Detective (1985)

If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

Blistering performances.

It is encouraging that the film ends so strongly.Otherwise, it wouldn't have been a particularly memorable film

In a palace of Paris. Two detectives are investigating a two-year-old murder. Emile and Francoise Chenal are putting pressure on Jim Fox Warner, a boxing manager, who owes them a huge amount of money. But Jim also owes money to the Mafia, and it seems the boxing match he is counting on to bail out will not be sufficient...As far as Godard's "second wave" goes, this is not one of the more celebrated. It has some of his strange flourishes, such as the intense piano drowning out conversations (a very Godard thing to do). And it is interesting that the film takes place essentially inside of a hotel, a fine place to put a mystery.For American audiences, the two actresses who may be most familiar are Emmanuelle Seigner as Princess of the Bahamas and Julie Delpy as the "wise young girl". In the case of Delpy, this is ahead of her big American break through Richard Linklater.

This is why I love Godard. He turned a 'commercial' project he did in order to get financing for "Hail Mary" into one of his most enthralling late works, a sleeker, leaner, funnier, lighter version of the sort of film Godard made after the 60's. The film follows four different 'stories' in the Hotel Concorde Saint-Lazare in Paris, where the entire film is set. Something of a deconstruction of the detective film or film-noir on paper, but the film is more formally interesting than it is story-wise (though its 'narrative' is often very amusing and overall very entertaining). Although critical reviews of "Detective" seem to be positive (all the ones I can find anyway, including Variety and the New York Times among others), the film is overall not too popular, and from my experience not too well-liked by Godard fans either. Shame as well because the fact that "Detective" combines some of the zip and light humor of Godard's early work with the more experimental sensibilities of later Godard films doesn't mean this is in any way lacking as a filmic experiment. It's gorgeously-shot with superb, intricate mise-en-scène, and features some of the most interesting and complex editing in any Godard film, but what really steals the show is the sound, which is an entire world all on its own. The visual splendor of the film is not only complimented, but overshadowed by the creative sound editing and mixing, genius use of music, and aural gags and puns. Dedicated to Edgar G. Ulmer, Clint Eastwood, and John Cassavetes, "Detective" is one of Godard's best, and likely his most criminally under-appreciated. It does ask for a patient, observant audience willing to listen carefully, but rewards that patience with great comic energy and some fascinating and beautiful aural experimentation. One of the best casts Godard ever worked with as well.

Like zetes stated, this was supposed to be Godard's "commercial" movie. However, it actually feels like his least commercial film of the ones released since 1980. Ever the prankster, Godard stocks the film to the brim with pratfalls, movie quotes and other allusions.It's hard to imagine how it is watching this in the theater. The film is so multi-layered that it's impossible to take in at one time. I'm not sure what his stance is on the home video vs. theater debate. A movie so dense with quotes is almost destined to be better viewed at home. There are multiple scenes where if you pay attention to one thing, you wind up missing some other detail. Even after multiple viewings. I had to watch this more times than any of the other Godard film currently in print just to make sure I caught enough of the details. As awesome technically as the film is, it somehow feels like a rehash of what he already did with First Name Carmen, Passion and Hail Mary. The fact that this was a commission may mean his heart wasn't quite in it. You could never accuse him of that with most of his other films.

Half an hour in, I was thinking of leaving. An hour in, I was completely taken. Godard breaks all the rules the way a child breaks birthday toys, to see how they work. Sometimes utterly pointless, and sloppy, sometimes brilliant. The ending is laughable, not funny.