Letter to Jane: An Investigation About a Still (1972) watch online HD

Godard and Gorin's collaboration LETTER TO JANE, a follow-up to their relatively more conventional TOUT VA BIEN (1972), is pretty much impossible to see these days, except in film school. Unsurprisingly, there's not much demand for it.

The viewer sees a series of still pictures, accompanied by narration by Godard and Gorin in heavily-accented English. The photo that keeps returning to view is one of Jane Fonda listening to Viet Cong members during her infamous visit to Hanoi. Fonda was the star of TOUT VA BIEN, and Godard and Gorin predictably criticize her for not being "radical" _enough_ in her activism-- the opposite of what the many haters of "Hanoi Jane" say. G & G analyze that and other photos of Fonda and other people, using trendy French theories of semiotics.

Ironically, the two philosophers criticize Fonda's thoughtful facade as reinforcing evil Cartesian thinking-centered philosophy-- all the while speaking of subjects they themselves _thought_ about a lot, and presenting this analysis as important. Being Maoists, of course, they want to validate revolutionary _action_.

If you're interested in conceptual art, like I, you will probably appreciate LETTER TO JANE, even if you disagree with the politics. Others will never see it, anyway. A novel format-- philosophizing-over-still-pictures is certainly unique in film history. However, as with TIMECODE, I wouldn't want every film to be like this-- especially with such dubious politics.

The narration itself is also quite amusing, for those who find bad English funny.

One can't help but wonder if parlor socialist (or is it Calvinist? Maoist?) JL Godard decided to bite the hand that fed him on TOUT VA BIEN. He (and crony JP Gorin) dissect a photo of Jane Fonda taken during her ill-advised, ill-timed, and ill-conceived visit to Vietnam and come to the conclusion that the world had reached a real milestone when the photo of an ACTRESS entrenched in such politics can cause such furor on both the right AND left side. But so what? What are these two trying to prove and what has motivated them to arrogantly decide that an open (albiet filmed) letter to Jane Fonda was a.) warranted and b.) of interest to absolutely anyone? It's unlikely that Godard and co. would have been able to raise the money to make TOUT VA BIEN without the cooperation of both Fonda and Yves Montand and frankly the world of cinema would not have been worse off without either that or THIS particular Godard bore. Sometimes all is well without some art.

Godard and J.P. Gorin's hourlong essay on the star of their previous movie--a reflection on a photograph of Jane Fonda among the North Vietnamese. If I recall correctly, Pauline Kael found this movie aestheticized and repugnant; I find it aestheticized and beautiful. Godard's Marxist period now does feel dilettantish, chosen (to quote John Gielgud in a bad spy movie) as "an aesthetic decision more than anything else." But his dilettanterie feels like a grasp through the veil of form--which Godard, in rending it, mastered utterly--toward some fundamental truth about being human. He ultimately found it in the transcendental-poetic, Wallace Stevensish cosmos of his difficult "late" films; but am I the only person who finds this "didactic," "agitprop" period of Godard among his most beautiful work?

It came as quite a surprise to me to realise that I had until recently never actually seen this much-discussed polemic from Godard's radical phase. The fact that the commentary was delivered by Godard himself and Jean-Pierre Gorin in English was another surprise, as I had no idea that Godard spoke English.

As the film progressed I became angrier and angrier at the fact that Godard & Gorin never drew back to let us see the whole photograph for ourselves. Early on in the film (before we've had time to get our bearings), a slightly fuller version of the picture appears as part of the original 'L'Express' article in which it appeared; so we know that the picture extends further than Godard & Gorin subsequently permit us to see - but we never see the picture in anything approaching its entirety ever again. Instead Godard & Gorin show us only what they want us to see, while on the soundtrack they didactically ramble on and on; mercilessly bludgeoning the audience with egregious digressions, non sequiturs and name-dropping. It's as if some officious bore were sitting opposite you holding an 8 by 10 copy of the original picture which they insist on describing to you in great but selective detail; but every time you try to get it off them so you can have a look at it for yourself pulls away and never lets you have it.

This sort of stunt might have worked during the seventies when you were seated in a cinema and couldn't replay any of the film on DVD or YouTube. But thanks to the internet, as soon as I got home after the screening I was able to immediately look up the full uncropped picture on Google Images; and the enormity of Godard & Gorin's offense was revealed. Godard & Gorin go on and on AND ON in a wildly speculative fashion (confident assertions beginning "In fact" or "We couldn't help observing" or "We have proved" rubbing shoulders with frequent caveats like "We think" and "In our opinion") about the man in the white shirt in the background with his face grainily blown up to show only him; and yet almost completely ignore the man in the pith helmet in the foreground that Fonda is actually concentrating upon. Furthermore, nobody watching 'Letter to Jane' ever sees that on the right of the original photograph there is in fact another woman listening; and only at the beginning of the film can we see that Fonda is holding a camera.

So it's a bit rich of Godard & Gorin to sanctimoniously accuse 'L'Express' of deliberate lying and manipulation while they themselves are throughout wilfully withholding information from the viewer

A one-hour deconstruction of a photograph. Jean-Luc Godard's accent is

probably the most interesting part of this film. It's only an hour, and thus much easier to sit through than most of his work from this period.

i was 39 minutes into the movie (when it's this boring, you keep time ya know) and fastfowarded it to the end with a picture of nixon and more talking and talking (i hardly see this as a spoiler as this film has absolutely no plot!) maybe i would get something out of it if i watched it right after tu va bein. after all, it is verbal extension of tu va bein. when i watched it, i thought, this film must have been thought to be a good idea at the time to godard. all caught up in politics, semiotics and idealogy. very exciting for him. he must of felt he was doing something great. i'm not being sarcastic here. i realize that there was a time in france where being political and subversive was really exciting and such. but watching it 20 odd years after its made, it probably ain't much value to those who weren't there at the time..or if you weren't one of the film-makers. it's a verbal essay at its most boring level set to images for 50 minutes. that's all you need to know. a curiousity at best for those who either want a godard endurance test or for those who want to see every film godard has made...if that's poissible at all.

remember to watch this godard film all the way through to get its full effect. don't be a jerk and cop out on it. that's too easy. commit yourself to this film. it's greatly rewarding. sometimes the screen is totally blank (black) for fairly long stretches. the political polemic may or may not be suited to your own point of view. whichever the case, it is a brave and totally unique film. there is no other that has a look and feel quite like it. i might say that it's my favorite godard film (it certainly is his purest), but that would be too easy. i like most of his films for very different reasons. just don't be afraid of this one. and watch it in a darkened room!

• bobby cormier