Watch something else. There are very few redeeming qualities to this film.

A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.

The movie runs out of plot and jokes well before the end of a two-hour running time, long for a light comedy.

Blistering performances.

This was supposed to be Jean-Luc Godard's return to "mainstream film." Are you kidding? New wave had gone so far, this "return" to mainstream is still completely off the wall, incomprehensible, and totally obscene. Full of senseless and exaggerated graphic conversation, it tells more about Godard's twisted imagination than what was supposed to be a depiction of French sexual mores.If I thought all fathers talked about their pubescent daughters as is portrayed here, and all encounters with prostitutes were as mechanically detached as the "role playing" in this film, or that many gay men were as indiscriminate as he depicts, I would think that Godard had some useful social comment going, but I suspect this is all about "Godard" and nothing about "real life."

If you're a fan of film, a cinephile, or took film classes in school, you probably did an entire section on the iconic director Jean-Luc Godard. You might have heard your film buff friends or professors show you why Godard is one of the best filmmakers to ever grace the big screen. And if you've seen any of his films, you would have to agree, which is why Criterion loves releasing his films under the brand.His 1980 film, titled 'Every Man For Himself' was nominated for the Palme d'Or Award at Cannes that year and was almost nominated for Best Foreign Film at the Oscars that same year. Prior to 1980, Godard's films were very experimental in nature and mostly done and a very small budget with small name actors. Godard himself has said that 'Every Man For Himself' was like being reborn again, as this was considered his return to mainstream filmmaking with a decent sized budget and well-known actors.While this film had those new aspects, Godard continued to revert back to his experimental ways with the use of movement and music, particularly using slow motion to elevate certain scenes. What Godard tries to convey and tell us with 'Every Man For Himself' is that no matter the choices you make in life or the paths you decide to go down, you usually end up looking after yourself only. Godard even said that a better title for this film would be 'Save Your Ass'. 'Every Man For Himself' plays out like three separate one-act plays that centers on a certain character in each act. We all know that Godard has influenced tons of directors, one of them being Quentin Tarantino, so it shouldn't be a surprise that each character here and story line cross paths at some point in the film, much like the characters did in 'Pulp Fiction'.We meet Paul Godard, who is a filmmaker who has been having a long affair with a woman named Denise. This ultimately led to his divorce from his ex-wife. Since Paul is a moody son-of-a-gun, and doesn't want to put in the time emotional effort to make Denise happy, she decides she needs move out and live in the country. But Denise also struggles with leaving the unhappy life in the city that she knows in order to make a change for the better. Meanwhile, Paul tries to appease her, but at a distance, as he seems to sabotage himself and relationships, because he wants to be alone.This is conveyed by his very unorthodox conversations and thoughts towards young girls, which is fairly creepy. Paul ends up meeting a prostitute named Isabelle, where after their session, she continues her evening of work with several other clients, who are not above abusing her. But she doesn't seem to mind her line of work or life. Even when her sister comes to town to look for help and money, Isabelle convinces her to become an escort instead of helping out. And while Isabelle looks over the girls under her tutelage and the clients that abuse them, she never breaks, but instead basks in her life choices. Godard perfectly weaves each of these characters into literally running into each other, where each person is forced to make a life decision and get on a better path.As we see Paul, who seems to be his own worst enemy try and be the better father and ex-husband he should be, it's just inevitable for dire consequences to catch up with him. It's quite a brilliant style for Godard too, as he uses the slow motion technique to upgrade these choices we make that influence the rest of our lives. 'Every Man For Himself' might not have the indie look or raw feel as his earlier films, but Godard sure made a great film that makes us look at our own lives and think if we've made the right choices.

There are three central characters in this film, and three central stylistic devices that we must become accustomed to in order to better appreciate the concept of the film as Godard sees it. The first of these particular devices is a literal slowing down of time; in which the action of the film freezes and then advances one single frame at a time at seemingly sporadic points throughout. The second is Godard's continually jarring use of sound design and editing; taking dialog from one scene and placing it over shots taken from somewhere else entirely, or, indeed, occasionally having the audio from one scene continue into the next one before having it cut out abruptly. The third and final technique is much more transparent and involves the director manipulating the events of the film into recognisable chapter points decided by theme. This creates an often jarring and confusing rupture in the film's linear timeline, making the film more of a formal essay/thematic rumination than an actual, identifiable narrative. At any rate, if you're familiar with Godard's work, then some of these techniques will be fairly recognisable. However, the film is still one of the director's most challenging and enigmatic experiments; filled with subtle elements of almost Buñuelian satire, and some deeply flawed and often detestable characters.With this in mind, the film can be interpreted on a number of levels, not least as a visual essay on the creative process itself. However, one recognisable strand of the film deals most plainly with human relationships, frailties and fragilities, and the idea of escape. The way the layers of theme, character and events are woven throughout the film - combined with Godard's bold experiments with structure and presentation - is truly fascinating, though it certainly isn't an easy film to enjoy or comprehend without the benefit of repeated viewings. The satire used throughout is incredibly subtle, with references to society as prostitution, the role of the director as a selfish deviant and the mechanics of society in relation to the sold out 60's generation cast adrift in the 80's consumerist abyss, all hinted at through the bold combination of character, dialog, scenario, and the actual presentation of the film. Instead of presenting this colourfully, as someone like Buñuel might have done - as evident in films such as Belle de jour (1967), The Phantom of Liberty (1974) and The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie (1972) - Godard's presentation of the film seems incredibly straight-faced, with a largely un-stylised and matter-of-fact approach to the cinematography, shot composition and production design going against the more iconic and imaginative films that he produced in the 1960's.This was effectively the beginning of the third phase of Godard's career, following on from his more aggressive, experimental and politically-themed films of the 1970's, and seeming to show a greater level of intelligence and emotional maturity than his much more successful work of the early-to-mid 1960's. I wouldn't go so far as to call it a masterpiece, but it is at least a thought-provoking and fascinating idea and one that is conveyed in Godard's typically jarring and alienating approach to editing, sound design and direction. It is also notable for the two incredibly bold and effective performances from Natalie Baye and Isabelle Huppert, who act as the principal anchors to the film's central thematic preoccupations. Both of these characters share similar qualities, though ultimately seem to come from completely different worlds. Baye's character works in television, is in the midst of an on-again-off-again love affair with a jaded television director, and seems to be struggling to reconcile her once defiant need for independence and that 60's sense of individuality in favour of a comfortable life in the country.On the other side of the fence we have Huppert's character, a young prostitute also looking to make an escape of sorts, though not quite on the same emotional level as Baye. In exploring Huppert's character, Godard creates his most pertinent scene of satire and indeed, the most iconic scene in the film. Here, Huppert's prostitute is involved in an elaborate sex game with a high-ranking business man, his young assistant and a second prostitute that never speaks. The scene is shocking, uncomfortable and incredibly funny, all at the same time; much like the film itself. More importantly however, Godard uses this scene to make his most explicit comment on the notion of industry and the foundation of society at the dawn of a new decade. It also ties in with certain implications of the title; Sauve qui peut (la vie) (1980). At its most simplified level, the title can be translated as Save (Your Life) Who's Able / Run for (Your Life) If You Can, which suggests certain ideas that Godard himself talks about in the film with the character of the television director played by Jacques Dutronc; a man whose selfishness and volatile relationships with the various women in his life make up yet another facet of the film's complicated emotional design.The title can also be seen as an ironic judgement on the once radical 60's generation that Godard was very much part of; a generation now consumed by commercialised consumption, greed and pointless self-absorption, guilt and examination. The title more commonly used in the UK, Slow Motion, is also alluded to by Godard, not only with the film's deliberately slow pace, but with the idea of slowing down moments in the attempt to see beyond the surface action, and instead, to see whether or not there is something else happening behind the facade of this ever moving tableau. Ultimately, Godard's ideas remain vague, forcing the viewer to question the intentions of the characters and what the filmmaker seems to be suggesting by their presentation within the film.

Sauve Qui Peut loosely translates as "every man for himself" and as such I guess is Godard's acknowledgment that 1968's dream of a new society is gone and everyone has to get on with the daily grind. The three protagonists try and save themselves in different ways, Natalie Baye through getting back to nature, Huppert through selling herself and the director Paul Godard through his work. Everyone however is ground down by the social relations they must operate within.As ever Godard leverages as much of his library as he can into the film, with huge chunks of Duras, Bukowski and sundry other writers cut & pasted in. And he plays the usual games with sound and image, juxtaposing them sometimes to beautiful effect, sometimes dissonant, quite often very funny.A lot of people find Godard's later work somewhat depressing and it's true it mostly lacks the fizz of his early 60's stuff, however there are compensations; he seems to be putting more of his heart as well as his head into the work in later years. There is more than enough here to draw you in and keep you watching for several viewings.