“We still have a while before it starts raining.”: Time Crimes (2007)

dir. Nacho Vigalondo

Time travelling films have always been an interesting niche in cinema. The bad ones fail spectacularly but the good ones are always proof of stellar writing and good direction. It definitely takes a lot to make a non-linear narrative be cohesive and make sense. However if it’s done well, it leaves a lasting impression as one of the superior science films. Time Crimes is, in my opinion, one such film. It’s a hidden gem that more people deserve to know about.

No one knows how time travel works or it’s implications, and this film doesn’t necessarily answer those questions. Instead, it acts as a chronicle of our main protagonist’s journey within the span of an afternoon wherein he has to do increasingly difficult tasks that challenge his morality. Part of what makes this film great is seeing our protagonist’s transformation through it all.

Instead of our typical attractive young lead commonly seen backflipping through explosions in science fiction films, we have Hector. Hector is as ordinary as they get but like any other character, his life changes drastically when he gets shaken out of his normal routine by an extraordinary event. What then follows is an intense character study where we see our protagonist transform with every single time he gets out of the time machine.

This movie obviously has a low budget to work with and it compresses the setting, characters, and production design, but it works in the film’s favour. This puts more focus on the limited actors’ performances, as well as the few significant props that we saw. All of them were important within this narrative and screen time isn’t wasted on anything unnecessary.

Three other people play roles in Hector’s time travelling journey. We have his wife, Clara, who serves as Hector’s motivation. He starts nonchalant towards her and it’s clear that she’s more taken with him than he is with her. He ever goes as far as creeping on a random lady in the forest and following her. After though, he seems to realize his priorities and think that his actions have led to this unlikely journey, making him choose Clara once again.

The woman in the forest is a victim and even worse, she’s unnamed. we start out thinking that she’s quite suspicious, because honestly who in their right mind would choose to get naked in the middle of the forest. My initial thoughts led me to her being part of a witch coven or a cult. In reality, she starts out kind and even tried to help Hector which quickly becomes tragic. Hector uses her for his own benefit, leading the other Hector to commit the same mistake he did so that the time loop reaches its fulfillment, and she dies in the process. So it seems that her kindness was rewarded with death.

And lastly the scientist, played by Nacho Vigalondo himself. From the beginning, he’s the only one who’s actually in ‘the loop’ (forgive the pun) regarding Hector’s whole time travelling conundrum. It’s interesting to note that the actual director plays the guy dictating Hector what to do.

The tone and pacing of this movie are great as well. The first part sets the movie up as a thriller but then the plot twists give it a slightly comedic note e.g. when Hector, wearing the bandages, tries to find the exact place where he scared the first Hector away. It’s a clear subversion of expectations.

Overall, this was a clever little movie with a well-written screenplay that does the most with what is has. I truly believe Nacho Vigalondo’s debut feature film, which he wrote, directed, and performed in, deserves a place among some of the best time travelling/science fiction films out there. Apparently, there are Hollywood plans of making a remake but that might just make it lose its charms. What makes it so great is that it present a good story stripped to its barest form, emphasizing only what’s important and what the audience should know.

“No one here believes in God or Jesus?”: Trollhunter (2010)

dir. André Øvredal

Trollhunter is a refreshing take in a market saturated by unimaginative found footage films. Mockumentaries are often hit-or-miss affairs for me, and this one definitely hits a lot of the right notes. Who knew trolls were all we needed to reinvigorate a tired genre?

This is a movie that attempts to bridge the gap between fantasy and reality. College students attempt to uncover the truth about bear-poaching in Norway but instead get more than what they bargained for. We, as the audience, are in for a wild ride as Hans the trollhunter runs from the woods and screams “Troll!” into the camera. From then on, it becomes an adventure movie in which we learn more about the existence and presence of trolls in Norway.

This movie succeeds because of the details that make its world just a bit more magical. The Norwegian landscapes are a given but they add a certain atmosphere to the movie that make it feel more alive and more realistic. It’s also nice that the movie attempts to give a scientific explanation to several elements of troll lore. For example, the film gives a reason as to why some of them have 3 heads and why they turn to stone under the sun. I’m very unfamiliar with troll mythos and I don’t know what it mentions or if it says anything at all about their ability to sniff out Christians, but that was a really fun and interesting detail to add to the film. For me, that particular detail actually gives the movie a comedic side despite going with more of a horror/thriller tone for the most part.

It’s also impressive how the filmmakers managed to make the CGI look acceptable. I wasn’t expecting much but the design of the trolls were alright despite the film’s relatively low budget. It’s obviously a mockumentary but what makes it even better is that it doesn’t take itself too seriously.

The performances within this movie are also appreciated. Hans is portrayed brilliantly by Otto Jesperson who gives the character depth and steers him away from being one dimensional. He has a great moment in a scene where he empathizes with the trolls, seeing them not merely just as chaotic hazards but more as sentient, feeling creatures. However, the same treatment or depth is not given to the other characters. I wish we could’ve had the chance to know them better. Even when one of them dies, it’s the guy who spent 80% of the movie behind the camera. So there’s no emotional attachment there whatsoever and there’s no effect to the viewers emotionally. I just really wish that that scene had more gravitas to it; it would’ve made the entire ‘this is based on a true story’ concept feel a little bit more real with a sudden drastic tone shift in the movie.

The movie ends with two playful twists, the first one being that the trolls have rabies and one of our main characters is possible afflicted with it now as well. It’s left open ended and it’s both funny and tragic to think of the outcome of that event. The last scene is the news clip where government officials straight up talk about the existence of trolls but is then ignored.

I do hope that someday, some local director sees this movie, realizes how rich filipino folk lore is, and creates a movie that explores it just as Trollhunter did. There have been attempts, but none that have made it to mainstream consciousness as far as I know. I sure would enjoy an in depth look into a tikbalang’s lifestyle, especially with the humorous tone that Trollhunter gave its titular monsters.

“And if there’s no more beholder?”: Holy Motors (2012)

dir. Leos Carax

Holy Motors is a movie that made me realize how much of cinema there really is that I haven’t seen. I consider myself a bit of a cinephile, albeit not having seen all of the ‘essentials’, on the basis that I watch more movies than the casual viewer. I’d like to think that I’ve seen some of the best that the industry has to offer, but Holy Motors has somehow destroyed that way of thinking. I knew even back then that there’s still so much that I have to learn when it comes to movies (that’s why I’m in this class in the first place), but now it feels like I have to go back to the very start.

The movie opens with a surreal dreamlike sequence. The director, starring in his own movie just for this one scene and making it somewhat meta, uses his fingers as a key and opens a passageway that leads to a movie theatre. He stumbles slowly inside and sees a black and white film projected onscreen. throughout the ongoing action and the loud sounds coming from the projector, a shot of the audience reveals that they have their eyes closed. We then move forward with the actual story.

There doesn’t seem to be a clear goal in terms of Holy Motors’ narrative. We have Monsieur Oscar, played by Denis Lavant, who bounces from one appointment to another in order to fulfill several roles in short periods of time. It’s most definitely an acting exercise for the lead actor.

We don’t know who these performances are for because as far as we know, he just does them. Seemingly, he starts off that day as a rich man playing the role of monsters. However as the movie ends and he goes home to a household comprised of monkeys, we wonder whether he has any identity at all.

“It’s you?”

“I think so.”

I do agree with the sentiment that there is a performative element even in being ourselves. This movie, for me, talks about how we perform in different relationships. There is the tendency to project a different version of yourself to every person you meet, even if you don’t notice it. After all, we’re all just simply playing a role in other people’s lives. But is it possible to become a slave to these interactions? To move from one relationship to the next, one identity to another, to the point that we don’t fully understand who we actually are?

This movie has no answers. Only talking limousines.

Even though the movie was apparently written within the span of two weeks, it conveys an interesting premise combined with amazing in universe details. For example, the URLS on the tombstones are subtle but definitely add to the world building. It was also really nice to hear Kylie Minogue’s music blasting in a party, only to find out later on that she has a musical part in the movie. Apart from having a song, the movie also has a musical intermission, dramatic performances, crazy action-esque sequences, horror elements, and a bunch of other weird stuff combined in a way that is coherent and not jarring at all, which truly makes the film a masterful genre-mix of a movie.

It’s a fascinating film to watch but I wouldn’t say that it’s for everyone. It can be seen as too arthouse, even going as far as bordering pretentious, which might make it hard for some people to fully enjoy it. I personally thought it was interesting but it’s not exactly something I would want to revisit. Just as Monsieur Oscar keeps moving forward with his appointments, I’d like to move on to the next movie and leave this one behind.

“The beauty, they say, is in the eye of the beholder.”

“And if there’s no more beholder?”

“A country we kept alive”: Goodbye, Lenin! (2003)

dir. Wolfgang Becker

Out of all the films we’ve seen so far, ‘Goodbye, Lenin!’ is the first with a clear linear narrative structure and is probably one of the simplest in terms of style and technique. Surprisingly, it is also my least favorite and the one that I felt the most detached to (and this is coming from someone who saw L’Avventura a few weeks ago).

Admittedly, I’m not that good with history. It’s a weakness of mine and I can’t really find the motivation to immerse myself with understanding all of its intricacies. I understand its importance and I realize that everything that I’ve said up to this point only makes me look ignorant. Please know that I still make the effort to understand the most notable events in history and I do further research when needed. I just don’t enjoy it as much as a lot of people do.

Now that I’ve said my disclaimer and established myself as a non-history buff, I can say that it took me some time to understand what was really happening in ‘Goodbye, Lenin!’. Props to the film though, I think they managed to explain the situation concisely and they did include important historical events in the movie gracefully. I had to read up on the differences between socialism, communism, and capitalism to fully understand how significant this shift was in German culture but afterwards, I recognized that a lot of the scenes in the movie backed up the information that I read really well.

The movie itself is a nice mix of comedy and drama with several touching moments sprinkled in throughout. It’s most impressive sequence is when Alex’s mother steps out of her isolated room for the first time and sees the current capitalistic state of Germany. She is bombarded by the vibrancy of a totally different culture and we understand the shock that she feels with every step that she takes. The disembodied Lenin floating across the sky seemingly waving at her feels like a fever dream come to life and it’s one of the best images that this film has produced.

The movie managed to make complex ideologies feel approachable. It’s a great way to introduce these things: to view a serious topic through a smaller scale lens which in this particular case is the mother’s room. It carries criticism without being overbearing, and tackles several themes such as nostalgia in creative ways.

Alex is a very relatable character. He has big dreams for himself, is passionate, and is motivated by the love that he has for his family. He is driven by the desire to protect his mother. We understand the incredible lengths that he goes on in order to keep a lie because we know what is at stake. He never truly lets go of his original love for the stars but instead he has to choose something more realistic given his circumstances, which is something I think the majority of us can relate to.

His best friend, who further strengthens his character traits, is my favorite character of the bunch. Editing a wedding video to resemble ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’s’ most famous shot has to be one of the most enjoyable moments in the film for me.

It’s a film with a lot of heart and you can see it shine through the character’s performances. The only reason I have for not liking it as much as the other films is that it doesn’t give me the creativity or freedom to explore themes or characters as much because a lot of it is pretty straightforward. Nonetheless, it’s an interesting watch and I’m glad I got to see a premise such as this one.

The film ends with a farewell to Alex’s mother, a poignant scene captured beautifully.

“She’s up there somewhere now. Maybe looking down at us. Maybe she sees us as tiny specks on the Earth’s surface, just like Sigmund Jähn did back then. The country my mother left behind was a country she believed in; A country we kept alive till her last breath; A country that never existed in that form; A country that, in my memory, I will always associate with my mother.”

“This is how the perfect human falls”: The Five Obstructions (2003)

dir. Lars von Trier

Lars von Trier is a sadist, this much I know. He’s notorious in the film community as someone who loves misery and ugliness, and this documentary serves as further proof. Where others would worship their idols, he sets out to challenge (and sometimes even punish) his. He wants to see them go through hell just for the sake of showing his idol’s humanity. He scares me and I love him for it.

“A good perversion to cultivate” (Leth)

From what I’ve gathered, Jørgen Leth’s ‘The Perfect Human’ claims that the perfect human sees or experiences no limitations. This serves as a paradox to what von Trier is trying to achieve with his documentary. He asks Leth to recreate his own film but with several obstructions — limitations. So if the original film serves as the perfect version of all the subsequent films, the question then becomes: Can the remake of a perfect film still be considered perfect even if it is not true to its essence?

“It’s totally destructive. He’s ruining it from the start.” (Leth)

Lars von Trier fails and he falls hard. He gives torturous filmmaking rules for the first obstruction, notable editing-wise, where he restricts Leth from having any single edit that lasts longer than 12 frames. One would think that this would completely ruin the end product. The resulting film, however, is a breath of fresh air. It’s an editing nightmare full of life. The film itself is frenetic and vibrant, and the obstruction which was supposed to hinder acts as an advantage. What once was seemingly a detached piece of art feels much more human now that it’s attached to a location (Cuba). For this film, Leth has gained the upperhand.

“I want to banalize you… We may be able to do so by finding things that hurt.” (von Trier)

For the second short film, von Trier seemingly wants to humanize Leth. Based on ‘The Perfect Human’ and on the other things that Leth has said (ex. “I isolate places and things that I want to examine precisely”), there is a certain detachment to Leth’s filmmaking. Lars von Trier wants Leth to film a movie in the most miserable place on earth but to not show any of it on camera. From what I think, I believe that von Trier is trying to get some of that misery to affect Leth and is hoping that it bleeds into the movie through innovative nuances. Leth, however, remains unaffected.

There’s a small interaction in this movie which made me laugh the first time that I saw it and I can’t stop thinking about it whenever I’m reminded of this movie:

Leth: [talking about the 4th film] I am very pleased with it. [von Trier’s face falls]

“Lars von Trier has this romantic notion that I’ll be so affected by being placed in a situation where a social drama is going on beside you. He wants to quantify how much it rubs off, how much it affects me. Will it be visible? Will it be quantifiable? But I think it’s pure romanticism.” (Leth)

Being directors, both of these men seem hyper aware of the camera. They may be in front of it for the most part of the documentary, but in some ways they are still directing how the film turns out. Both of them are incredibly dramatic with their words, which is why I’ve decided to collect a lot of their quotes and include them here. They want to be in control of the situation because that’s what they’re used to. They want to be in charge of how they are perceived through the lends because this is what they know the audience sees. Their job is to frame reality and as a result, they too become characters in their own documentary.

“He serves hard and we return hard as nails. That’s the way it is.” (Leth)

It’s clear that von Trier holds Leth to high standards. What differentiates him from other ordinary fans though is that he too is an accomplished filmmaker. He plays the same game as Leth. Throughout this entire project, it is von Trier who dictates what to do and Leth must follow. It’s an interesting role reversal and it produces a great collaboration between the two.

“Here there are no limits. Here there is nothing.”

Leth overcomes the next two films and produces stunning outputs. Even his hatred for animation couldn’t falter the creativity of the fourth film. Each of his new films remain truthful to their thesis and yet all of them feel new and reinvigorated. Leth is clearly a master at work and at times it feels like von Trier is experiencing more obstructions than he is, which is why I understand von Trier’s choice for the last film.

von Trier has complete control over the final film and knowing Leth, this isn’t an easy decision. This is the man who refused complete artistic freedom over his own film saying, “I’d rather have something to hang onto”. By having his name attached to a film he has no say in, that just might be one of the biggest subtle obstructions in filmmaking there is.

“You wanted to make me human but that’s what I am!”

Nevertheless, he pushes through. And by doing so, he winds the game against von Trier. Going by Leth’s film, the perfect human is someone who has no limitations. Bringing this further, we can say that the perfect human has no limitations because of his ability to overcome them. Throughout this process, he is perfect because he does this while staying true to his version of humanity. von Trier knows this which is why he ends the movie accepting his defeat. He repeats a clip of Leth falling to the ground,

“This is how the perfect human falls.”

“How long will they last?”: L’Avventura (1960)

dir. Michaelangelo Antioni

“Who needs beautiful things now, Claudia? How long will they last?”

From the waves crashing violently against the rocks of a secluded island to the lavishly decorated halls of an Italian hotel, cinematographer Aldo Scavarda paints a picture of loneliness and ennui that reflects the inner turmoil of L’Avventura’s characters. Antioni has a great way of staging two of his characters in which one of them is far off and another one walks into the shot, creating a sense of depth that somehow makes it seem like these people are being swallowed by their surroundings. They’re visually beautiful and yet they still feel empty.

Entitled L’Avventura or The Adventure, I was fooled into thinking that this would be a Gone Girl-esque thriller in which the characters slowly uncover the truth behind Anna’s disappearance. From the very beginning, she is presented as an enigma. She’s indecisive, brash, and does everything out of whim. We focus on her when in reality, this story is about everyone else.

The adventure here isn’t about finding Anna, it’s about these characters looking for the next new thing that would pique their interest. None of them are fully satisfied. Their lives are empty and meaningless. Anna makes up a story about a shark that worries her companions. For what reason? She shrugs, “Because”. Sandro finds a stranger’s artwork and ruins it with ink. When duly accused of doing it deliberately, he’s nonchalant about it, “Why would I do that?”. In the span of 3 days after Anna’s disappearance, Sandro claims to be in love with her best friend as he slowly loses motivation to find her. Just like an ancient vase, possibly priceless, shattered with no care at all. It’s interesting until it’s gone, and they move on.

Interest is fleeting, just like everything else. All those empty buildings. That cemetery. Nothing is forever and these characters can only hope to find something that would give their lives a semblance of meaning, even just for a moment in time.

“I don’t feel you anymore.”

I really wish that I liked this movie more than I actually did. I love that it’s shot beautifully and I appreciate the story that it’s trying to convey. I think the mood that this movie has captured the feeling of ennui perfectly. However, I felt so detached to the plot and the characters that I had a hard time fully enjoying it as I was watching.

I was also very uncomfortable with the way this film treats its female characters, although that may be the point. They’re strong in their own right but it doesn’t seem to be enough as the men constantly belittle them. Giulia is often ridiculed by her husband which leads her to basking in the attention of a 17-year old boy. Anna’s worries are dismissed by her father and her fiancé, and altogether forgotten. This might just be an assumption but there’s a scene in this movie which I think inspired a scene from another Italian movie: Giuseppe Tornatore’s Malena (2000). Claudia waits for Sandro outside of a shop where he asks for information on Anna and immediately, a great deal of men unabashedly gawk at her, overwhelming her until she runs away. My best guess is that Antioni is trying to show these women as objects of interest as well, something that men get tired of and discard, judging by the scenes of the cheating chemist and his wife. Whatever it is, I feel like I’m missing something which I might get on a rewatch but for now, I don’t fully understand why this is necessary to the movie’s thesis.

This doesn’t mean that I’m giving up on Antioni’s films. Blow-Up (1966), which seems to be one of his most popular, has been in my watchlist for the longest time and I’m excited to see how his style translates to this murder mystery.

The ending is hauntingly beautiful. Sandro weeps on a bench as Claudia looks to the sea. They’re both tired. Gently, she reaches towards him and caresses his hair. As far as they’re concerned, nothing is alright but they seem to have made their peace with it.

“Everything is becoming hideously simple.”

“The hopeless dream of being”: Persona (1966)

dir. Ingmar Bergman

Bergman is such a big name in the industry and I’ve personally always wanted to see one of his movies to see what all the ‘hype’ was about. Now that I have, I can say that I don’t think I was ready for this film nor do I think I ever will be. I mean, where do I even begin?

That opening sequence had teeth. We see quick flashes of moving celluloid and various instances of graphic violence. The camera lingers on a particularly gruesome moment: several seconds dedicated to a closeup of a crucifixion; a hand bleeding profusely from a nail being driven right through it. It’s a quick-fire montage that serves as an attack to the senses. Unforgiving, unflinching, in-your-face goodness. It sets the tone for the rest of the movie and it’s just like what people say about car wrecks. It’s horrific but you can’t bring yourself to look away.

The narrative begins with a surreal quality to it, opting for a bare bones production design and instead focusing on the actors’ performances. Bergman chooses to train his camera mostly on faces, seeing how his characters react and deliver their dialogue. Majority of the film is focused on two characters: Alma (Bibi Andersson) and Elizabeth (Liv Ullman), who he mostly places in shots together. The characters often face the camera, almost looking into the lens but never fully. We see the eyes — windows to the soul — but never in their entirety. Bergman plays with lighting to ensure that for the most part, one of their faces is covered in shadows. In film, this often signifies secrecy and we later find out why.

Elizabeth is an actress turned apathetic to her surroundings. Someone who supposedly relates and understands everyone else in order to play their roles chooses to turn her back on the world and its horrors. There is nothing medically wrong with her, her apathy is a conscious decision. There is a determination behind it which Alma recognizes, realizing that she may not be strong enough for it. Alma is her nurse and at first, is somewhat presented as Elizabeth’s antithesis. Alma is optimistic, choosing to see the beauty with the life that she is given. But she has her own doubts, her own fears, and own insecurities which slowly consume her.

“The chasm between what you are with others and what you are alone.”

These two people are then secluded in an island together. Although one of them doesn’t speak, there is a connection between the two. French philosopher Emmanuel Levinas claims that the face of the other is the key to human consciousness. (I’d like to take this moment to thank my PH102 professor for giving me something to add to this review.) Alma is honest and raw when she sees Elizabeth as a mirror. Alma confesses her deepest secrets to Elizabeth and she lets it all out because she feels that there is no judgement whatsoever. When she later finds out that Elizabeth may only be studying her, her feelings instantly shift. Alma’s paranoia switches to her and she spirals out of control. She becomes hostile towards Elizabeth, even going as far as letting her get hurt by a shard of glass, becoming the opposite of her role as Elizabeth’s nurse.

Their differences feels smaller. This is Elizabeth’s retreat but it is Alma who undergoes a more significant transformation. Who then is the patient and who is the nurse? Who is treating who?

The climax of the film is a lengthy dialogue about Elizabeth’s past. The scene repeats to show the reactions of both women. It ends with both of their faces merged in one image. There is a blurring of identities. Although initially different, they have the same fears at their core. Elizabeth turns away from them while Alma chooses to face them and live with that knowledge.

The ending leaves the viewer with several questions. Are both of these women real, or is one of them just a figment of imagination of the other? There are two scenes that may be used for this theory. Only Alma leaves the island. Earlier on, Elizabeth’s husband mistakes Alma for Elizabeth. His eyes are covered by heavily tinted shades so it’s possible that it means that he’s not really seeing. Whatever it may be, there are no answers here.

Although very different, this film reminds me of ‘Under the Skin’ (2013) in the sense that they have a few similar themes, have the same uncomfortable/upsetting feeling all throughout, and they leave the viewers with more questions than answers. If you haven’t seen it, I highly recommend that you give it a watch.

Overall, I’m still confused (haha). I don’t understand all of it but I still really enjoyed it. Both actresses deliver great performances, with Andersson delivering majority of the lines and having to carry most of the dialogue while Ullmann does her best to express using only her facial expressions. One thing I found really interesting is that this film passes the Bechdel test despite one of the characters having only around 2 lines of dialogue. Definitely would give this one a rewatch but not any time soon.

“I think I could turn into you if I really tried. From the inside.”

“There she goes”: A Woman is a Woman (1961)

dir. Jean-Luc Godard

“Is this a comedy or a tragedy? Either way it’s a masterpiece.”

It’s a simple story. A woman wants a child but her lover says no. His best friend, however, is willing and apparently in love with her. Thus begins a whimsical love triangle — an exploration of gender roles and the dynamics within a relationship.

The tragedy lies within the clashing of a couple, evidently very much in love but still unable to reach any compromise. It’s a premise we’ve seen before but Jean-Luc Godard puts his own comedic twist to it.

This is a film wherein Godard’s passion for the art form truly shines. Just as Angela manipulates Emile into cooperating with her desire to have a child, Godard is as playful with how he manipulates his film. He creates a world in which there are very little boundaries. Continuity is often broken and so is the fourth wall. He inserts a random montage of strangers looking into the camera right in the middle of a conversation. Godard even gives a little wink to the audience with a reference to his most notable film, “Breathless”.

There are small details peppered throughout the film that make it seem just a little bit more magical. My personal favorite is a couple that stands outside of Angela’s apartment, unmoving and unbothered by their surroundings as they continue to kiss throughout multiple scenes. The apartment itself feels like a stage, with long panning shots that switch to a different character once it is their time to speak. Emile rides a bicycle into a shot seemingly out of nowhere and the audience laughs at how absurd it looks. Several times, both characters refuse to speak, choosing to walk around holding a lampshade and communicating through book titles. But maybe that’s not weird. Maybe that’s just how french people are.

“I want to be in a musical”, says Angela, and that’s exactly what this film is, but it’s just not what we’re used to. This is a musical that plays with sound mixing and audience expectations. About five minutes into the film and the sounds cuts abruptly, making the class wonder if there might be something wrong with this copy of the film. Apparently not; Godard is just having fun.

This was released in 1961, almost 60 years ago, and yet in 2019, this still feels absolutely fresh and unique. Anna Karina gives a charming, captivating performance as Angela and you can clearly see the chemistry she has with Jean-Claude Brialy who plays her stubborn lover, Emile. These two, along with Godard’s direction, elevate a simple story into an innovative piece of art.

My favorite moment happens somewhere in the beginning of the film. Angela walks away from the shot and right before Godard cuts, Lubitsch (Jean-Paul Belmondo) turns to the camera and says, “There she goes.”