Pure cinema.

All films, good and bad, fall along a spectrum that spans from Tati to Godard. At one end is Godard,the champion of a "mixed cinema", combining image-sound-text-language. His films combine poetic and chaotic images and sounds with language and polemic, a Godard film is intellectual view of the world. At the other end of the spectrum is the "pure cinema" of Tati, audio visual works that eschew verbal language and even intellectualization to deliver their ideas with a sensory and emotional appeal to the viewer. An example from Playtime (1967):

The scene is a great study in contrasts. The businessman, all right angles and precision, versus loveable M. Hulot, a picture of an unkempt and thoroughly unmodern man. Hulot's amazement with his environment seems almost childlike in comparison to the urban businessman. Yet I have no doubt that it is Hulot that is experiencing life, while the businessman will be continually checking his watch. It is Hulot's anachronism, his wonder at the sound of the cushions and the sounds of the businessman's movements, that sets him apart and makes him warm in this otherwise cold, hermetically sealed world. Through the images of Hulot, the businessman and the office and through the sounds of those cushions and that briefcase, Tati subtly brings up his distaste with the modern world and his love of those gentle and silly people who can no longer find a place in it.

In Godard's hands the scene would have played as Marxist critique, as the comic fool pointing out the damnable folly in the businessman. There would be text, speeches and a feeling of intellectual rigour. From Tati the scene is gentler, with a lighter touch that is no less damning but that plays more toward sadness than fire. Hulot may be one of the last gentle souls on Earth, but he handles it with a perplexed sigh, gently walking towards the edge of the frame after being rebuked, confident in his own time.