Thursday, October 29, 2009
(not) MY LIFE TO LIVE
There's a sense of irony and contradiction in the title of this film, as indicated notably by the scene in which Nana is told by the pimp that she has to accept anyone who has the money to pay. The clinical (rather than romantic or melodramatic) way in which this scene is presented (pimp in VO with mismatched shots of Nana in various stages of "dates") flattens the work of prostitution to an object of study, so far as to drain it (prostitution) of any feeling or drama. Why does this film use prostitution in this manner? From PRETTY WOMAN I learned that it's fun to be a prostitute, that they have limits (no mouth kissing; that's saved for love), meet billionaires and have the same travails as other couples. Plus, the johns always are hot like Richard Gere (who hasn't found the right arm-candy woman who will just let him be!!!), the world (store managers) accepting of them, and that they turn down pigs like that played by George Castanza (because that's creepy). I am so confused.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGodard presents a film that many would find problematic, in the sense that he avoids melodrama for a flat approach to prostitution that insinuates the banality of the profession. This is problematic for a mainstream film audience expecting an emotional morality tale of the horrors and degradation a woman endures in selling herself (that would be as self-gratifying as watching Pretty Woman), when instead they are watching a film that equates prostitution like any other career path a woman can either choose or fall into. Just as the office job is tedious and mundane, so is Nana Kleinfrankenheim’s field. What is subversively perverse is her death is presented as just another possible “side hazard” to the job. Godard is very much casting a critical eye on the French patriarchy and economic system and, as he tackles later on with 2 or 3 Things I Know About Her, performs the difficult task of removing the mystification and romance away from the subject as well as the characters to present the after effects of a consumerist fuelled culture. The character of Nana cries as she watches The Passion of Joan of Arc (Carl Theodor Dryer). While not verbally expressed, Godard (and Anna Karina) show the internal turmoil Nana is experiencing by having her relate to the sufferings of the onscreen character, and Nana will later follow a tragic path (even if it is not presented as dramatically “tragic”). As we discussed in class, the idea of Nana disconnecting from her own personal horrors, and instead projecting and relating them to a “fictional” character is in itself tragic.
ReplyDeleteI found several aspects of Godard's film, My Life to Live, very interesting including the contradictions and his ability and willingness to simply present the story. He seems to place at the feet of the viewer the option of placing value or worth to the scene, situation or text. In the film's initial scene (which is generally an introduction to a film's story and its central characters) Godard (1) genericly presents what appears to be vital information, and (2) he forces us to endure this greeting while looking at the backs of these central characters. It seems as though Godard is forcing the viewer to add their own melodrama or subtext because he refuses to do it for us. The contradictions seemed most notably but not solely within the text. An example was in the cafe as the guy is trying to "pick up" the central character he insults her calling her silly and I believe unattractive; as well as her responce to laugh at his insults. Another contradictions was the final scene where she is being sold (signifing a new beginning) and then moments later is killed (the end) and all by the same man. These in brief are some of the ironic twist of contradictions I found interesting.
ReplyDelete