Eleven o’clock in the night review – Author: ProfessorX

Rating: 5/5

Bored with the monotony of everyday life, Piero Griffon (Jean-Paul Belmondo) and his former lover Marianne Renoir (Anna Karina) decide to travel to the south of France. On the way there, they keep their heads above the water with minor offenses. An incident occurred with two gangsters pursuing Marianne. The couple broke up and after Piero met Marianne again, she had a new lover.

Consumption sooner or later makes the individual weary of capitalism. Humans reach the limits of what is considered impossible, playing gods that might actually be, depending on the interpretation. Transhumanism is perhaps the most important form of infinity because it knows no rules. The same is true of cinema. But while in the case of the first case, one might question whether the limits also at some point question imperfect existence, one longs for unlimited freedom in cinema. The voyeuristic aspect of cinema allows its viewers to disappear into other worlds and sometimes artists press their fingers on the body when they try to interpret and moralize their work themselves by penetrating the fourth wall. eleven o’clock at night It is a movie whose characters deviate from the subjective perception of reality. They philosophize about the unfairness of life, as most humans have already done. Godard does this very cleverly by telling us the facts in order to slowly but surely reveal his messy duo. Circumstances aren’t perfect, and things that are meant to distract from that reality are really only what drives the characters to face the problem.

Now this movie is actually typical of Godard, as the characters in the story are almost thrown in by some chance, and life just happens in the process. This is a stylistic device that is very popular in films because it allows you to shoot absolutely freely and at the same time dares to get close to reality. However, in this respect, he is also typical of Godard, because it was also his first movie breathless (1960) onwards weekend (1967) tells of a life that one cannot completely believe. But it is always possible to keep the spectator on the ball, because anticipating the unknown knows how to catch the ball. Getting to know the characters through the scenes becomes the reunion of an old affair in this work, leaving a number of things that are likely to be determined indefinitely in today’s cinema, which is why the film quickly focuses on the essentials, or on what interests the viewer truly. There’s a meta concept somewhere at play here, because of course the absurd story quickly leads to a supposed moral dilemma. indeed eleven o’clock at night He also pairs his story with some clever breaks and jokes. For this reason at least, the film escapes common moral precepts and remains more free to interpret it. Above all, it’s the antithesis of popular films, because this work focuses on totally alien opposites and gives the characters the freedom they need. And soon they fell into completely chaotic ideas and the idea of ​​a clever crime amounting to pure exploitation. They use tricks first, not violence. It is probably in contrast to the promotion of the war in Vietnam. But this shouldn’t last long, and then again the morals the characters can’t live up to. It also shows how creative people are when it comes to their lives.

It remains unclear for a long time where the characters want to go at all. The interesting thing about these road movies are usually the landscapes and places, which, as in a classic epic, are supposed to explain the change in characters. But here, too, there is little change, and when there is, it only leads to more chaos. The radicalism with which Godard wants to escape from the common cliché here can sometimes be taken as artificial. But it is not. eleven o’clock at night It presents a wonderful love story, which its main actors raised above all from the ordinary. Due to the fact that the movie also offers so many different genres, it is difficult to classify it as a simple road movie, romance movie, action movie or drama. The film firmly defends itself against this, and the characters are ultimately subject to the constant change of their desires, which can be seen above all in Anna Karina Marianne Renoir. When it comes to Ferdinand Griffon, he keeps asking Marianne to call him Piero. This is of course for camouflage, to hide the trail of destruction behind them. However, it does raise a question that you can, of course, ask yourself endlessly. Identity is largely determined by name. Are you who you are, or are you what you say you are. It is the parts of existence that make perfection. And what may seem a little idyllic here is certainly a question at work, pushed further up the front by public discontent. who are you? Who are you in this world? How can you make a bleak life special?

These are all questions that come eleven o’clock at night Requests. And the destination is not clear, it’s kind of sun and kind of sea. So it must be a holiday. But this one also has a double bottom here, which should be a little longer. In fact, it is not absurd to think of the vacation you buy with your hard-earned money as an escape from reality. Similar to what you would say about reading, books or the news. Because reality is only shaped by our own environment. So, of course, it’s a cliché that the characters are in a cozy place by the sea. But escaping to this traditional paradise turns out to be a huge problem for these characters. Because it makes you sick. They sacrificed all their money to get there and can’t comprehend the supposed beauty that stems from this place because they are related to how dependent they are on capital. Herein lies one of the greatest truths in life, which one keeps reminding oneself of. Whether it is voluntary or involuntary is irrelevant. So the beauty is unreal and this causes the characters to go from one structure they wanted to escape to the next, which they also want to escape again. Therefore, a cycle is shown here.

Of course this has been commented on. But how this is interpreted ultimately depends on what is being shown. Because you are never sure if you can believe what the characters are saying. This existential crisis of the characters inevitably leads to them asking themselves what they actually represent to each other. Not in a direct confrontation, this requires a lot of honesty from Ferdinand and Marianne. But by breaking through the fourth wall. This means that dialogue is already required with the viewer. It’s like a conversation and you should think about it. As a result, the characters naturally become acquainted on the one hand, because they know the truth of the meta-level, and on the other hand, the viewers are thrown into the action. Geopolitical issues such as the Vietnam War play a natural role here. But the actual decline was not initially war and the resulting death. It has more to do with the fact that this anti-system love also ends because there is no clear purpose or meaning. The lack of understanding of the other grows and grows, because none of them knows what is going on in the other. On the other hand, the Vietnam War is clearly brought to the fore by an odd-looking play. Of course it’s also a very obvious meta level and in this case simple, assuming a drama within a drama. But the core is different here. Soldiers are excited by this curiosity, and it seems unreal, as it were, just like war, especially now the Vietnam War, always seems unreal as a whole.

A stroke of genius looks very subtle and calm. Who sees boredom in endless consumption and thus promotes breakdown and disorder. It is only ideas that connect the characters, and yet Godard manages to give his characters something very human and at the same time very poetic. The images are the same, of course, but they are also timeless because they skillfully play up the basic problems of our world and raise a mirror to the viewer.

eleven o’clock at night classification

Leave a Comment