My Life to Live

Rating:
Summary: "After all, things are what they are."
Review: "My Life to Live ("Vivre Sa Vie)," released in 1962, was director Jean-Luc Godard's fourth feature film and one of the finest, most exhilarating examples of the French New Wave. The great cultural critic Susan Sontag considered the film to be "one of the most extraordinary, beautiful, and original works of art that I know of." The film is now forty years old, and since its original release it has, unfortunately, been somewhat forgotten, not nearly referred to as much as Godard's "Breathless" and "Weekend." In many ways, however, "My Life to Live" is Godard's most accomplished work. It encapsulates all of the main cinematic innovations of the New Wave movement; in its visual style, it is refreshingly innovative (even decades later) and often awfully beautiful; and it redefines cinematic history at the same time that it pays homage to that history.

"My Life to Live" is part crime drama, part B-movie, but, most of all, the story of a young Parisian woman's descent into prostitution and existential trauma. It offers little or no overt explanation for events or for the choices and actions made by its characters. It proceeds largely through dialogue. And it features the kinds of jump cuts and self-referential awareness common to this style of cinema (not to mention the references to other sources of culture, including a shot of a movie theater playing Francois Truffaut's "Jules and Jim," another exponent of the French New Wave). Viewers raised on Hollywood movies who have not had much exposure to this style of filmmaking will find "My Life to Live" difficult and, to an extent, somewhat unsatisfying, only because it does not conform to American narrative or cinematic conventions. It is both formally groundbreaking in its visual style and unique in its narrative structure.

That narrative structure is based upon twelve tableaux, each with its own chapter reference. If Godard had admitted that this was to make the film more understandable, it was also to give it a pseudo-documentary feel. In that sense, "My Life to Live" blends reality and fiction, film drama and documentary, into a cohesive experience. The camera embodies Godard's approach. Its movement means several things at one time: a visual language that defied the standards of traditional film photography (watch how Godard films conversatins in "My Life to Live"); a sense of documentary, as if Godard was portraying a non-fictional account of a woman's descent into prostitution in post-war Paris; and a technique in which it seems that the camera is always aware of what it is doing.

And what is the camera doing? Most of all, it is obsessed with its protagonist, Nana, played by the chic, mesmerizing Anna Karina, who was Godard's wife at the time. "My Life to Live" is as much a study of her as it is of its fictional subject. Godard's camera lingers on her face, producing some of the most staggeringly beautiful moments in cinematic history and also allowing Karina's outward image to tell exactly what she is experiencing internally. In one of the film's most celebrated passages, Karina's face, eyes wide open and full of tears, fills up the entire screen as she watches Carl Dreyer's equally groundbreaking silent film "The Passion of Joan of Arc." Karina's close-up replaces Maria Falconetti's and becomes just as enigmatic.

"My Life to Live" is a film of multiple artistic merits, one of Godard's finest achievements, and an emblem of the French New Wave. Serious film buffs should not be without it.

Now, a few words about the DVD. Fox Lorber is notorious for producing poor digitial transfers of their films, and "My Life to Live" is no exception. The transfer is actually better than most of their products and is quite passable, with some noticeable image spoilation here and there and with a relatively mediocre audio track. Having said that, most viewers should not have too much of an issue with this disc's quality. The aspect ratio is 1.33:1, the same as a standard television screen, so this looks like a pan and scan version. I do not know if this is the same aspect ratio of the original theatrical print, but if you are expecting widescreen, you won't get it here (although this should not preclude viewers from purchasing this fantastic film).

(And, last but not least, a somewhat related jibe: if you are coming to Godard because you are a Quentin Tarantino fan, you will find that many of the ideas and techniques Tarantino employed in "Pulp Fiction" were lifted right out of this film, in addition to others by Godard. Seeing both, you will realize that Tarantino really isn't that original after all and that Godard was far superior.)

Rating:
Summary: "Il faut se preter aux autres et se donner a soi-meme."
Review: (Lend yourself to others and give yourself to yourself---Montaigne): ominous advice for the heroine of one of Godard's most easily digestable and congenial films. A seamless and cohesive twelve chapter documentary, _My Life to Live_, starring Godard's then wife Anna Karina, succeeds at striking the perfect balance between the filmmaker's more esoteric artistic tendencies and the ability to relate to a more mainstream audience. Loosely, the plot involves Nana, a 22-year old woman who leaves her husband and takes up casual prostitution. No doubt it is also an allusion to Emile Zola's novel about a female courtesan of the same name. Brilliant camera work is especially evident in the opening scene where we are introduced to Nana and her husband not by their faces, but by an affronting view of the backs of their heads. This visual device is used throughout and is contrasted with some mesmerizing shots of Joan-of-Arc-coiffed Karina, staring directly at the camera. If you thought Godard too intellectual or abrupt, give this film a try.

Rating:
Summary: Essential
Review: Although the basic DVD extras (a commentary track, for starters) are missing, the print quality is very good and the movie is absolutely great - first-quality Godard and Karina.

Rating:
Summary: What marvelous clothing the emperor has!
Review: I *wanted* to like this film. I have a lot of Respect for Roger Ebert (I have enjoyed many of his picks that were not commercially successful), so if he said it was great, I thought I would at least appreciate the experience of watching it. The cinematography is indeed enjoyable, the star nice to look at. I enjoyed seeing backgrounds of Paris in the Sixties. I liked the jukebox tune, so Sixties. And also...what? I kept trying to figure out why else anyone would enjoy this film. A girl is hard up (I'll forgive the fact that such an exquisite beauty could so easily date wealthy men that she wouldn't need to be a streetwalker, because that's the way film casting always has been) and becomes a prostitute. We learn the details (financial and mechanical) of "the life." She hears vague, nonsensical bromides from an elderly man in a restaurant (cannabis ramblings I heard in college were as profound). The film ends with a cheap occurrence that required no creativity from the scriptwriter. I am quite capable of enjoying a well-crafted "mood" film, I don't always require a deep plot. I don't require a film to be happy happy to call it a good or great film. But that this is heralded as a great film puzzles me to no end. I was bored after twenty minutes (when I realized nothing much was going to happen but women getting naked for cash) and was glad when it ended. I apologize for being so blunt, but I wanted to see at least one negative review posted here so that naive souls wouldn't spend their money buying the DVD assuming that all those glowing reviews meant a sure winner. If you must see it, rent it first, do not purchase. If your local establishment doesn't have it, the Internet-based DVD rental businesses do.

Rating:
Summary: a great film for little money
Review: I believe someone complained about this film being full screen, but I'm pretty sure that's the original aspect ratio. I have to give a hand to Fox Lorber. Although Criterion does the best with older films, at least they have made these great films available on DVD at LOW prices! Where I live there are no decent video stores, so if I want to see something like this I have to buy it.
Now about the film.......the cinematography is beautiful.........and it doesn't hurt that it's main subject is Anna Karina.....i love it when she does 'itsy bitsy spider' to find out her height, and the editing in the cafe when the gun shots are fired & just about everytime she smiles......this was the first time I laid eyes on her *heart beats* ..now i want to see A Woman is a Woman badly.......the word is Criterion will release it this year.....yippee!!

Rating:
Summary: Another masterpiece from Godard...
Review: I cannot recommend this movie enthusiastically enough. Anna Karina, as in all of her collaborations with Godard, is excellent as Nana, and the storytelling is simple, stark, and affecting. But I have to disagree with one of the other reviewers who says that Godard hasn't had many triumphs. I think most (underlining "most"--meaning definitely not all) of his films are engaging, challenging, innovative, and technically experimental. In my opinion, he ranks with Bergman and Fellini as the best of cinema's directors.

Rating:
Summary: The film gets FIVE
Review: I give this DVD FOUR stars only because the transfer could have been better. With older films, especially foreign ones, the time and cost of providing a great transfer is too much unfortunately.

This an amazing and powerful film that should be owned if you are a fan of Godard or of the French New Wave. For those who have not seen it and are looking for advice, I say: be cautious. This film is not for everyone, especially if you gravitate toward mainstream films. Don't expect Julia Roberts and Richard Gere.

The French New Wave era brought out a new kind of filmmaking. The films abandoned and sometimes appropriated traditional methods of narrative and formal esthetics, and used this technique as a critique of sorts. Vivre sa vie is no exception. Jean-Luc Godard made a film that requires something more from the viewer than just their attention span. The fairly simple plot of Vivre sa vie is expanded and turned around by various formal aspects of filmmaking made famous by French New Wave directors. Jump cuts, long takes, deep focus and slow pans are cornerstones of The French New Wave, but my interest lays with Vivre sa vie functions as a text, rather than a traditional narrative. By text, I mean that the film has a greater social theme and works more as an essay rather than a film¡Xsomething needed to be read.

Simply put, Vivre sa vie tells a story of a woman that leaves her husband and son, wants to get into the movies, ends up becoming a prostitute, falls in love, then wants to get out of the business. But there is so much more to the film and what is needed is your participation. Participation here, involves much more than a warm body and open eyes. Godard is using the narrative and formal techniques to tell something more about the social predicament of prostitutes and perhaps women in general. He accomplishes this by using very untraditional film techniques that enhances this film to a textual level.

When speaking of text, the notion of ¡§reading¡¨ is implied. The viewer needs to ¡§read¡¨ the scene, rather than just watch. Reading requires the viewer to make connections and draw conclusions from the juxtaposition of the words and images, and not just be told or shown what is really ¡§meaningful.¡¨

Watch the 12th chapter (The young man again¡Xthe oval portrait¡XRaoul sells Nana) when the young man reads the Poe story to Nana. I think that really captures the essence of the film.

Again, just because people think that this film is great, powerful and groundbreaking, doesn't mean that you will enjoy it. Be realistic.

Rating:
Summary: Essential viewing for anyone with any interest in film...
Review: I keep coming back to Godard. What can I do, he's one of the greatest filmmakers of all time, and everything he made in the 60's with Anna Karina (his then wife) is absolutely amazing. I'm not using the word amazing loosely here either...this film in particular fills one with awe. It's style borrows something from Dreyer's "The Passion of Joan of Arc" (which Nana watches in this film) although not in a direct way. It is completely unique, original, and highly inventive filmmaking, using a number of cinematic tricks and devices that Godard was so enthusiastic about playing with. Here, they all work. I cannot recommend this movie highly enough. It is beautiful.

Rating:
Summary: I love this movie
Review: I saw this movie first time when I was living in Japan. I went to see this movie 3 times.I was expecting another Godard's movies like ambigious french movies. In fact, I was impressed the scean Nana was questioning about the meaning of "talking" with philosopher. "Peple make mistakes and errors when they communicate with others but through doing that many times people learn how to tell the things they really want to tell honestlly."

Rating:
Summary: One of the best films I have ever seen
Review: I watched this film in a theater full of people who did not like this film. They were loud, obnoxious, and groaned at the ending. I am embarassed and appalled to say that this was during a screening session at the film school I currently attend. I personally found this to be one of the most amazing films I have ever seen, and because of this was devestated: it was the film that I have always wanted to make, and now will never be able to without seeming like a pale imitation.

As soon as the word "FIN" came up on the screen, complaints were flying at the screen. My fellow students lammented either about how the ending was "contrived" or "too rediculously sad." It is my very strongly held opinion that they missed the entire point of this film. This film was not about the ending. This film was not even about the "plot." This film is about the human connections that we make and the human connections that we fail to make. It is about conversation at its most banal and at its most liberating (sometimes seperated by mere words). It is about life, it is about morality, and it is about filmmaking.

Although the silouette shots that compose the flawless opening credits sequence are beautiful, they are immidiately outdone by the cinematography of the first conversation of the film. This is a conversation with opposing motivations. The two people "engaged" in it (I use this term in the loosest sense) are not connecting with each other, and, indeed, only seem passively interested in each other.

YOU DO NOT HAVE TO HEAR A SINGLE WORD OF THIS CONVERSATION TO UNDERSTAND IT.

Granted, the words shared are spectacular, and their performance is even better (amazing considering the lines were given to the performers only a few short moments before the camera began rolling) - especially the moment in which a phrase is uttered several times just to explore its different potential meanings. But the words are utterly superfluous - the visual language is all that one needs to take in. Every shot is of the back of the performers' heads. We do not see their faces. They are expressionless. They are ciphers. Their conversation is tossed off, it does not even connect on a surface level. We not only never see their faces, but also never even see them in the same frame. It is disconnection and discontentment completely and utterly represented on purely visual terms.

Needless to say, the amazing camerawork continues throughout the film to the point where it would be impossible to analyse it all (not to say that my previous comments were analyzation - you'd need to write at least a 10 page essay just to approximate what the first sequence illustrates effortlessly), so just watch the film yourself, take it in, and enjoy it.

May I suggest that if you do not enjoy the film the first time (as my fellow students certainly did not), try to focus on other aspects of it. There are a tremendous number of layers to this film, and any one element of it demands a viewing of its own. If you still can't wring any enjoyment out of it, well, then, I'm terribly sorry. You're missing a wonderful experience.