific director's newest work, "The Image Book" is the apex of his cinema of symbolism and collage. There are no actors. At most Godard's cavernous voice, today with 88, narrating the film is making reflections on the twentieth century, the new century, humanity, society, and, of course, the cinema.

For Godard, cinema is the book of images of the twentieth century. Just as the Bible, the Koran and other religious texts are the basis for life in society and tell the story within their respective religions, cinema is the documentation of the history of modernity and contemporaneity.

Through "The Image Book" Godard invites us to reflect on history. And it builds a journey through the twentieth century in an incessant collage of images and sounds that permeate the history of art in its most different forms. All divided into five acts, as five are the fingers of the hands, as five are the senses. Five is a number that runs through the entire film, as well as the metaphor around the hands and their symbolic meanings in each attitude.

It is through this metaphor of the hands that Godard draws attention to a history constructed by the signs of body language. They are the hands used for love, but they also bring disappointment in the first act, the hands used for the violence of the second act or the hands that legitimize the use of force by the spirit of the laws of the fourth act.

The first part of the film is a set of reflections of what Godard had already somehow talked about in other works like "Film Socialism" (2010) or "Forever Mozart" (1996).

The last part is that it brings a Godard with a look at the Middle East rarely, or perhaps never before, shown so deeply. From a play on words stating that "Sheherazade would have told a different story in 1001 days," and not nights like the traditional story, Godard displays the bankruptcy of the west's gaze over the east.

For him, we see the Orient as a unique cultural mass, and not as if each country had its own culture and worldview. In the same way that we look to the east as the mirror of what we are not. And this is reflected in the way the cinema portrays the Orient. It is when the hands arise in delicate movements, painted with symbols that we do not understand or hold tightly the Koran in his prayer.

In a more controversial moment, Godard supports the bomb. Appeals to the positive side of the bomb. The bomb, he sees, is the revolution as it once was in Europe. It is the reaction of the oppressed. It is difficult to support this in times when Europe suffers so much from terrorist attacks. But it is possible to understand Godard's side by trying to show this as reaction rather than action. Hence the parallel with revolutionary movements.

Godard is a genius. Often misunderstood, often seen as annoying and difficult to understand. But his film remains alive, thought-provoking and pleasurable for those who accept the challenge of trying to decipher it with each job.

"If I spit they will take my spit and frame it as a great art" -P. Picasso

Complex, very complex, different, very different, many images, few sounds, a lot to say in few words, film clippings, reports, animations, war, pain, suffering, sometimes disconnected, but always very intense... First work by Jean-Luc Godard that I watch, and I started with the most subjective, profound and strange... "The world is not interested in Arabs and Muslims, while Islam has political attention." Is about. That, about generalization, about Islamophobia, generalization, xenophobia, wanting to silence a nation... The director suggested that not all scenes were translated, so that the image and sound would speak for themselves... Amazing...