Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

the audience applauded

A Masterpiece!

Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

This film's an experiment, and I think it's fair to say that it doesn't quite pull it off. But I nonetheless found it quite an engaging film.The plot is threadbare. An American journalist and her French husband are accidentally embroiled in an occupation at a factory. The different characters put their points of view about the occupation, and as the film goes on, the perspective widens, until it really isn't about the factory anymore, but about the state of France.There are some striking scenes here, all of them pictorial rather than dramatic. Many of the characters speak to camera in one-sided dialogues (rather than monologues— the distinction is obvious when you watch). There are a few of Godard's trademark long panning shots. Fragments of vision recur or are recast. The effect of this style is to externalise all the characters. None is a mind or a soul. They are rather expressions of a certain point of view, or noises in the cacophony of society and history.One of the film's more successful elements is its frame-narrative. Two voices discuss how the film ought to be put together, what it ought to achieve, and play around with the characters' fates. The frequent references to Brecht in the body of the film meld nicely with the frame, and make it clear that Godard is going for an "Entfremdungseffekt"—this is not a film to be immersed in, but one that is supposed to provoke reflection.And that it most certainly does. I felt downright uncomfortable at times, as the film ruthlessly sent up the supposed insight of intellectuals, and the supposed historical effectiveness of political parties. But the film also had a light touch, and its gloriously silly penultimate scene left me laughing at my political certainties, rather than empty and sad.It doesn't quite cohere, but I'm very glad I saw it. 7/10

Godard builds his films from scratch. It's not that he shows up on the first day of shooting with no script or idea of what he wants. He simply works from an entirely different angle than most other directors. In an inventive, cerebral, pretentious manor, Godard and his co- director here, Jean-Pierre Gorin, shows us scene after scene. After each one, we naturally ask ourselves questions pertaining to the characters and the story. The story, or should I say the film, unravels further. We then not only ask ourselves the expected question, "What does this movie mean?" We also ask ourselves, "What is this movie about?" Godard drops characters and settings into a stirring pot, sprinkling it with title cards and captions, then pours them all into the oddly shape bowl of a film structure that he has fashioned himself. His cinematic expression is less a communication to and more a confrontation with the audience. He does not make his film easy on you. Still, his cinematography is interesting, and I admire some of his ideas.Have I made it unclear where Tout Va Bien stands in my opinion? OK. Well, let me tell you that it is quite an interesting film, an especially unpredictable one, yet Godard and Gorin, as the occasional European filmmaker will do, just as Haneke does, enjoy the feeling of being beyond the audience. What is said with Tout Van Bien, politically, socially, sexually, is expressed as if we, the audience, are the ignorant ones he is in disagreement with.The high points of this film are the presence of Jane Fonda and a very very long sideways steadicam shot that slowly moves from left to right repeatedly across several check-out lines in a grocery store as tension and rage slowly builds.

Godard work sometimes is not entirely understood. having seen most of his films i must say the this film is one of the more comprehensible of the lot. To my understanding it deals with an important issue of the postmodern graded. the issue of how to react to the capitalist society in which we live in. Being disappointed from the communist party, as well as the worker's unions which turned their backs to the working class, the people are left with no alternative but to commence a revolution, one that uses force, one that shakes the basis of society. He also shows how the burglar reporters and film creator as a representing free mind are also been exploited by the capitalist regime and their creative spirits is dying. for the the solution is to continue creating at all cost. to bring the cry of the people, to help the coming revolution. The last scene at the supermarket is quite fantastic, and it shows the decay of the great ideas (a communist part member sells his book at a discount price but doesn't know what's written there, and the youth that stand up to the society rules and help people to leave the supermarket and not pay). I strongly recommend this movie, although you need some patience with Godard's worth the time.

Godard uses Brechtian devices in this film to portray a left wing political message to his viewers. Thats just for a shorter briefing me lovelies!It says that I must ten lines so basically Brecht was a left wing theatre practitioner who did not believe that an audience should watch a film to be caught up in the action and escape reality. He instead believed it was a political tool and created his own "epic theatre". This theatre was developed to alienate the audience so that the audience would think "this is strange" and therefore remove themselves from the action to consider the meaning of the play. Devices from this theatre which are present in Godards films are the showing of props, narrative devices interjections (Godard interrupts to tell the audience the point of the film) placards and chanting.