This movie is said to have been filmed by Godard on commission from producer Alain Sarde, but it's by no means your ordinary "commissioned movie":it does boast a cast with well-known stars (at least in France) and it retains all the crime movie's stereotypes ( as gangsters, guns, boxers, girls, moneys changing hands...), but all of them are put together in a unique and mesmerizing way. Think of those exploded views you sometimes find in technical magazines: more often than not you can hardly tell what the represented object is supposed to be, nevertheless you always lose yourself gazing at those craftily drawn little pieces, until the object itself is deprived of any functional meaning and become only a sheer, pure sign. Though it's still possible to keep track of the plot and to draw something like a sequential chain going through the scenes, doing so is the best way to miss what this movie have really to offer: a collection of beautifully shot "vignettes", varying from amusing (Jean-Pierre Léaud freaking out in various disguises) to sublime (the "breast boxing" scene), each one to be tasted as a separate entity. There are plenty of quotes from books and other movies too, to the entertainment of the most encyclopedic among the audience (not that these quotes are introduced in the most subtle way: often the characters reads them from the actual books and you can easy spot the titles on screen! ) . Let's face it: it may be not a masterpiece, since sometimes the screenplay seems to have been conceived with the only aim of pushing you away from the screen, but the persevering viewer will be rewarded with some endearing little gems.
18 Reviews
Not entirely successful late Godard film
zetes11 March 2002
The films in Godard's late (and not yet over) period present some of the greatest challenges to cineasts. Detective is no exception. It is extraordinarily complex in narrative (or, more precisely, anti-narrative), visual composition, and editing structure. Unfortunately, I don't think it's worth it. It's kind of a parody of a detective film (the one in this film is a hotel dick), but it's nearly impossible to figure out what's going on. It can be quite beautiful in its visuals and editing patterns, but never beautiful enough to make it worth seeing. It's not terrible, but, then again, it's not good, either. 6/10
P.S. First off, yes, the little girl IS Julie Delpy, in case you were wondering.
P.P.S. Remember when Martin Scorsese made his version of Cape Fear for MGM because they allowed him to make the highly personal The Last Temptation of Jesus Christ? Well, he may have gotten that idea from Godard. Detective was made as a straight commercial offering to the studio that produced his highly controversial Hail Mary. It's strange to think of Detective as a commercial venture, though!
P.S. First off, yes, the little girl IS Julie Delpy, in case you were wondering.
P.P.S. Remember when Martin Scorsese made his version of Cape Fear for MGM because they allowed him to make the highly personal The Last Temptation of Jesus Christ? Well, he may have gotten that idea from Godard. Detective was made as a straight commercial offering to the studio that produced his highly controversial Hail Mary. It's strange to think of Detective as a commercial venture, though!
Why did I like this late middle period Godard!?
christopher-underwood31 May 2007
Wow, this is difficult. Why did I like this late middle period Godard!? I think what it is, is that at the start I was struggling with what seemed a complicated narrative and gradually became captivated by the performers (or stars as Godard clearly describes them in the opening credits). The plot, or plots, involve the solving of a motiveless murder two years previously and two people trying to get money back from a boxing promoter who owes the mafia. Except that although vaguely setting up these 'narratives', Godard seems to have no intention of developing them; instead we find ourselves interacting with the 'stars'. It does not work well all the time, to someone who is not French anyway, but there are many super sequences, much charm, lots of humour and even some eroticism. Always well shot, this has a super cool look to it and occasionally the dialogue truly sparkles. Don't seek the story, just the people and enjoy.
Godard's most complex soundtrack?
Stevenzzz17 March 2008
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.
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.
Excellent; one of Godard's most playful, rewarding and radical experiments in genre and design
ThreeSadTigers26 June 2008
THEME: A murder in a hotel room. Who was killed and why? And by who? Is it past or present? And does it even matter? Three characters are detectives watching the story unfold and interacting with it, much like we, the audience. They piece together the clues to a story that eventually becomes their own; folding between the facts of a crime committed two years ago that repeats itself within the film and eventually leads both us and them towards the actions of the film's final act. It's subtle, but presented in Godard's typical style that many seem to have a problem with. DECONSTRUCTION #1: Here we have a detective film about detective films and about the relationship in such films between the characters and the audience. So we have ourselves represented by Laurent Terzieff, Aurelle Doazan and Jean-Pierre Léaud, who hide out in a cramped hotel room and observe the entrance of the building with the aid of small video camera which presents the image back again on a TV monitor.
CINEMA: If you're familiar with Godard's work then such devises should be recognisable, with the film using the clichés of detective cinema as window-dressing to express greater themes on the notions of relationships, as well as the role of cinema itself. We also have the self-referential aspect suggested by the opening shot, in which the scene that we are looking at and hear commentary on turns out to be something that has already happened, played back from the detective's surveillance video. We also have the notion of film as a background cacophony, with a number of scenes taking place in rooms where television sets conspire to distract us from the action at hand. DECONSTRUCTION #2: Three characters caught up in the clichés of a post-war crime picture, with a secondary plot about money and a farcical plan from both sides to double-cross the Mafia and each other. Does it matter? Yes and no. I disagree with the first reviewer who claims that this film is something of a throwaway in Godard's career; one that puts formal experimentation over content and theme. The plot is silly, but it's silly for a reason and goes back to Godard's earliest film, À bout de soufflé (1960), in which he played with the codes and conventions of American gangster cinema in a way that was progressive and entirely deconstructive.
ACTEURS: The film works as a result of the perfect casting. In fact, I'd say that the acting in this film is far better than any other film of Godard's that I have seen, and I've seen 25 of them. Léaud is obviously something of a regular in the films of Godard and his manic energy and uncomplicated air of boyish precociousness as this mysterious detective - trying to piece together a murder that may have happened or may be about to happen - is as bright as it was in films like Masculin, féminin (1966) and La Chinoise (1967). Likewise, Nathalie Baye, familiar from the director's earlier, more experimental feature Sauve qui peut (la vie) (1980) gives one of her best performances as a despondent housewife caught between two men as she tries to retrieve money to start a new life, but remains unsure of which man to draw allegiance to. The two men are boxing promoter and American cinema construct Johnny Hallyday, who breezes through the film chain-smoking and shooting pool as gangsters and cops threaten his plans from both sides, and Claude Brasseur, a pilot and the husband of Baye's character, once again, desperate to play both sides off against one another for the benefit of financial gain.
DECONSTRUCTION #3: Once again, we have Godard reducing the characters to meagre iconographic constructs that are placed in a knowingly cinematic environment that is continually challenged by the director's experimentations with content and form. Despite this however, the characters remain likable, intelligent and recognisable, with the convincing performances from the incredibly talented cast managing to compete with the cold, deconstructive formality that Godard strives for in his presentation. L'ARGENT: A film made for financial gain about financial gain, or at least, the promise of such. According to film critic Colin McCabe, Détective (1985) was produced as a favour to Alain Sarde so as to secure the funding for the director's dream project - the subsequent 'Je vous salue, Marie' (1985) - and this notion of desperation, and the wanton pursuit of money is almost self-referential in design. CRITIQUE: I honestly can't understand why so many admirers of Godard's work found this film disengaging. If you're already familiar with Godard's characteristic approach to cinema, then half of the work is already done. For me, the film was rich in character and ideas, and intelligently put together in a way that made the viewing of the film interesting and unique.
GODARD: Many would have you believe that Godard peaked in 1967, but this simply isn't the case. He's produced many fine films - Détective included - that require patience and perception on the part of the audience, and all released post-1980. This particular film might be considered a throwaway work by many Godard fans, but I would politely disagree. Like his best work, Détective is filled with ideas and a sharp commentary on the nature of cinema and the relationship between the director, the film, the characters and the audience. It does take work, but I feel that the work is worth it when we're dealing with something as interesting and progressive as this; with Godard throwing in all sorts of little jokes and observations (the detective as Prospero, aided by a character named Ariel, and with Léaud as the comic personification of Caliban, who eventually overcomes his master), whilst simultaneously turning in one of his most radical and well-rounded deconstructions on the nature of film and film viewing.
CINEMA: If you're familiar with Godard's work then such devises should be recognisable, with the film using the clichés of detective cinema as window-dressing to express greater themes on the notions of relationships, as well as the role of cinema itself. We also have the self-referential aspect suggested by the opening shot, in which the scene that we are looking at and hear commentary on turns out to be something that has already happened, played back from the detective's surveillance video. We also have the notion of film as a background cacophony, with a number of scenes taking place in rooms where television sets conspire to distract us from the action at hand. DECONSTRUCTION #2: Three characters caught up in the clichés of a post-war crime picture, with a secondary plot about money and a farcical plan from both sides to double-cross the Mafia and each other. Does it matter? Yes and no. I disagree with the first reviewer who claims that this film is something of a throwaway in Godard's career; one that puts formal experimentation over content and theme. The plot is silly, but it's silly for a reason and goes back to Godard's earliest film, À bout de soufflé (1960), in which he played with the codes and conventions of American gangster cinema in a way that was progressive and entirely deconstructive.
ACTEURS: The film works as a result of the perfect casting. In fact, I'd say that the acting in this film is far better than any other film of Godard's that I have seen, and I've seen 25 of them. Léaud is obviously something of a regular in the films of Godard and his manic energy and uncomplicated air of boyish precociousness as this mysterious detective - trying to piece together a murder that may have happened or may be about to happen - is as bright as it was in films like Masculin, féminin (1966) and La Chinoise (1967). Likewise, Nathalie Baye, familiar from the director's earlier, more experimental feature Sauve qui peut (la vie) (1980) gives one of her best performances as a despondent housewife caught between two men as she tries to retrieve money to start a new life, but remains unsure of which man to draw allegiance to. The two men are boxing promoter and American cinema construct Johnny Hallyday, who breezes through the film chain-smoking and shooting pool as gangsters and cops threaten his plans from both sides, and Claude Brasseur, a pilot and the husband of Baye's character, once again, desperate to play both sides off against one another for the benefit of financial gain.
DECONSTRUCTION #3: Once again, we have Godard reducing the characters to meagre iconographic constructs that are placed in a knowingly cinematic environment that is continually challenged by the director's experimentations with content and form. Despite this however, the characters remain likable, intelligent and recognisable, with the convincing performances from the incredibly talented cast managing to compete with the cold, deconstructive formality that Godard strives for in his presentation. L'ARGENT: A film made for financial gain about financial gain, or at least, the promise of such. According to film critic Colin McCabe, Détective (1985) was produced as a favour to Alain Sarde so as to secure the funding for the director's dream project - the subsequent 'Je vous salue, Marie' (1985) - and this notion of desperation, and the wanton pursuit of money is almost self-referential in design. CRITIQUE: I honestly can't understand why so many admirers of Godard's work found this film disengaging. If you're already familiar with Godard's characteristic approach to cinema, then half of the work is already done. For me, the film was rich in character and ideas, and intelligently put together in a way that made the viewing of the film interesting and unique.
GODARD: Many would have you believe that Godard peaked in 1967, but this simply isn't the case. He's produced many fine films - Détective included - that require patience and perception on the part of the audience, and all released post-1980. This particular film might be considered a throwaway work by many Godard fans, but I would politely disagree. Like his best work, Détective is filled with ideas and a sharp commentary on the nature of cinema and the relationship between the director, the film, the characters and the audience. It does take work, but I feel that the work is worth it when we're dealing with something as interesting and progressive as this; with Godard throwing in all sorts of little jokes and observations (the detective as Prospero, aided by a character named Ariel, and with Léaud as the comic personification of Caliban, who eventually overcomes his master), whilst simultaneously turning in one of his most radical and well-rounded deconstructions on the nature of film and film viewing.
Détective
bcarlos19 March 2011
Détective follows two parallel stories happening in the same hotel in Paris. One tells the story of a detective who sleeps in a room where a mysterious character named 'the Prince' was killed and he is positive on solving the case; meanwhile a wrestling trainer tries to pay his debts to the mafia. The film is deliberately incomprehensible though very entertaining for film noir lovers and occasionally funny.
What is best in the film is the marvelous direction from Godard, who returns to a filmmaking that is more reminiscent of his 60's work than anything that came after this film, paying a homage to film noir as he did twenty years before to B-movies with Alphaville, although less successfully here. The camera doesn't move in this film and the shots are all very nicely done.
As for what the story regards, the script offers an engaging story that starts off a bit too slowly and an interesting character (a shame it's only one) who has to deal with some more compelling relationships as Nathalie Baye's character is caught between two men. The film has some of those Godardian undescriptible scenes to which you laugh or have feelings to without quite knowing how do they fit into a whole.
On the downhill, we have a film that actually gives no depth to their characters (except for Baye's) and whose satirical tones aren't as strong as you would expect. It has that pretentiousness that Godard usually manages to hide in his other movies and the whole film at the end feels as a mere direction exercise from his part, but if it was just a direction exercise, it is a great one.
Détective is a satirical film-noir with a fantastic direction, cinematography and editing, some witty scenes and a refreshing unresolved mystery.
Rating: 3/5.
What is best in the film is the marvelous direction from Godard, who returns to a filmmaking that is more reminiscent of his 60's work than anything that came after this film, paying a homage to film noir as he did twenty years before to B-movies with Alphaville, although less successfully here. The camera doesn't move in this film and the shots are all very nicely done.
As for what the story regards, the script offers an engaging story that starts off a bit too slowly and an interesting character (a shame it's only one) who has to deal with some more compelling relationships as Nathalie Baye's character is caught between two men. The film has some of those Godardian undescriptible scenes to which you laugh or have feelings to without quite knowing how do they fit into a whole.
On the downhill, we have a film that actually gives no depth to their characters (except for Baye's) and whose satirical tones aren't as strong as you would expect. It has that pretentiousness that Godard usually manages to hide in his other movies and the whole film at the end feels as a mere direction exercise from his part, but if it was just a direction exercise, it is a great one.
Détective is a satirical film-noir with a fantastic direction, cinematography and editing, some witty scenes and a refreshing unresolved mystery.
Rating: 3/5.
One of the most pretentious films ever made
robert-temple-15 June 2010
Jean-Luc Godard really should have retired long before 1985, basking in the glory of his early triumphs such as BREATHLESS (À BOUT DE Soufflé, 1960). For later on he became a sad caricature of himself as a filmmaker. Here he artificially tries to revive the corpse of his youthful abilities and fails abysmally. This film is revoltingly pretentious, phoney, false, arrogant, clumsy, stupid, empty, vacuous, - what other adjectives can I think of? None of them are sufficient to damn the film enough. I recently obtained the DVD for the simple reason that I wanted to see what Julie Delpy was like when she was 14. This was her first film role. I shouldn't have bothered. She has few lines and merely flits around meaninglessly, like most of the other characters in this ridiculous excuse for a film. Godard makes most of the women, and one of the men, engage in pointless nudity, and we see lots of tits, especially those of Emmanuelle Seignier, whose second film it was (she was then 19), but mercifully Godard did not inflict this duty on the child Delpy, who keeps her nightie on (but why she is always in her nightie is never explained, just as nothing is ever explained, because geniuses like Godard do not need to explain). The power of Godard's name and reputation made many famous people agree to be in this empty vehicle, and waste their talents. I would say it would have damaged the talented Nathalie Baye's reputation to accept such a drear lead role as Francoise in this film, as it made her look so down-at-heel and washed-up (if, that is, one can be both down and up at the same time, and I have not committed some grammatical atrocity to match Godard's cinematic one). Some women may be excited to know that we get to see Claude Brasseur's willy, for what it is worth, though there is no reason for this. This happens in between him looking ghastly, desperate, and sad, which is just about all he is required to do for 95 minutes. (Can being married to Baye be that bad?) This film is a real 'downer', and there I go again with one of those directional adjectives, although how one can go down any further than rock bottom I have not yet determined. In this film we have the sight of the famous Johnny Hallyday, who for decades was the universal heartthrob not only of every French woman but of many French men as well, and if there were ever anything that really puzzled me about the French even more than boudin (blood sausage) and tête de veau (calf's head), it is Johnny Hallyday and his inexplicable appeal to a whole nations of Gauls. He does nothing in this film of note but sleep with Baye in a melancholy fashion. Baye looks so pained by this that maybe she discovered that Hallyday really had bad breath. The one bright spot in this film is the equally meaningless appearance of the old veteran Alain Cuny in a few mysterious scenes as 'the Prince'. Who the Prince is and why he is there is only roughly sketched. But the crusty old queen is always interesting to watch. Incredible that he lived to be 86, with all that romping around with boys. And my question is this: what ever happened to Alain Cuny's trunk in the entrance hall, covered by a cloth, after the Nazis left Paris? Only D. D. could tell us that, presumably. A mystery worthy of ENGRENAGES. Those who have ears to hear, let them hear. But I fear there are no ears left acute enough to take my meaning.
a 80s period Godard film with something of an actual story, who knew?
Quinoa198414 December 2008
I run hot and cold on Jean-Luc Godard's body of work on the whole after the mid 1970s. It may be snobbish to say this, or maybe I just don't "get" films like Hail Mary or Nouvelle Vague or In Praise of Love (though the last one does have its moments), but after the 1960s, going slowly at first into the 70s and then finally becoming all too apparent in the 80s, Godard lost something that made his films so special beforehand. He could put so much of his experimentation and poetry and quotations and little tics and oddities that made him such an iconoclast *and* make them entertaining and even sometimes, when warranted, have an actual story somewhere in the inspired chaos of his direction. But in looking at something like Hail Mary or King Lear or even Passion it's all a lot of less-than-half baked ideas, overlong shots of beaches, and generally boring semantics. This, sadly, is a chunk of what happened to a Godard running on steam from his glory years as an auteur.
This ranting and castigating said, Godard does have some moments in this period that are striking and memorable and solid cinema; the best being First Name: Carmen and, most recently as what is at the moment his final feature film, Notre Musique. Detective, also, is one of them, if also sometimes a little shaky and awkward going between the rigorous attention to having characters real out of books and looking or acting unrealistic or in one-note tones as well as a solid B-movie plot. The latter concerns a detective (I believe played by Jean-Pierre Leaud, who does a great job going between serious and comedy in his first Godard film since La Gai Savoir) snooping around a hotel trying to find out about the death of "The Price", while at the same time a boxing promoter is getting into some heat with some over-paid debts, and at the same time sleeping with the mafioso's wife (I think this last part, hopefully I'm clear on this point).
Luckily, Godard, working under a "Commercial" framework- ironic considering that this is commercial when compared to everything else Godard was doing at the time and made this in order to make the "controversial" Hail Mary- is able to slip in some funny and cool and actually engaging bits of dialog and quotes and ruminations by characters, and he's able to tag a hold of the plot a bit too. He also understands the jokey-ness of doing an homage to gangster and boxing pictures of the noir era in full color, without a clear narrative thread all of the time, and plays around with it, successfully. This doesn't make it automatically a great picture or as daring precisely as his earlier work. But it is a good sign; sometimes, perhaps, a director like Godard needs an Alain Sarde to reel him in just a tad and then the collaboration works out better as opposed to... King Lear.
This ranting and castigating said, Godard does have some moments in this period that are striking and memorable and solid cinema; the best being First Name: Carmen and, most recently as what is at the moment his final feature film, Notre Musique. Detective, also, is one of them, if also sometimes a little shaky and awkward going between the rigorous attention to having characters real out of books and looking or acting unrealistic or in one-note tones as well as a solid B-movie plot. The latter concerns a detective (I believe played by Jean-Pierre Leaud, who does a great job going between serious and comedy in his first Godard film since La Gai Savoir) snooping around a hotel trying to find out about the death of "The Price", while at the same time a boxing promoter is getting into some heat with some over-paid debts, and at the same time sleeping with the mafioso's wife (I think this last part, hopefully I'm clear on this point).
Luckily, Godard, working under a "Commercial" framework- ironic considering that this is commercial when compared to everything else Godard was doing at the time and made this in order to make the "controversial" Hail Mary- is able to slip in some funny and cool and actually engaging bits of dialog and quotes and ruminations by characters, and he's able to tag a hold of the plot a bit too. He also understands the jokey-ness of doing an homage to gangster and boxing pictures of the noir era in full color, without a clear narrative thread all of the time, and plays around with it, successfully. This doesn't make it automatically a great picture or as daring precisely as his earlier work. But it is a good sign; sometimes, perhaps, a director like Godard needs an Alain Sarde to reel him in just a tad and then the collaboration works out better as opposed to... King Lear.
A total mess
Red-12510 July 2013
Détective (1985), directed by Jean-Luc Godard, is a mess from beginning to end. How could a gifted director like Godard waste the talents of Jean-Pierre Léaud, Nathalie Baye, Claude Brasseur and Alain Cuny? It couldn't have been easy. It's a bad miracle.
The plot is ridiculous. (Well, I think it's ridiculous--it didn't make any sense so it's hard to judge.) The actors' skills are lost in inane dialog, so, for want of anything better to do, they smoke cigarettes. (All but one young woman, who spends the time uncovering and covering her breasts.)
I've reviewed almost 400 films for IMDb, and this is the first one for which I gave a rating of 1. I didn't even bother to rewind the cassette--I just threw it away. Fair warning--you really don't want to see this movie.
The plot is ridiculous. (Well, I think it's ridiculous--it didn't make any sense so it's hard to judge.) The actors' skills are lost in inane dialog, so, for want of anything better to do, they smoke cigarettes. (All but one young woman, who spends the time uncovering and covering her breasts.)
I've reviewed almost 400 films for IMDb, and this is the first one for which I gave a rating of 1. I didn't even bother to rewind the cassette--I just threw it away. Fair warning--you really don't want to see this movie.
One watches "Détective" simply for the ride
steiner-sam27 February 2023
It's a comedic take-off on film noir set in a Paris hotel in the 1980s. It follows the intersecting activities of guests located in four different rooms. Throughout, there are literary references to a multitude of French- and English-language novels.
One room contains Émile Chenal (Claude Brasseur), a pilot and failing small airplane-business operator, and his wife, Françoise (Nathalie Baye). They are in serious need of money. A second room includes Detective William Propero (Laurent Terzieff), his nephew, Isadore (Jean-Pierre Léaud), and Isadore's girlfriend, Arielle (Aurelle Doazan). William is trying to solve a two-year-old murder at the hotel where a "prince" was murdered. A third room contains Jim Fox Warner (Johnny Hallyday), a boxing promoter, his fighter, Tiger Jones (Stéphane Ferrara), and Tiger's girlfriend, Princesse (Emmanuelle Seigner). Jim owes money to Émile and Françoise but is also having an affair with Françoise, who is considering leaving Émile. Finally, the fourth room contains a Mafia don (Alain Cuny) and his granddaughter (Julie Delpy). There are sundry additional characters.
The film provides rambling interactions among the various characters, some of which are absurd. Similarly, the many film and literary references often make little sense. There is a climax of sorts at the end that answers some of the questions.
The New York Times reviewer appropriately labeled "Détective" a shaggy dog story. This term implies a meandering, long-winded story that includes multiple irrelevant incidents. One watches "Détective" simply for the ride and the cleverness of Jean-Luc Godard. It's not a film of meaning but skilled entertainment spoofing a certain kind of noir film.
One room contains Émile Chenal (Claude Brasseur), a pilot and failing small airplane-business operator, and his wife, Françoise (Nathalie Baye). They are in serious need of money. A second room includes Detective William Propero (Laurent Terzieff), his nephew, Isadore (Jean-Pierre Léaud), and Isadore's girlfriend, Arielle (Aurelle Doazan). William is trying to solve a two-year-old murder at the hotel where a "prince" was murdered. A third room contains Jim Fox Warner (Johnny Hallyday), a boxing promoter, his fighter, Tiger Jones (Stéphane Ferrara), and Tiger's girlfriend, Princesse (Emmanuelle Seigner). Jim owes money to Émile and Françoise but is also having an affair with Françoise, who is considering leaving Émile. Finally, the fourth room contains a Mafia don (Alain Cuny) and his granddaughter (Julie Delpy). There are sundry additional characters.
The film provides rambling interactions among the various characters, some of which are absurd. Similarly, the many film and literary references often make little sense. There is a climax of sorts at the end that answers some of the questions.
The New York Times reviewer appropriately labeled "Détective" a shaggy dog story. This term implies a meandering, long-winded story that includes multiple irrelevant incidents. One watches "Détective" simply for the ride and the cleverness of Jean-Luc Godard. It's not a film of meaning but skilled entertainment spoofing a certain kind of noir film.
One of the most beautiful...
bob99818 April 2014
...of all the Godard films I've seen, and I've seen practically all of them. I don't care much about the plot: who Jim Fox Warner is, and why he takes such a casual approach to what must be a big fight, who Tiger Jones is either, and why the two girls are hanging around the hotel suite; I don't care much about the old Mafioso who seems to have his finger in every pie (played marvelously by Alain Cuny, with that splendidly seamed face). The 40 million Francs that Chenal owes are just a detail; the cheating that his wife Francoise is doing doesn't move me much... no, all these details are but a backdrop for the wonderful lesson in cinema that Godard gives us here. I've never seen him take such care over rooms and corridors, kitchens and storerooms as he does here. It's lovely--what he does with this Parisian hotel makes this a great experience. Narrative has never interested him much, but it doesn't matter: visuals and music are used very well throughout.
Nathalie Baye has never been more beautiful on screen: Godard's camera is in love with her. Claude Brasseur gives a good performance as the pilot whose airline is coming apart.
Nathalie Baye has never been more beautiful on screen: Godard's camera is in love with her. Claude Brasseur gives a good performance as the pilot whose airline is coming apart.
Overpopulated crime puzzle
Billiam-411 May 2022
Not worth it
the_mojo21 November 2004
This film demonstrates editing, structure and mis-en-scene perfectly. It's clear that with every scene, Godard has thought carefully about positioning and in a few shots, has cleverly manipulated the use of mirrors or glass. The camera never moves in the film it stays still in every sequence, and so the positioning of the characters is paramount. Instead of the camera moving to capture all the characters on screen, many scenes involve the characters moving themselves after an entrance of a another person to ensure that facial expressions can be seen. Music also plays a huge part in this film, as it indicates moments of tension, or importance, such as when the audience sees 'la famille' for the first time in the film. Background noise is also evident, with many layers of sound to the film, such as background traffic noise from the open window, as well as the piano player in the café. The scenes themselves and the cleverness from behind the camera make this film worth watching. However, the plot itself is weak, with many superfluous characters, and bizarre situations (such as the boxer and 'Mister Jim' with the two girls). The many different characters and their individual situations are closely linked, through their interaction with each other, but the ending is immensely unsatisfactory.
A Lesser Second Wave
gavin694211 January 2017
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.
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.
arty fun
jonathan-5774 October 2009
My first foray into 80s Godard - haven't even seen any early stuff for years - benefits from the old showdown between Godard's European attenuation and the outrageous vulgarity he mines from his Yankee progenitors. All gangster-film elements are here, and all are brutally alienated from their original contexts. Noir-style orchestral punctuation marks blurt and disappear incongruously; frequently topless femmes fatales occasion some pretty smart-to-funny gender commentary, especially the pugilist's boob-boxing scene; the big massacre at the climax seems to fall right out of the sky. Best of all is Jean-Pierre Leaud's lurking schmuck detective, a great goof of a performance that gives a big boost to the film's sense of rhythm. Because the pleasures are largely on the surface, I'll have to run it again before I can tell you much about the plot, and about an hour in the working-through of the themes gets a little too talky. But the arm's length treatment of the source material distills rather than diffuses their entertainment value: good arty fun.
Detective (1985, Jean-Luc Godard)
ametaphysicalshark10 June 2009
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.
Three blind mice, see how they run
tieman6411 April 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Jean-Luc Godard directs "Detective". The plot? A series of guests and employees find themselves bumbling about a Parisian hotel. One, a detective named Prospero, hopes to solve the murder of a man known as The Prince. Also present is a woman named Francoise (Nathalie Baye), who's unhappily married to an airline pilot (Claude Brasseur). She's at the hotel to settle a debt with Jim Fox-Warner (Johnny Hallyday), a fight promoter. Jim shares a room with a star boxer (Stephane Ferrara) and an entourage of young women. Whilst all these characters drift about, a Mafia godfather, also known as The Prince, discusses philosophy. He's slavishly followed by a catatonic little girl.
"Detective" periodically cuts away to shots of a tripod-mounted camera as it gazes at life outside the hotel. Godard also frequently cuts to shots of neon-lit billboards, all advertising media brands. His hotel is itself populated by different "brands" or flattened "archetypes" (detectives, boxers, singers, lovers, nods to crime films, film noirs, slapstick comedy etc), as well as actors who come from different performance backgrounds and traditions (Johnny Hallyday is a singer, Jean-Pierre Léaud is associated with the New Wave, Alain Cuny is a classic French actor, Baye and Brasseur are mainstream actors, Seigner and Delpy signal a new generation etc).
Ironically for a film explicitly commissioned to make money – Godard promised producers a mainstream picture in order to secure cash to finance his upcoming "Hail Mary" - "Detective" is a kind of anti-film about money. It opens with Francoise apprehensive about entering the hotel, which characters insist "smells of death". Like most of the film's characters, though, she's owed payments and so forced to enter. Indeed, everyone in "Detective" is chasing cash. Fighters seek riches, gangsters want repayment, characters sell jewelry and Francoise and her husband are down a couple million. "What's the point running around for nothing?" characters state. Man's gotta be paid, actors too. Significantly, the guy doing the paying is named after two Western, mega-film studios (Fox-Warner).
Whilst these disgruntled characters seek payment, the film's detectives are locked in their own little subplot. "We're looking for the unknown!" one detective says, as he prowls the hotel's catacombs. He and his companions are always searching for "truth", "plot" and "story", all of which seem elusive and out of reach. "There are plenty of stories here" Prospero insists, "Im sure something is going to happen!" Of course nothing happens. Godard's "Detective" is a giant morass of non-events, inaction, banal conversations and subverted subplots. A kind of anti-film about nothing happening in which the actors of the film in which nothing happens are grumpy because they're only turning up to be paid and nobody's paying.
Godard's films often attack the business of film-making, but with "Detective" we get a more vague attack on all economic relations. "The monkeys preached the new order, and little by little all the animals converted," one character says. We're then told a story about a mouse who is killed by his "new friends". "Things have gone back to the way they were," the Prince explains, "the new regime is over, beauty has become the beast!" Alligned to this "new economic order", in which "everyone is slavishly forced to submit", are the film's outmoded Mafia-men. Whilst a girl reads a magazine titled "Crackdown on the Mafia", a Mafia kingpin admits: "the mafia insists upon an outmoded way of life based on work and effort outside of which all existence loses all meaning." The kingpin then explains that the mafia has been forced underground by the "new order" and that "the mafia itself needs law and order to construct its business deals successfully". Later, a woman compares the hotel's mafia-men to banks, in comparison to which, she says, the mafia-men are angels.
During the film's last act, Godard cuts to a movie director on television. "The narrator is king," the figure says, "making things happen with his own perception! I'm making this picture for the theatre, not the actors!" We assume Godard is referring to himself, the director as king, but soon someone else is revealed to be in control. At this point, in one swift move, the Prince has all the film's key players killed and steals all their cash. "Put up a fight! Retake it!" Francoise says, leading her husband to stand up to the Prince, before being killed himself. Seeking justice, the detective's female assistant crouches before the Prince and aims a gun, but her efforts are futile. The Prince casually disarms the woman. She then passively walks away and makes a joke about acquiring money. This scene encapsulates the power relations of the film, the Prince representing ruling groups within capitalist democracies (and their rigid social hierarchies), the dead detectives akin to neutralised justice systems and the corpses at everyone's feet hinting at the costs of the Prince's "new order". "The world is upside down," Godard says, throughout a complicated subplot which serves as a metaphor for why the Prince manages to be simultaneously dead and alive.
"Détective" is a film obsessed with books. Francoise wants to start a bookshop, the detectives are surrounded by paperbacks, Jim carries a copy of Conrad's "Lord Jim" (about a colonialist who sees himself on a civilising mission), Prospero reads "The Tempest" (a Shakespeare play with a character called Prospero) and the gangsters read "The Sicilian". Contrasted with the film's violent characters is an overarching discourse on love, the film's criss-crossing love affairs made impossible for various reasons, most of which are financial. Francoise's husband represents this love at its purest, but he's killed. Only the apathetic survive.
This being Godard, "Detective" is relentlessly alienating. Godard's credits are interspersed throughout the picture, leading to a sense of disjunction and dislocation. The film's score is likewise disorienting. Epitomizing Godard's alienating effects are "Detective's" closing moments, which focus on feet, reflections, doors and use odd angles, all designed to obscure.
7.9/10 - Multiple viewings required.
"Detective" periodically cuts away to shots of a tripod-mounted camera as it gazes at life outside the hotel. Godard also frequently cuts to shots of neon-lit billboards, all advertising media brands. His hotel is itself populated by different "brands" or flattened "archetypes" (detectives, boxers, singers, lovers, nods to crime films, film noirs, slapstick comedy etc), as well as actors who come from different performance backgrounds and traditions (Johnny Hallyday is a singer, Jean-Pierre Léaud is associated with the New Wave, Alain Cuny is a classic French actor, Baye and Brasseur are mainstream actors, Seigner and Delpy signal a new generation etc).
Ironically for a film explicitly commissioned to make money – Godard promised producers a mainstream picture in order to secure cash to finance his upcoming "Hail Mary" - "Detective" is a kind of anti-film about money. It opens with Francoise apprehensive about entering the hotel, which characters insist "smells of death". Like most of the film's characters, though, she's owed payments and so forced to enter. Indeed, everyone in "Detective" is chasing cash. Fighters seek riches, gangsters want repayment, characters sell jewelry and Francoise and her husband are down a couple million. "What's the point running around for nothing?" characters state. Man's gotta be paid, actors too. Significantly, the guy doing the paying is named after two Western, mega-film studios (Fox-Warner).
Whilst these disgruntled characters seek payment, the film's detectives are locked in their own little subplot. "We're looking for the unknown!" one detective says, as he prowls the hotel's catacombs. He and his companions are always searching for "truth", "plot" and "story", all of which seem elusive and out of reach. "There are plenty of stories here" Prospero insists, "Im sure something is going to happen!" Of course nothing happens. Godard's "Detective" is a giant morass of non-events, inaction, banal conversations and subverted subplots. A kind of anti-film about nothing happening in which the actors of the film in which nothing happens are grumpy because they're only turning up to be paid and nobody's paying.
Godard's films often attack the business of film-making, but with "Detective" we get a more vague attack on all economic relations. "The monkeys preached the new order, and little by little all the animals converted," one character says. We're then told a story about a mouse who is killed by his "new friends". "Things have gone back to the way they were," the Prince explains, "the new regime is over, beauty has become the beast!" Alligned to this "new economic order", in which "everyone is slavishly forced to submit", are the film's outmoded Mafia-men. Whilst a girl reads a magazine titled "Crackdown on the Mafia", a Mafia kingpin admits: "the mafia insists upon an outmoded way of life based on work and effort outside of which all existence loses all meaning." The kingpin then explains that the mafia has been forced underground by the "new order" and that "the mafia itself needs law and order to construct its business deals successfully". Later, a woman compares the hotel's mafia-men to banks, in comparison to which, she says, the mafia-men are angels.
During the film's last act, Godard cuts to a movie director on television. "The narrator is king," the figure says, "making things happen with his own perception! I'm making this picture for the theatre, not the actors!" We assume Godard is referring to himself, the director as king, but soon someone else is revealed to be in control. At this point, in one swift move, the Prince has all the film's key players killed and steals all their cash. "Put up a fight! Retake it!" Francoise says, leading her husband to stand up to the Prince, before being killed himself. Seeking justice, the detective's female assistant crouches before the Prince and aims a gun, but her efforts are futile. The Prince casually disarms the woman. She then passively walks away and makes a joke about acquiring money. This scene encapsulates the power relations of the film, the Prince representing ruling groups within capitalist democracies (and their rigid social hierarchies), the dead detectives akin to neutralised justice systems and the corpses at everyone's feet hinting at the costs of the Prince's "new order". "The world is upside down," Godard says, throughout a complicated subplot which serves as a metaphor for why the Prince manages to be simultaneously dead and alive.
"Détective" is a film obsessed with books. Francoise wants to start a bookshop, the detectives are surrounded by paperbacks, Jim carries a copy of Conrad's "Lord Jim" (about a colonialist who sees himself on a civilising mission), Prospero reads "The Tempest" (a Shakespeare play with a character called Prospero) and the gangsters read "The Sicilian". Contrasted with the film's violent characters is an overarching discourse on love, the film's criss-crossing love affairs made impossible for various reasons, most of which are financial. Francoise's husband represents this love at its purest, but he's killed. Only the apathetic survive.
This being Godard, "Detective" is relentlessly alienating. Godard's credits are interspersed throughout the picture, leading to a sense of disjunction and dislocation. The film's score is likewise disorienting. Epitomizing Godard's alienating effects are "Detective's" closing moments, which focus on feet, reflections, doors and use odd angles, all designed to obscure.
7.9/10 - Multiple viewings required.
Designed to deconstruct
jgrenham20 May 2003
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.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
