FOR EVER MOZART - DVD review

Nicole Brenez describes "For Ever Mozart" (1996) as Jean-Luc Godard's "first and only bad film." I'm can't completely agree with her. Godard is a relentless experimenter who has produced his share of failures and flawed works along the way. Even his most ardent supporters can't really argue that some of his more tedious films of the late 60s and early 70s (the films of the Dziga Vertov Group) are anything but an endurance test for even the most patient viewer: "Un film commes les autres" (1968) or "One A.M. (One P.M.)" (1972) anybody? "Comment ca va?" (1978) is no day in the park either. However, Brenez has a point. "For Ever Mozart" is one of Godard's least successful efforts, though, like any Godard film, it is not entirely devoid of interest.

The film is broken into four parts which only nominally fit together. In the first part, a nameless Director torments a series of hopeful actors who he dismisses arbitrarily as they are paraded past him like cattle on the way to the slaughterhouse. This metaphor is continued in the second part when a small troupe of actors travel to Sarajevo to stage a 19th century play by Alfred de Musset. There is a love triangle of sorts between the three leads, Jerome, Camille (describes for no particular reason as Albert Camus' granddaughter), and Camille's sister Rosette. No matter, though, because they are soon taken hostage by Serbian soldiers and, as far as we can tell, are either raped, killed or both.

The third segment breaks sharply with the dramatic events of the former, taking us to a film set as the Director fights both his Producer and his leading lady. The Producer bullies everyone in sight. In one of the film's moments of deadpan humor, the crew stands on a beach looking out at the vast ocean. The producer remains unimpressed: "There's not enough water!" The Director vents his frustrations on his Actress, and forces her to endure dozens of takes until she says the word "Yes" correctly. Stanley Kubrick would have been proud. In the final sequence, a crowd of movie-goers lines up to watch the film (called "For Ever Mozart") but riots when they realize the film has no explosions or nudity. They rush off to see "Terminator 4" instead.

If that sequence sounds confusing, let me assure you that watching the actual film won't clear matters up very much. Godard has long since abandoned any effort to communicate his ideas in a coherent, straightforward manner, but "For Ever Mozart" is more impenetrable than even his typical late-career effort. Godard raises many questions, but poses few answers. This is standard operating procedure for the director, but it's the manner in which he raises the questions that leaves much to be desired.

Staging the Bosnian war as bad theater is ill-considered. Comparing it to the cutthroat competition in the film industry is just insulting. The film does have its moments of mordant humor, but when one of the actresses, about to be raped from behind by a soldier, quips "Oh, the things we have to take up the ass!" the joke falls resoundingly flat.

Nobody comes out smelling like a rose in "For Ever Mozart." Actors, directors, producers, rebels, even movie-goers; everyone is an uncultured fool, an intellectual snob or a cold-blooded killer. Most of them are some combination of the three. The film provides little sense of hope, making for an interesting comparison with Godard's vastly superior "Notre Musique" (2004) which is also set in Sarajevo. In that film, Godard at least offers some reason for optimism; in "For Ever Mozart," he can only express his sense of total helplessness.

Godard has often been accused of aloof, sterile intellectualism. The general consensus: He used to be great, but he just gave up after "Weekend" (1967); now he only speaks to himself. I disagree. Godard has made many of his most exciting and stimulating films in the 1980s and 1990s. I number "Passion" (1982), "King Lear" (1987), "Germany Year 90 Nine Zero" (1991), and "Notre Musique" (2004) among his very best films.

But the charges are accurate when levied against "For Ever Mozart" which seems like little more then intellectual masturbation. There are some lovely images, and, as always, Godard's audio work (esp. the music) is stellar, but the film is cold and uninspiring. The only message Godard conveys, if there is one at all, is that we are all truly rotten bastards. Every Godard film is worth watching, but most others are more worthwhile than this one.

Video

The film is presented in a 16:9 aspect ratio. The picture quality is generally good, though there is just a hint of digital flicker in some scenes.

Audio

The DVD is presented in Dolby Digital stereo. The piercing piano score is crisply recorded, and I didn't detect any other problems with the audio transfer. Optional English subtitles support the French audio.

Extras

None.

Closing Thoughts

I'm not endorsing "For Ever Mozart", but I reserve the right to change my mind at a later date. Godard's films tend to change with repeat viewing, and I have switched my opinion on several of his films (always for the better) after seeing them a second or third time. The first time I saw "Contempt" (1963) I thought it was a hopeless mess; now it's one of my favorite films. Maybe that will happen with "For Ever Mozart" as well. But for now, much like the characters in the film, I'm not holding out much hope.