Cheap My Life to Live (DVD) (Anna Karina, Sady Rebbot) (Jean-Luc Godard) Price
CHEAP-PRICE.NET ’s Cheap Price
$13.48
Here at Cheap-price.net we have My Life to Live at a terrific price. The real-time price may actually be cheaper — click “Buy Now” above to check the live price at Amazon.com.
| ACTORS: | Anna Karina, Sady Rebbot |
| CATEGORY: | DVD |
| DIRECTOR: | Jean-Luc Godard |
| THEATRICAL RELEASE DATE: | 01 January, 1962 |
| MANUFACTURER: | Fox Lorber |
| MPAA RATING: | NR (Not Rated) |
| FEATURES: | Black & White, Widescreen |
| TYPE: | Foreign Film - French |
| MEDIA: | DVD |
| # OF MEDIA: | 1 |
| UPC: | 720917503523 |
Related Products
Customer Reviews of My Life to Live
Essential viewing for anyone with any interest in film... 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.
Goddard's "Other" Masterpiece
Most New Wave fans know "Breathless." It's the film that started it all. Only the "real" New Wave fans know this movie.
But I have to admit, of all the New Wave directors (Truffaut, Chabrol, Malle, Bresson, etc.), Goddard had the fewest triumphs. By 1970, his films had audiences heading for the exits. And today, his video work is almost unwatchable. 1967's "Weekend" was probably his last great film.
In any case, "My Live to Live," is Goddard at his very best. It is a masterpiece. It is a slow, fascinating, cutting-edge cinema experience, that certainly had an influence on future directors such as the great Jim Jarmusch or the inferior Quentin Tarratino. This is one of the greatest little art-house films I have ever seen. The camera work is fluid and creative. The acting is subtle and effective. And the division of the film into 12 chapters is brilliant. Before, I could only see 16MM versions of the film in university lecture halls. But now, this remastered version finally allows me and my psudo-intellectual friends to enjoy this classic whenever we want.
Goddard, the artist, might be over-hyped, but this film is severely underrated! A must see!
One of the best films I have ever seen
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.