The Definition of Quotation/ Politics?

1. "Godard, however, uses quotation in a much more radical manner" (Wollen 78).
I liked Weekend. But something about me likes Buñuel better... but we haven't screened Buñuel, so I'll stay away from comparisons.
I like Godard because he poses a lot of excellent questions. The first thing that strikes my mind is the use of "quotations." Wollen defines/Godard uses quotations in a very theatrical way; the actors merely read the words of someone else, whether they are reciting a famous speech or reading the lines of a script, written by someone different than themselves. However, to me this cannot be "true quotation"; the actors may not have control over the words they say, but in varying pitch, tone, speed and other qualities (qualities not dictatated by the "quote"), they can distort the quotation into something very different (see John Cage's Empty Words (parte III)). Within Weekend, the quotation is made obvious by characters acting in absurd ways that don't seem to connect to the period of the central characters of the film. This brings of the question of definition: how exactly do we define "quotation"?
Given Godard's love for displacement, it's suprising he didn't use another form of quotation, that is, direct quotation of film. This would entail creating a film constructed entirely of clips/quotes of other films reconstructed, reconfiguered, and remixed together. Things like this have already been done, but mostly in the music world, where it is easy to mix together recordings/samples/quotations to form a new whole. From that end, it seems as if the results can vary widely, from the deconstruction of pop culture from a quantifyable mass to a series of texts and objects that can be reapropriated, manipulated, and played with (a tactic that started with Steinski and has expanded to include the Dust Brothers and Girl Talk, and has also been used to more radical/absurdist ends by Negativland), or used to "rebirth" old recordings, constructing a new ideology by restructuring those that have been forgoten or ignored in the past (the whole crate digging movement; it's worth mentioning that recient "crate diggers" such as Madlib and Daedelus have begun manipulating their samples to radical/absurdist ends, making it nearly impossible to recognize the source, or even what instrument a sampled phrase is). There are other ways of manipulating sonic "quotations" as well, such as the DJ set, but while these certainly apply to film, the DJ set still (for the most part) depends heavily on the individual fragments (hence the importance of the set list; again, it's worth noting that people like Richie Hawtin have begun deconstructing this notion (see DE9: Transisitions)). While a lot of work has been done since Godard of this type, I do not know of a film that has been constructed entirely from other pieces of film and has influenced the film community. While "remixes" of both Gone With the Wind and Birth of a Nation are interesting first steps in this direction, there is still much that can be done here.
As a quick side note, I can't help but feel the music example in the last paragraph marks this post as separate from those posts that seem to go much deeper theoretically. So, I'll pose these questions: can you separate film and music today/where is the line between them? Does film rely upon audio aspects (including music: notice that even Godard made use of soundtracking, and that soundtracks used to be a location for intense experimentation (the soundtrack of The Twilight Zone, as cliché as it might sound, is a great example), or can music create any impact beyond emotional without use of imagery or some visual component/why is the live performance privaledged over isolated recordings? How has the creation of films (and the use of music within films) transformed music?
2. A Political Godard(Question Mark?)
There are two threads of commentary within the blog posts that seem strangely complementary to me. Ioana says that Godard is parodying the "class struggle," and others believe that Godard's revolutionary/second cinema was constrained in its political power, a fact that forced the makers of third cinema to seek a new form/a new aesthetic with which they could create revolution and fight against (neo)colonialism. What should we make of this opposition, and what (if anything) could this tell us about both the makers of third cinema, third cinema itself, and Second Cinema (was its intent to be revolutionary, if this is the case)?