Rating: 
Summary: Deconstructionism
Review: Deconstructionism. The subject of the film is the film itself. The directors, the music and the plot of this film are disclosed in the exposition section. One of Godard's best film. Personally, this is my favorate film made by Godard.
Rating:
Summary: One of Godards Watchable Films
Review: Godard has high ideas about cinema but the fact is that ideas alone are not that entertaining. Some of his films are a lot more entertaining than others though. In the entertaining and watchable category I would name Breathless, Alphaville, Pierrot Le Fou, and First Name:Carmen. I have not seen all of his films but these I find to be not only brainy films but entertaining ones as well. I think my favorites are Breathless and Pierrot Le Fou because Belmondo provides the perfect earthen foil for Godardian discourse. I think Breathless and Pierrot le Fou work best of all of his films because of these two distinct but complimentary sensibilities. We watch movies to be entertained after all and in these two films you are entertained; your brain is entertained thanks to Godard and the rest of you is entertained by Belmondo. First Name:Carmen is very much like Pierrot Le Fou in that it seems to be in constant rebellion against itself-- it is all a chaos as Godard likes it and yet there is also within the chaos a discernible and satisfying Godardian discourse which develops magically as well. Godard like all the other New Wavers loves genre films and no matter how much he may make fun of the cinematic devices used by old Hollywood he also loves them and so his parodies of old Hollywood noirs and thrillers are also homages. They are fun to watch because we as filmgoers know all the Hollywood cliches but we enjoy them nonetheless even as we make fun of them. Godard wants to constantly remind us that we are watching a film not reality but he is best when he does this in an entertaining way. We are all familiar with Godards techniques -- we have assimilated his style and his brand of discourse -- however his irreverence and his searching among the detritus of modernism for a genuine contact with life (if not his politics) remain as relevant as ever. The failure of the political aspect of his career is perhaps what Godard is lamenting in Carmen. He wanted to be a revolutionary but in the end he has to accept that he is just a film maker. Godard is best when he is inspired by a muse and Marushka Detmers looks like she just walked off a 1940's film noir set. I suspect Detmers smoldering good looks as much as anything else got Godard excited about film again. All revolutionaries mellow with time and here Godard is touchingly leaving the political behind and returning to his original love, film. I enjoy Godard when he seems to be enjoying himself and he seems to be enjoying himself in this film as he did in Pierrot Le Fou. Of course it is Godard so you will be thinking rigorously throughout about "reality" and how adept film is at avoiding it and how good Godard is at manipulating the cinematic language for his own ends. Lurking within the chaotic plot are those deep Godardian discoveries you expect when watching one of his films and that make them(the best ones) more than worth your while.
Rating:
Summary: One of Godards Watchable Films
Review: Godard has high ideas about cinema but the fact is that ideas alone are not that entertaining. Some of his films are a lot more entertaining than others though. In the entertaining and watchable category I would name Breathless, Alphaville, Pierrot Le Fou, and First Name:Carmen. I have not seen all of his films but these I find to be not only brainy films but entertaining ones as well. I think my favorites are Breathless and Pierrot Le Fou because Belmondo provides the perfect earthen foil for Godardian discourse. I think Breathless and Pierrot le Fou work best of all of his films because of these two distinct but complimentary sensibilities. We watch movies to be entertained after all and in these two films you are entertained; your brain is entertained thanks to Godard and the rest of you is entertained by Belmondo. First Name:Carmen is very much like Pierrot Le Fou in that it seems to be in constant rebellion against itself-- it is all a chaos as Godard likes it and yet there is also within the chaos a discernible and satisfying Godardian discourse which develops magically as well. Godard like all the other New Wavers loves genre films and no matter how much he may make fun of the cinematic devices used by old Hollywood he also loves them and so his parodies of old Hollywood noirs and thrillers are also homages. They are fun to watch because we as filmgoers know all the Hollywood cliches but we enjoy them nonetheless even as we make fun of them. Godard wants to constantly remind us that we are watching a film not reality but he is best when he does this in an entertaining way. We are all familiar with Godards techniques -- we have assimilated his style and his brand of discourse -- however his irreverence and his searching among the detritus of modernism for a genuine contact with life (if not his politics) remain as relevant as ever. The failure of the political aspect of his career is perhaps what Godard is lamenting in Carmen. He wanted to be a revolutionary but in the end he has to accept that he is just a film maker. Godard is best when he is inspired by a muse and Marushka Detmers looks like she just walked off a 1940's film noir set. I suspect Detmers smoldering good looks as much as anything else got Godard excited about film again. All revolutionaries mellow with time and here Godard is touchingly leaving the political behind and returning to his original love, film. I enjoy Godard when he seems to be enjoying himself and he seems to be enjoying himself in this film as he did in Pierrot Le Fou. Of course it is Godard so you will be thinking rigorously throughout about "reality" and how adept film is at avoiding it and how good Godard is at manipulating the cinematic language for his own ends. Lurking within the chaotic plot are those deep Godardian discoveries you expect when watching one of his films and that make them(the best ones) more than worth your while.
Rating: 
Summary: First Name: Carmen
Review: Godard shows the confidence of his filmmaking by being completely indifferent. The plotline and characters are so befuddled that you can't imagine anyone else having the guts to make it. The lack of energy is sometimes irratating, but you can't look away; it's like an understated Joycean dream sequence.
Rating:
Summary: First Name: Carmen
Review: Godard shows the confidence of his filmmaking by being completely indifferent. The plotline and characters are so befuddled that you can't imagine anyone else having the guts to make it. The lack of energy is sometimes irratating, but you can't look away; it's like an understated Joycean dream sequence.
Rating: 
Summary: Carmen as karma
Review: godard... his films are like zen koans, riddles. like the one about if a tree falls in a forest with no one around, did a tree fall? or what is the sound of one hand clapping?
godard has been compared with brecht but i wonder if his cinema is closer to cubism. numero deux, for example, has godard looking sideways into a videocamera which reprocesses the image on a tv screen staring at us. like cubist painting, perspectives are multiple, with no fixed vantage point. perhaps godard is saying between godard and the viewer there are a gazillion obstacles and barriers that we just don't realize because we stare at a screen thinking godard is communicating with us when in fact, he doesn't know what we are and we don't really know what he is and he doesn't know for what purpose we'll watch his films, when and under what conditions. godard won't talk to us directly. that video set up scene pretty much summarizes godard's entire latter day output. his subversions folded into further subversions have turned into near pure abstractions. take the dialogue in first name carmen. it's not people talking but some kind of... collective subconscious? is godard saying that beneath consciousness we all have this sublayer of poetry and philsophy? that what godard's tapping into is not people as they think they are but as they might be 'thinking' under their conscious veneer?
Why doesn't godard just speak to us straight? why not let actors play definite characters? perhaps, godard is playing a role like one of those angels in wings of desire, cruising thru the subterreanean world of the consciousness, holding a sparkler to illume the treasures within us, stored or lost in our memory corridors, like an underground radical of the area between subconscious and consciousness, perhaps the last place in the world unmapped by cold science or uncorrupted into kneejerk reaction by the cultural/ideological/economic monopoly.
Rating:
Summary: Creative, daring, and imaginative work of genius
Review: Goddard's unique stlye for scene cuts is at its supreme best in this film. The movie flows lightly within a comic atmosphere but maintains it power and grace. Another great feature of this film is the riviting score taken from none other than Beethoven.
Rating:
Summary: Regarding the aspect ratio
Review: In response to one of the amazon reviewers, the correct aspect ratio for "First Name: Carmen" is 1.33:1. As proof, you can see the reel markers while watching the DVD. Thus, while the film might have been "window boxed" to absolutely contain all the edges, a full frame format is adequate and "normal" for films in this ratio. Almost all of Godard's feature films from "Passion" onward can be formatted correctly in the same ratio. "King Lear" and "For Ever Mozart" were soft-matted, meaning they could be projected at 1.85:1 and 1.66:1, respectively, in theatre screenings while matting part of the image in the projector gate. For example, the out-of-print, Cinematheque Collection VHS tape of "King Lear," which is full frame, contains more of the image at the top than a theatrical presentation does.
Rating:
Summary: Regarding the aspect ratio
Review: In response to one of the amazon reviewers, the correct aspect ratio for "First Name: Carmen" is 1.33:1. As proof, you can see the reel markers while watching the DVD. Thus, while the film might have been "window boxed" to absolutely contain all the edges, a full frame format is adequate and "normal" for films in this ratio. Almost all of Godard's feature films from "Passion" onward can be formatted correctly in the same ratio. "King Lear" and "For Ever Mozart" were soft-matted, meaning they could be projected at 1.85:1 and 1.66:1, respectively, in theatre screenings while matting part of the image in the projector gate. For example, the out-of-print, Cinematheque Collection VHS tape of "King Lear," which is full frame, contains more of the image at the top than a theatrical presentation does.
Rating:
Summary: An extraordinary film...Godard returns to his roots.
Review: It's certainly true what the other reviewers of this DVD have been saying: it -isn't- widescreen like it says it is. This is dissapointing, but it still looks and sounds somewhat better than the previous video release of the film. And it is a very good movie anyhow. His 1979 picture, "Slow Motion" is generally considered Godard's return to his New Wave roots, but I don't really agree. I think that it's found in this film, in which Godard once again plays with the construction of narrative form like he did in the 60's. The style of this film and those films is similar, whereas much of his later work is extremely dense and cerebral. I'm not disparaging those pictures; I love many of them. But I find that most people tend to love his older stuff and avoid his later stuff...so I'm saying that this film would probably make fans of the older films quite happy. It makes remarkable use of Beethoven's music as performed by a string quartet that we see rehearsing on camera (see, this is the kind of stuff you expect from Godard, right?) as well as a great Tom Waits song, "Ruby's Arms".
| 
