Talk:Weekend (1967 film)

Film Unassessed

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Rated R?

The first 12 minutes to the film contain a woman's silhouette framed against the morning light of a window. She doesn't move around much, and no matter where the camera is positioned, the silhouettes remain framed against the light of the window. A man asks brief questions of the woman, interrupting (or perhaps prompting) her otherwise passionless, monotonous monolog. It is this dialog that makes the movie worthy an R rating, if not a near X rating. Although there isn't a single visible depiction of sexual activity in the movie, there is, nevertheless, in those first 12 minutes a graphic verbal description of a past infidelity on the wife's part.

This is not the first time that the director Jean-Luc Godard has attempted to tease the audience without actually showing them anything to look at. In his earlier big-budget art film, Contempt, the first 10 minutes to the movie are devoted to a man describing his wife's physical features as the camera panned up and down small parts or tracts of her legs, stomach, and arms, without ever drawing back far enough to let the audience see more than a mere clue of what they were really being shown: the description was intimate (and potentially R rated, if the camera veered off course a bit) even though the actual depiction was PG.

cleanup tag added

This article isn't particularly poorly written, but it is written more like a film review than an encyclopedia particle, complete with the author's interpretations of events and asides. I'm sure Godard would have chafed at such bourgois rules, but c'est la vie. --Mr Wind-Up Bird ✈ 23:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out the parts that appear to be interpretations? Maybe they can be taken out and replaced with something more objective?

The problem isn't one of a few questionable passages, or I would change it myself. The majority of the article doesn't seem to me to adhere to the wikipedia policies of verifiability and point of view -- it asserts opinions instead of facts, provides unverifiable details, etc, etc.

"The viewer cannot help but ask himself, 'Why not make inroads through the farmer's fields and drive there, bypassing whatever is jamming up the road?'"

"Whatever the advantages are to allowing aristocracies the pleasure of having wide, wide fields separated by narrow, narrow roads it is lost on the viewer when it becomes clear that modern society has exceeded the bounds that history has accorded it."

"Standing on the shore, the leader recites an ode to the Ancient Ocean and delivers it like a prayer, much as the ancient Celts, Greeks or Romans must have worshipped Poseidon or Neptune."

--Mr Wind-Up Bird ✈ 17:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'll see if I can fix it up. I'll have to watch the movie again, though, and my DVD is out on loan right now. It might be a little while before I get it back...