Thanks for this info w2w! It’s been so many years since I saw this one I had to dredge up my old review on imdb to see what I thought of it. Apparently I hated it. I don’t know which version I saw but I suspect it was Godard’s because I made no mention of the full song, only short studio clips. But judging from my criticisms of the film, it wouldn’t have made a difference whether the full song was shown or not.

That’s hilarious that he yelled “You’re all fascists!” Like, where did that come from?? In my review I pointed out that Stones fans rioted at the premiere, so if it’s the same night as the punch then I’m sure it was utter chaos and we can’t know the full context of his words.

But imo Godard didn’t understand the lyrical irony in the song (personifying human evil as a suave, seductive “man of wealth and taste”) and instead he tried to marry the song’s concept to the idea of counterculture revolution, which Godard favored in a non-ironic way. He seemed to exalt the Black Panthers’ violence and other base acts of rebellion (vandalism, graffiti) without realizing the Stones song is sarcastically ripping those things.

Either way it sounds like everyone was pissed off at the premiere!

@rooprect said:

Thanks for this info w2w! It’s been so many years since I saw this one I had to dredge up my old review on imdb to see what I thought of it. Apparently I hated it. I don’t know which version I saw but I suspect it was Godard’s because I made no mention of the full song, only short studio clips. But judging from my criticisms of the film, it wouldn’t have made a difference whether the full song was shown or not.

That’s hilarious that he yelled “You’re all fascists!” Like, where did that come from?? In my review I pointed out that Stones fans rioted at the premiere, so if it’s the same night as the punch then I’m sure it was utter chaos and we can’t know the full context of his words.

But imo Godard didn’t understand the lyrical irony in the song (personifying human evil as a suave, seductive “man of wealth and taste”) and instead he tried to marry the song’s concept to the idea of counterculture revolution, which Godard favored in a non-ironic way. He seemed to exalt the Black Panthers’ violence and other base acts of rebellion (vandalism, graffiti) without realizing the Stones song is sarcastically ripping those things.

Either way it sounds like everyone was pissed off at the premiere!

Godard's films are certainly something of an acquired taste. Of this film I prefer the title "One Plus One" because it describes what Godard intended when he made the film. For him film is 'ça plus ça'.

"One Plus One" is Godard's play with radical cuts, alternating between documentary and provocative fiction in the political arena of that era. The Stones fans expected a documentary about their favourite group and not this artistic piece. I don't know if they were unhappy only because of this mix with Quarrier's ending, or Godard's version - if they saw it, because it was then only shown by Godard and not widely available - without the finished song. If it is the latter, that means they couldn't appreciate having to use their own imagination to think of what the song could be and preferred having the Rolling Stones decide for them.

@wonder2wonder said:

@rooprect said:

Thanks for this info w2w! It’s been so many years since I saw this one I had to dredge up my old review on imdb to see what I thought of it. Apparently I hated it. I don’t know which version I saw but I suspect it was Godard’s because I made no mention of the full song, only short studio clips. But judging from my criticisms of the film, it wouldn’t have made a difference whether the full song was shown or not.

That’s hilarious that he yelled “You’re all fascists!” Like, where did that come from?? In my review I pointed out that Stones fans rioted at the premiere, so if it’s the same night as the punch then I’m sure it was utter chaos and we can’t know the full context of his words.

But imo Godard didn’t understand the lyrical irony in the song (personifying human evil as a suave, seductive “man of wealth and taste”) and instead he tried to marry the song’s concept to the idea of counterculture revolution, which Godard favored in a non-ironic way. He seemed to exalt the Black Panthers’ violence and other base acts of rebellion (vandalism, graffiti) without realizing the Stones song is sarcastically ripping those things.

Either way it sounds like everyone was pissed off at the premiere!

Godard's films are certainly something of an acquired taste. Of this film I prefer the title "One Plus One" because it describes what Godard intended when he made the film. For him film is 'ça plus ça'.

"One Plus One" is Godard's play with radical cuts, alternating between documentary and provocative fiction in the political arena of that era. The Stones fans expected a documentary about their favourite group and not this artistic piece. I don't know if they were unhappy only because of this mix with Quarrier's ending, or Godard's version - if they saw it, because it was then only shown by Godard and not widely available - without the finished song. If it is the latter, that means they couldn't appreciate having to use their own imagination to think of what the song could be and preferred having the Rolling Stones decide for them.

I can't speak for the Rolling Stones, but my gripe had nothing to do with its artistic nature; in fact that was, if anything, its saving grace. But my gripe was that it wasn't consistent with its message. Godard seemed to be stretching too far to link footage that was completely disjoint.

From what I've read, that was inevitable given the chaotic production. The original idea was for Godard to film a pro-abortion film in London. But by the time he got there, UK had already passed legislation awarding the pro-abortion movement a decisive win so a pro-abortion film would've been superfluous. So Godard shifted gears and decided to do a film about generic counter-culturalism while filming the Beatles as the mouthpiece. The Beatles refused, so Godard shopped around until he got the Stones.

The Rolling Stones were never a countercultural force, not nearly the way The Beatles were. So already Godard was handicapped on half the equation. Furthermore, without the abortion issue as a central motif, Godard didn't have a strong current to carry the film. He ended up cobbling together disparate pieces which really amounted to distasteful acts of violence and vandalism rather than any cohesive movement. The best he could do was the Black Panthers segment which was just plain offensive (showing abuse of women and random murders, staged I believe). The final nail in the coffin, as I mentioned above, was using the song "Sympathy for the Devil" as the figurative theme. Perhaps it was the language barrier, but I think Godard really failed to grasp the meaning of the lyrics--presenting the downfall of humanity at the hands of a suave, seductive "devil". There is nothing suave or seductive about Godard's approach; he deliberately showed the ugly, offensive side of rebellion.

If I got anything wrong, I'd like to hear what you think. Was there some cohesive motif that I missed? I'm a big fan of artistic films but only if the artist has something to say. I'm not a fan of splattered paint blobs where the onus of responsibility falls on the viewer to discern some meaning. Godard's earlier works, Band of Outsiders, Breathless and one of my fave films Pierrot le Fou have a similar 'random', jarring and sarcastic approach but the episodes all revolve around a coherent statement which is why I love those films. Alphaville is another one I really enjoyed. Come to think of it, this may be the only Godard film I really didn't like.

@rooprect said:

I can't speak for the Rolling Stones, but my gripe had nothing to do with its artistic nature; in fact that was, if anything, its saving grace. But my gripe was that it wasn't consistent with its message. Godard seemed to be stretching too far to link footage that was completely disjoint.

From what I've read, that was inevitable given the chaotic production. The original idea was for Godard to film a pro-abortion film in London. But by the time he got there, UK had already passed legislation awarding the pro-abortion movement a decisive win so a pro-abortion film would've been superfluous. So Godard shifted gears and decided to do a film about generic counter-culturalism while filming the Beatles as the mouthpiece. The Beatles refused, so Godard shopped around until he got the Stones.

The Rolling Stones were never a countercultural force, not nearly the way The Beatles were. So already Godard was handicapped on half the equation. Furthermore, without the abortion issue as a central motif, Godard didn't have a strong current to carry the film. He ended up cobbling together disparate pieces which really amounted to distasteful acts of violence and vandalism rather than any cohesive movement. The best he could do was the Black Panthers segment which was just plain offensive (showing abuse of women and random murders, staged I believe). The final nail in the coffin, as I mentioned above, was using the song "Sympathy for the Devil" as the figurative theme. Perhaps it was the language barrier, but I think Godard really failed to grasp the meaning of the lyrics--presenting the downfall of humanity at the hands of a suave, seductive "devil". There is nothing suave or seductive about Godard's approach; he deliberately showed the ugly, offensive side of rebellion.

If I got anything wrong, I'd like to hear what you think. Was there some cohesive motif that I missed? I'm a big fan of artistic films but only if the artist has something to say. I'm not a fan of splattered paint blobs where the onus of responsibility falls on the viewer to discern some meaning. Godard's earlier works, Band of Outsiders, Breathless and one of my fave films Pierrot le Fou have a similar 'random', jarring and sarcastic approach but the episodes all revolve around a coherent statement which is why I love those films. Alphaville is another one I really enjoyed. Come to think of it, this may be the only Godard film I really didn't like.

Well, this film is also one of my least favourite ones. No one then even seemed to like it, as everyone was criticising it: boring and incomprehensible. Rock music wasn't a 'thing' yet in France, so there the connection with revolution was lost. If social media had existed then, he would have been 'cancelled'. The year 1968 was a very turbulent one and the film seems to reflect just that. Anarchy. Godard was on a break from the May '68 protests in Paris - and all his trouble with critics, financiers and producers - and decided to do this project mixing art, power and revolution. I don't think that Godard was really interested much in the song or its lyrics, just the whole proces of these rock musicians high on drugs, who amidst personal conflicts, managed to create anything at all, and ultimately a song that would become a masterpiece. He didn't want the film to carry the title of the song, because it wasn't only about that. If The Beatles had agreed to him filming them, it could have been any of their songs from 1968 - e.g. "Revolution" or "Hey Jude", or a mix of other songs from their "White Album (1968)" - but it would still not have been shown completed. Godard might have chosen other scenes too, mingling them with the group. The contrast between The Summer of Love and the destruction of all civilised values would have been a shock to the sensitive souls and an awakening to the reality of that era. It was the year that Yoko Ono appeared and interrupted the Lennon-McCartney dynamic collaboration: the beginning of the end of the group. Perhaps Godard should have spoken with Yoko Ono.

@wonder2wonder said:

@rooprect said:

I can't speak for the Rolling Stones, but my gripe had nothing to do with its artistic nature; in fact that was, if anything, its saving grace. But my gripe was that it wasn't consistent with its message. Godard seemed to be stretching too far to link footage that was completely disjoint.

From what I've read, that was inevitable given the chaotic production. The original idea was for Godard to film a pro-abortion film in London. But by the time he got there, UK had already passed legislation awarding the pro-abortion movement a decisive win so a pro-abortion film would've been superfluous. So Godard shifted gears and decided to do a film about generic counter-culturalism while filming the Beatles as the mouthpiece. The Beatles refused, so Godard shopped around until he got the Stones.

The Rolling Stones were never a countercultural force, not nearly the way The Beatles were. So already Godard was handicapped on half the equation. Furthermore, without the abortion issue as a central motif, Godard didn't have a strong current to carry the film. He ended up cobbling together disparate pieces which really amounted to distasteful acts of violence and vandalism rather than any cohesive movement. The best he could do was the Black Panthers segment which was just plain offensive (showing abuse of women and random murders, staged I believe). The final nail in the coffin, as I mentioned above, was using the song "Sympathy for the Devil" as the figurative theme. Perhaps it was the language barrier, but I think Godard really failed to grasp the meaning of the lyrics--presenting the downfall of humanity at the hands of a suave, seductive "devil". There is nothing suave or seductive about Godard's approach; he deliberately showed the ugly, offensive side of rebellion.

If I got anything wrong, I'd like to hear what you think. Was there some cohesive motif that I missed? I'm a big fan of artistic films but only if the artist has something to say. I'm not a fan of splattered paint blobs where the onus of responsibility falls on the viewer to discern some meaning. Godard's earlier works, Band of Outsiders, Breathless and one of my fave films Pierrot le Fou have a similar 'random', jarring and sarcastic approach but the episodes all revolve around a coherent statement which is why I love those films. Alphaville is another one I really enjoyed. Come to think of it, this may be the only Godard film I really didn't like.

Well, this film is also one of my least favourite ones. No one then even seemed to like it, as everyone was criticising it: boring and incomprehensible. Rock music wasn't a 'thing' yet in France, so there the connection with revolution was lost. If social media had existed then, he would have been 'cancelled'. The year 1968 was a very turbulent one and the film seems to reflect just that. Anarchy. Godard was on a break from the May '68 protests in Paris - and all his trouble with critics, financiers and producers - and decided to do this project mixing art, power and revolution. I don't think that Godard was really interested much in the song or its lyrics, just the whole proces of these rock musicians high on drugs, who amidst personal conflicts, managed to create anything at all, and ultimately a song that would become a masterpiece. He didn't want the film to carry the title of the song, because it wasn't only about that. If The Beatles had agreed to him filming them, it could have been any of their songs from 1968 - e.g. "Revolution" or "Hey Jude", or a mix of other songs from their "White Album (1968)" - but it would still not have been shown completed. Godard might have chosen other scenes too, mingling them with the group. The contrast between The Summer of Love and the destruction of all civilised values would have been a shock to the sensitive souls and an awakening to the reality of that era. It was the year that Yoko Ono appeared and interrupted the Lennon-McCartney dynamic collaboration: the beginning of the end of the group. Perhaps Godard should have spoken with Yoko Ono.

lmao If he had worked her into the film then it all would've made perfect sense, seriously!

Good point that rock music itself was the revolution back then. Lyrics notwithstanding, the entire genre was an implicit assault on the norm. I do think the song “Revolution” would’ve been perfect for Godard’s vision (or even better, the incomprehensible, ear-offending “Revolution No. 9”). He doubtlessly intended the film to shock, à la Buñuel’s L’Âge d’Or, to make a point that revolution is shocking.

The (unintended) irony is that the Stones footage in the studio was anything but shocking; it surprised me how disciplined and sober they were throughout the recording process. Maybe if he’d gotten shots of them drunk, high & babbling heady nonsense it would’ve brought the story full circle.

Also, I’m realizing the version I saw was probably the Quarrier cut because the title was in fact “Sympathy for the Devil” which instantly puts emphasis on the song. I’ll have to give his original Ça plus ça a whirl and probably end up revising my rating.