Water, trees, naked people, dog, boat docking, Hitler, old movies, guy shitting, dog shitting, more trees, blood gushing down a drain, same boat docking again, Mary Shelly writing "Frankenstein" in the woods, more bush, more dick, guy shitting again, more blood, book swap, someone gets shot, more dog, trees, FIN.

He tries some really cool shit with the 3D though. Generally with the 3D glasses, each lens is filtering out what the other eye sees. So each eye is seeing two slightly different images (shot by two cameras right next to each other) to give the illusion of 3D. What Godard actually does here a few times is MOVE one of the two cameras, while leaving the other where it is, so each eye is literally seeing two entirely different images. It's similar to having the two shots just kind of superimposed on top of one another but the difference is each eye is seeing a completely different image at the same time and it CONFUSES THE SHIT OUT OF YOUR BRAIN because that would never, ever happen in real life. Super weird, but then he'll slide the 2nd camera back into place and the two images will just kind of come back together again. I guarantee some forward-thinking director will use this shot in a real narrative movie within the next few years.

But yeah, it's really pretty fucking harshly avant garde. (The audio is also really experimental. Score keeps starting and abruptly stopping, and bouncing around to different speakers, and it's jarring every time.) Only hardcore adventurers should seek this shit out, but if you're into this kind of thing, you'll probably like it.

----

In this case, it's dead on.

It's literally just a series of experiments with stereoscopic imagery. Like Godard asked an assistant to go online and find a list of "rules for shooting 3D" and then he goes through them one by one and breaks them to see what happens.

Sometimes it's really incredible, sometimes it's annoying, mostly it's boring. Plus some occasional bush and a guy shitting.

The dog was cool though. I wish it was just Godard filming his dog.

--------

hell-below.com

>Sometimes it's really incredible, sometimes it's annoying,
>mostly it's boring.

----

I have a semi-masochistic desire to see this, but will likely pass

--------

Or, uh, "philosophically," then it's worth checking out.

But it's not really a movie. (And I say this as someone who loves Godard's 60s shit).

--------

hell-below.com

>But it's not really a movie. (And I say this as someone who
>loves Godard's 60s shit).

Funny you should say that, as I watched Masculin Féminin not too long after having seen GTL3D, and it looked tame as shit in comparison. (Still an actual movie though, and a much better one at that.) It was kind of interesting to see some of the same ideas percolating way back then though, with shit like the audio cutting out abruptly, a random guy getting shot just off camera, etc. I've been chipping away at the 60s stuff, with Vivre Sa Vie being the clear highlight IMO.

----

but it's something you'll be glad you saw

thats how i felt at least