The Dziga Vertov Group and The Spectators Redemption

The Dziga Vertov Group films produced by Gorin and Godard are problematic despite their best efforts in eliminating the line between the producers and viewers, because the medium inherently holds stultifiying qualities.  Cinema is a spectacle, by it's nature it is a one way medium. The more pedantic the film, the more stultifying it becomes and therefore undermines its own hopeful message. I will argue that Le Weekend (a pre-Dziga Vertov Group Film) and Tout Va Bien more effectively communicate their political / social commentary than La Chinoise (also pre-Dziga Vertov Group) and Le Vent d'Est using Ranciere's "Emancipated Spectator" and MacBean's article, "Godard and the Dziga Vertov Group: Film and Dialectics" as my key texts. 

MacBean's article lays out the mindset and intentions of the film makers of the Dziga Vertov Group. They sought to rid themselves of the idea of bourgeois authorship and utilize Brechtian principles throughout the film making process. They worked with other militants in the cause through the physical process of film making, later to show these films to militant workers and students. The films were meant to activate those in the audiences to do more and continue to evolve their theory and practice, however I would argue that the results are more stultifying and condescending than they intended. Instead, more successful of the radical films in Godard's canon are Le Weekend and Tout Va Bien precisely because they are more opened to interpretation and lay out characters and sequences in a less overbearing and more equidistant manner in line with the medium of cinema. 

Linds

The Unseen Speaker

There is an image in many of Godard’s films where the face of the speaker is in some way obscured. This is different than narration where the audience expects never to see the speaker. It is more similar to Godard’s method of talking through an eyepiece and having the actor repeat what he says; though we see the actor’s image transmit the dialogue, it originates from an unseen speaker. Even if the speaker is not unseen, his/her face is often covered. I am trying to understand the role and impact of the unseen or obscured speaker in three ways, 1) a method used by Godard to demonstrate, as Douglas Morrey says in Jean-Luc Godard, “the violence which accompanies the process of learning.”(pg.68) 2) the attempt, as Godard says in Godard on Godard, to show how a person sees “what surrounds him.” (pg 241) and 3) the Brechtian alienation effect as described in Bernard Dort’s “Towards a Brechtian Criticism of Cinema.”

The first idea is from Morrey and I take it to mean that Godard’s use of an unseen speaker can be understood as a device which explores the idea of learning and knowledge by not giving the audience an image he/she can relate to within the given context or is expecting at all.

Rather than present us with images, sounds and ideas that can be immediately recognized and assimilated to our pre-existing categories of understanding Godard forces us to confront the difficulty of making sense of the world, the violence which accompanies the process of learning. Often Godard will cut into an image or a sound that is not instantly recognizable and presents us with a pure, inassimilable difference.

The above image from 2 or 3 Things I Know About Her can be an example of the first theory. The faces of the speakers covered and replaced by travel bags with logos on them achieve the end of difference and chaos in understanding what is happening.  

In the second idea, Godard’s own analysis from Godard on Godard (pg. 239-41) refers to his strategy for creating 2 or 3 Things I Know About Her:

I cannot avoid the fact that all things exist both from the inside and the outside. This can be demonstrated by filming a house from the outside, then from the inside, as though we were entering inside a cube, an object. The same goes for a human being, whose face is generally seen from the outside. But how does this person himself see what surrounds him? I mean, how does he physically experience his relationship with other people and with the world?

In Weekend, two laborers stop to eat sandwiches. The face of the actual speaker is replaced with the face of a different man eating a sandwich. The speaker is not seen as he gives a lengthy speech about war and injustice; the audience only sees the face of a different man eating a sandwich. (To see this scene, click on the link below.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQW_dcTQFJ0

This seems to exemplify Godard’s desire to show how humans physically experience seeing the world around them. When we talk, we do not see ourselves talking; we see the person we are talking to, even if he is eating a sandwich.

The third idea is from Brecht as Dort describes his alienation effect as that which “allows us to recognize its subject, but at the same time makes it seem unfamiliar.” (pg. 238) And although Dort is skeptical of this working in the world of cinema (as opposed to theater), Godard seems to use this very method in La Chinoise, most obviously in the scene depicted below. (Jean-Pierre Leaud explains his idea of Brechtian acting as demonstrated by a Chinese protester.)

These three ideas may intersect and there may be more or better examples than the ones I give above. However, I hope that this explanation of the unseen or covered speaker begins to address an image that has been repeated and expanded on in many Godard films.

Sienna

Entertainment Value in Breathless and Masculin/Feminin

In Masculin/Feminin, 2 or 3 things I know about her and La Chinoise, Godard’s cinema undergoes a dramatic shift in style and intent.  More than ever, the filmmaker begins to frame his expressions with a serious and literary tone.  Unlike Breathless, in which audience attention was directed squarely on the characters and story (with some light references adorning the scenario), the later output directs the audience towards a message.  The repercussions of such a shift are numerous. By changing directorial approach, the work appears to gain a certain philosophical and political vigor.  Granted, Godard ascribes a new level of intellectual legitimacy to his films. 


In terms of entertainment value, I believe that this supposed value is not a requirement for any film or work of art.  Any cineaste that identifies entertainment value as an essential requirement for a film is not a cineaste at all.  Nonetheless, within a consumer culture, we are generally conditioned to analyze how we feel about a specific product.  The most basic assessment begins with the question of good or bad.  Was this a good film or a bad film?  During this post-screening stage, it is equally important to question the value of a film in terms of what was expressed rather than whether it provided an instance of diversion.  In terms of Godard’s work, the audience must not fall into the “thumbs up/thumbs down” form of analysis. By contrasting two films from his early and late 60’s period, we can begin to identify the shift in spectatorship.


Breathless has generally been identified as an entertaining film.  When compared with Masculin/Feminin, both works contain similar structural elements: boy meets girl, boy romances girl, boy/girl relationship results in the death of the protagonist.  Although both films have a similar story structure, the tone of each film is decidedly unique.  Specifically, the shift in tone can be noted in the long form scenes of the hotel room and the bathroom.  The Michel/Patricia scene applies amusement within the act of seduction.  Both characters apply movement, facial expression and diversion to interact with each other.  The moment in which Patricia rolls up a poster and frames Michel within the image is indicative of this playfulness.  Not only a reference to cinema, the framing allows us to visually acknowledge the attraction between both characters.

In contrast, Paul and Madelaine are not permitted the same freedom.  Their movement is restricted.  Facial expressions are kept to a minimum and the only form of personal expression is encapsulated within Paul’s flipping cigarette and Madelaine’s repeated combing.  Morrey acknowledges the shift when speaking about Masculine/Feminin, “This scene depicts an attempted seduction and, as such, might be compared to the long hotel-room scene in A bout de soufflé, yet it has none of the fun or playfulness of Godard’s first feature.” (48)

            

This example represents a microcosm of Godard’s work as a whole.  Ultimately, I enjoy both scenes with equal passion.  The playfulness of Breathless is enjoyable and entertaining.  The starkness of Masculin/Feminin foreshadows the inner turmoil of each character.  Although the scene is not outwardly entertaining, it has a relevance that reaches beyond audience satisfaction.  Rather than providing a diversionary satisfaction, the scene provides a satisfaction of profound expression. 


To conclude, I would like to share the trailer from Masculin/Feminin.  By observing the pace, rhythm and energy of the trailer, it would be fair to assume that the film would have similar inherent qualities.  My fascination with the trailer is the manner in which it provides an entertainment value that the film does not.  Paradoxically, the film as a whole stresses a meaning that is only glossed over in traditional box office product.  As an analytical example, the trailer provides the viewer with an opportunity to appreciate both approaches to film style and to distinguish between entertainment and depth of expression.  


With his later films, Godard appears less concerned with entertaining and more interested in “informing” an audience.  He is consumed by the message and, more specifically the text or literary foundations from which the content is derived.  In my next blog entry, I would like to analyze whether or not this approach reflects a symbolic betrayal to the integrity of the cinematic arts.

echeverria