A cinematic essay rather than a film (with story, narrative, etc), this film presents some nice topics for thematic discussion and some points of investigation into cinematic operations. What you think?
This film reminds me of the documentary like feel of Breathless as Godard wanted to capture 1960s Paris, France. The raw and grainy black and white picture captures this feeling. The camera studies the characters' faces. The film was rather talky which clearly paved the way for the likes of brilliant contemporary dialogue driven directors Guy Ritchie and Quinten Tarintino and my favorite, the Coen Brothers. Just like how Trauffant used a younger Antoine Doinel (Leaud), I was emotionally invested in him and cared about his fate. This film can almost be considered avant garde although it doesn't sacrifice a coherent dialogue. I read an interview with Godard and found some interesting points. Strikingly this film was "not about youth like those of De Sica and Carne, but a film with youth in it. I wanted cinema to speak of youth or else I wanted to use youth to speak of cinema." The end of the 1966 interview reveals Godard's optimistic view on the role of cinema in France where he felt the young population had "found their music, but not the image to go with it." Paul represents Marxist ideals trying to fix the problems which he is aware of around him while Madeline stands for the bourgeois youth living for the present. The difficult relationship that these two experience can be seen as these two worlds unable to coincide. Such is Godard's commentary on society and his concern for it's future.
I agree with what David said about the documentary feel this film had to it. There was a raw feel that was enhanced by the black and white photography. Godard was also using a lot of sound to throw the audience out of the film. Cars would honk or drive by and cover up the dialogue spoken. The scene in the bathroom between Paul and Madeline, there are other people that can be heard talking in the background, and at one point a typewriter like sound. For a French audience that would not have subtitles like we did, the dialogue between the leads would be difficult to hear. I also noticed that even though there was a single narrative of Paul and Madeline's relationship, each scene really didn't have a beginning or an end. Each scene just picked up in the middle and then cut to the next before there was a "true" ending. This was just more apart of Godard's lack of interest in story telling. I know that in every movie the audience does not get the full story, but the most important moments are shown. It felt to me that Godard chose to leave out certain "important" parts of the story to help keep the audience out of the film.
Todd Haynes recent film I’m Not There (2007), a cinematic reflection of the “life” of Bob Dylan, contains a romance between both Heath Ledger and Charlotte Gainsbourg that directly references Masculine-Feminine, not just in terms of “cinematic-ness” and direct dialogue (intertitles with gun shots, the “what’s the center of your world?” question) but also in ideological concerns of “masculinity” and “femininity”. Of course Godard utilizes this idea, as well as the popularity of the “youth culture”, as a springboard for a very critical examination of 1960’s France. The amount of issues raised in this film (racism, sexism, homosexuality, consumerism, prostitution, etc.) is briefly raised and then “pushed aside”, yet still lingers in the back of the brain. Just as the characters in this film negate all emotion toward the random violence that erupts around them, the audience does as well, yet this “nil” response to serious concerns (anti-American sentiment, Vietnam self-immolation) is what concerns Godard. Yet the reaction his characters take, primarily the male leads, is equally ridiculous. For example, they spout revolutionary ideas, yet make sexist jokes. For a “free love” generation, Godard sure paints his characters awkward, coy, or repressed. While the leads are watching the film, Elisabeth makes the comment along the lines of “sensuality revolts me” as if the film they are watching could be categorized as tantalizing (a man forcing a woman into sex). It’s implied Madeleine is fooling around with Elisabeth on the side, yet Godard only shows brief hints of this, and mainly focuses on Elisabeth’s jealousy and disgusted comments, and Paul’s angry reactions. The women in Godard’s film are less interested in “radical” politics and more concerned with their own careers and needs, which Godard utilizes the “consumerist prostitution” idea more evidently in other films. Yet the most telling scene is where Paul is interviewing a “consumer product,” a typical French female. The questions Paul asks her to answer concerning politics and world affairs mirrors Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004) when Moore asks Brittany Spears about the Bush elections. While Moore purposefully manipulates the image to make Spears look foolish, Godard pushes deeper. Towards the end of the film, Paul rethinks his polls he has been giving to French citizens. He realizes this direct “brutal” approach will make any individual (specifically the girl he interviewed) look “foolish”, as would any film that would try to document “youth culture.” What needs to be questioned is a lot more difficult to acknowledge or tap into. Much like Greg Araki in the early 1990’s, Godard presents a world where the characters are very much a combination of consumer junk culture as well as a striving for a radical change that none of them could totally acknowledge for themselves. These films are frustrating, because the world is frustrating, and Godard captures this. I could rant some more, but I think I wrote too much already haha.
This film reminds me of the documentary like feel of Breathless as Godard wanted to capture 1960s Paris, France. The raw and grainy black and white picture captures this feeling. The camera studies the characters' faces. The film was rather talky which clearly paved the way for the likes of brilliant contemporary dialogue driven directors Guy Ritchie and Quinten Tarintino and my favorite, the Coen Brothers. Just like how Trauffant used a younger Antoine Doinel (Leaud), I was emotionally invested in him and cared about his fate. This film can almost be considered avant garde although it doesn't sacrifice a coherent dialogue. I read an interview with Godard and found some interesting points. Strikingly this film was "not about youth like those of De Sica and Carne, but a film with youth in it. I wanted cinema to speak of youth or else I wanted to use youth to speak of cinema." The end of the 1966 interview reveals Godard's optimistic view on the role of cinema in France where he felt the young population had "found their music, but not the image to go with it." Paul represents Marxist ideals trying to fix the problems which he is aware of around him while Madeline stands for the bourgeois youth living for the present. The difficult relationship that these two experience can be seen as these two worlds unable to coincide. Such is Godard's commentary on society and his concern for it's future.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what David said about the documentary feel this film had to it. There was a raw feel that was enhanced by the black and white photography. Godard was also using a lot of sound to throw the audience out of the film. Cars would honk or drive by and cover up the dialogue spoken. The scene in the bathroom between Paul and Madeline, there are other people that can be heard talking in the background, and at one point a typewriter like sound. For a French audience that would not have subtitles like we did, the dialogue between the leads would be difficult to hear. I also noticed that even though there was a single narrative of Paul and Madeline's relationship, each scene really didn't have a beginning or an end. Each scene just picked up in the middle and then cut to the next before there was a "true" ending. This was just more apart of Godard's lack of interest in story telling. I know that in every movie the audience does not get the full story, but the most important moments are shown. It felt to me that Godard chose to leave out certain "important" parts of the story to help keep the audience out of the film.
ReplyDeleteTodd Haynes recent film I’m Not There (2007), a cinematic reflection of the “life” of Bob Dylan, contains a romance between both Heath Ledger and Charlotte Gainsbourg that directly references Masculine-Feminine, not just in terms of “cinematic-ness” and direct dialogue (intertitles with gun shots, the “what’s the center of your world?” question) but also in ideological concerns of “masculinity” and “femininity”. Of course Godard utilizes this idea, as well as the popularity of the “youth culture”, as a springboard for a very critical examination of 1960’s France. The amount of issues raised in this film (racism, sexism, homosexuality, consumerism, prostitution, etc.) is briefly raised and then “pushed aside”, yet still lingers in the back of the brain. Just as the characters in this film negate all emotion toward the random violence that erupts around them, the audience does as well, yet this “nil” response to serious concerns (anti-American sentiment, Vietnam self-immolation) is what concerns Godard. Yet the reaction his characters take, primarily the male leads, is equally ridiculous. For example, they spout revolutionary ideas, yet make sexist jokes. For a “free love” generation, Godard sure paints his characters awkward, coy, or repressed. While the leads are watching the film, Elisabeth makes the comment along the lines of “sensuality revolts me” as if the film they are watching could be categorized as tantalizing (a man forcing a woman into sex). It’s implied Madeleine is fooling around with Elisabeth on the side, yet Godard only shows brief hints of this, and mainly focuses on Elisabeth’s jealousy and disgusted comments, and Paul’s angry reactions. The women in Godard’s film are less interested in “radical” politics and more concerned with their own careers and needs, which Godard utilizes the “consumerist prostitution” idea more evidently in other films. Yet the most telling scene is where Paul is interviewing a “consumer product,” a typical French female. The questions Paul asks her to answer concerning politics and world affairs mirrors Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004) when Moore asks Brittany Spears about the Bush elections. While Moore purposefully manipulates the image to make Spears look foolish, Godard pushes deeper. Towards the end of the film, Paul rethinks his polls he has been giving to French citizens. He realizes this direct “brutal” approach will make any individual (specifically the girl he interviewed) look “foolish”, as would any film that would try to document “youth culture.” What needs to be questioned is a lot more difficult to acknowledge or tap into. Much like Greg Araki in the early 1990’s, Godard presents a world where the characters are very much a combination of consumer junk culture as well as a striving for a radical change that none of them could totally acknowledge for themselves. These films are frustrating, because the world is frustrating, and Godard captures this. I could rant some more, but I think I wrote too much already haha.
ReplyDelete