I am josh polonski's brother

Anybody know where this film might be available for purchase? I've gone over the M2K site a couple of times, but my french isn't so hot and I'm wondering if there's a way I can order it.

For that matter, has anybody seen it?

That reminds me:

I've also been looking for Martin Scorsese's "italianamerican", the VHS version that has "The Big Shave" included, as well as any of his other early shorts. Anybody have these in their collection?

You can't purchase it for the moment ,it's actually in all MK2 theaters .
matt

Oh, good: then there is still a chance it might be released theatrically here.

Why not ,but it would be very suprising : very very few french movies are import in USA ...
matt

Well, very few are imported that end up showing in the same Cineplex 4000 as "Dude, where's my talent...?" and the like.
But more than a couple end up in small, three and four screen venues. You just have to track them down (and in my case, drive 60 miles to a decent theatre)...

now i'm confused - i thought josh polonski was an american film...

Sorry ,dogstarman ,I speak without knowing .Just that ,from here (france) ,we're just informed about the "re-done" of our stupidest comedies like "My father ,ce heros" or "true lies" (originaly "la totale" ) .Sometimes I just find strange that the most famous french filmmaker is Jean Luc Godard when almost nobody has seen his movies ( maybe except the commercial "A bout de souffle " )...

Redrice : Josh Polonski is a french movie shoot in NYC with american actors

Matt

You forgot The Messenger, which nobody saw.

Anyway, my big problem with Godard is his editing style and pacing. This is what I was talking about when I mentioned Martin Scorsese and Goodfellas. You know how Goodfellas kind of jumps around (Casino, as well), first you're here, then you're there... the freezeframes, where everything stops and Henry Hill says "OK, now this guy gets killed, but I'm gonna' tell you about this now...". If you watch something like Breathless, Godard is really using these tactics in their infancy. He's using a lot of jump cuts, and voice-over, and he is breaking up the film into almost little vignetees (Like in Masculine/ Feminine, he actually devides the film into numbered "chapters", marked with #'ed title cards that look like round cards in a boxing match...)
The problem I have with Godard is that- while with Scorsese, these tactics all come together to give you a rounded understanding of the characters and story (there's not much of a plot)- Godard seems to get lost in his own tangle of unconnected scenes that don't really go anywhere. I mean, most of his films have plots (sort of) but alot of his films center (like Tarantino's) on dialog rather than action, and alot of that dialog doesn't move the story AT ALL. So you have these scenes of dialog that often come out roughly hacked together, and the plot seems to get lost in the mess. I was reading something once- might have been Godard on Godard or something similar- where he said that his original cut of Breathless (his first feature not self financed) was something like 165 minutes, or something close to that. The released version of the film runs like 93 minutes or something. Anyway, he said in order to get the running length down, he just started randomly cutting out things (he may have been lying, he did that a lot). Maybe I'm crazy, but if you can "randomly cut" 75 minutes out of your film, if 75 minutes of it is expendable, and it doesn't radicallly effect the structure, then I have to ask myself if any of it is of any value...

Just my thoughts

[This message has been edited by dogstarman (edited August 08, 2001).]

Speaking of Godard and Scorsese:

Scorsese's fisrt feature, Who's That Knocking At My Door, bears a LOT of resemblence to Godard's early films (like Breathless), but I think it's much better. Both films were shot on B&W 35mm, both have a very "raw", unpolished feel to them, and both have technical flaws that seperate them from "studio" productions (Godard's has less, but he had more and better editing equpment to play with). Scorsese's film just seems more honest and personal, while the characters in Breathless are VERY flat and unfathomable.

well, now we're completely OT, let's stay there a little while...

i used to find godard's early films difficult to connect with, even though i loved the later ones when i first saw them in my teens (passion, first name carmen, hail mary, etc).
then last year, i saw la chinoise in a cinema (a rare opportunity), and i was blown away.
i think that going to a godard film expecting characters you can empathise with and a plot you can care about is the wrong attitude. his films are essays, which fragments of human lives stuck into them like pictures in a scrap book. his films are also completely 'alienated' in the brechtian sense - we 're always watching the actors as much or more than the characters, and the whole style is meant to break down the illusion of 'realism'.
his worst films are very tedious; but his best films are extraordinary poetic collages of dissonant, discordant material, both sounds and images. and they're not just about form: there's a real tenderness and respect for human beings running through them, which i find much more affecting than anything in scorcese (who is a fabulous showman now, but little more).

if you can readjust your expectations, there's a lot of pleasure to be had in godard.

favourite godard quotes:

"every film should have a beginning, a middle and an end, but not necessarily in that order."
"every film is in part a documentary about the conditions in which it was produced."

peter

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dogstarman:
You forgot The Messenger, which nobody saw.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I forgot he made that one. But I haven't seen it either.

From what dostar and Peter have said, I'll have to at least check him out. I've always liked Tarantino and Scorsese's stuff. And if its like Pulp fiction, then I'll probably love it.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by redrice:
"every film should have a beginning, a middle and an end, but not necessarily in that order."
peter<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've definitely heard this one somewhere before. Good quote.

Scott

Which Goddard film should I start off with?

[This message has been edited by ulrichsd (edited August 08, 2001).]

Oh no, I rarely watch a film expecting to find characters I can empathize with and a plot I can care about.

That's why my favorite movies are, you know... Gone In 60 Seconds, Hollow Man, anything with Sylvester Stalone in it...

"...in the brechtian sense..."??? Man, when was the last time you sat down and watched a film because it was GOOD? I could say that Kubrick tried to break down the "illusion of realism", but if his films were shit, I'd still say they were shit...

As far as your claim that Scorsese is merely a "fabulous showman"... you've obviously never sat down and watched films like "italianamerican" and Raging Bull. Added to that, Scorsese has done more to champion filmmaking, preservation, american cinema and european cinema (INCLUDING GODARD) than anybody for the last 25 years. Godard is hiding in a basement somewhere, making videos of his television set, and ashtray...his television... an ashtray...

Sorry, if you find his films meaningful and important, thats fine. But your comment about Scorsese is just wrong and uninformed, and your appology for Godard's work based on the premise that films shouldn't have a plot or engaging characters is, in my opinion, completely misguided...

Skip Godard. Watch Truffaut's "The 400 Blows" instead...

Actually, I'd say that at this point, the best example most people here get to see of french filmmaking is Luc Besson's films- but they're never in french!

You're right though, Godard is often praised and cited, and rarely if ever watched. Breathless is a good example. However, after many years of being a fan of his films, I came to the realization that while his style and techniques are powerful in the hands of a master like Scorsese (hey, Goodfellas twice in 24 hours...), Godard's films themselves are just amazingly tedious to watch. Like Alphaville... ouch.

Also, watching some Godard films remind me of watching Pulp Fiction... ick.

A lot of people have seen "La Femme Nakita", it was popular enough that we've (the US) made a remade version of it (Point of No Return) and a television series (Nakita).

And I think Leon was a lot more popular overseas than it was here. (Released as "The Professional", same movie different title). I liked "The Fifth Element" although I'm sure there are a fair amount of people that didn't.

Anyway, I've never seen Godard's work and I was wondering if what people consider his best work. The only thing I know about him is his comments about Spielburg.

Scott

Wait.

I have to take back some of the things I said to redrice. I only just now noticed that you are from Belgium. If you are in fact a native Belgian, my mistake. Let me explain.

My initial (misguided) impression was that you were american or british. Your syntax is perfect. Anyway, I think you would agree with me that Godard is a very Eurocentric director, and that the term francophile very much applies to him. On the other hand, Scorsese is a VERY american director, and more than that, a very New York sicilian director. My point is that I accused you of not appreciating Scorsese's films as anything more than entertainment. The fact is that much of the subtext in Scorsese's films is distinctly AMERICAN, and a lot of that might very well be lost for a person who doesn't live in america, especially if they weren't raised in america. That "scrapbook" metaphor you used: that is very much how I see Scorsese's films, but unless you are familiar with some of the idiosyncrasies of american life and american mentality, they may not mean anything. By the same token, I probably don't appreciate- because I don't understand- a lot of the subtle aspects of Godard, because I'm not French and I am unfamiliar with that veiw of life. I hope you would agree with me that americans and europeans (inclusively) have very different philosophies. We just look at things differently.

I mistakenly assumed we were from the same cultural background (in the broad sense). My sincere apologies.

However, if you are an expatriated american, you are still completely bonkers...