Revisiting memories of a film journal past...

…films viewed during the fall of 1993….paul, age 22….New York Film and Video Festival….5:00 – ducks in flight….5:20 – Godard, the filmmaker at work…..cranking, churning, rotating – it reminds me of an upright editing machine….reading an entry after 17 winter seasons….I’ve never read The Idiot, but I really enjoyed Crime and Punishment….I should really read Anna Karenina (no excuse)...thinking that I saw JLG/JLG, when I really saw The Children Play Russian….I saw Hartley's NYC 3/94 on the same day.  Maybe I was confusing the title with JLG/JLG.  Godard’s later work isn’t narrative, they are more like poems…The Idiot in relation to Dostoyevsky....days when I would make films with actual film….the moviola….once more with feeling.

October 6^th, 1993 – The Children Play Russian, Jean-Luc Godard – video:  It seems the older Godard gets, the more elaborate his collage.  In the Godard course I can remember loving his early films, but, as the course went on, the films seemed too much to handle.  If I were to describe Godard as someone who “babbles”, then in The Children Play Russian he exhausts himself.  I’m not saying that this babbling is a negative, although I did feel that Russian was exhaustive. 

Godard expresses a number of views on Russian art, society, culture.  Perhaps the most interesting of these is a phrase which explains how Russia is constantly being invaded by the West, not only militarily, but also socially.  There is no real structure to what is being said, no continuity.  This film requires the viewer to be extremely patient and the artist runs the risk of having a significant part of the piece misunderstood on primary and subsequent viewings.  Godard tries to avoid this with the use of repetition.  However, repetition, in many instances can also serve to dull a viewer rather than allowing time to absorb the material. 

A major theme of the piece is Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina.  I’m certain that my comprehension of the film would have been much better had I known the work (The novel).  If there is any possibility of s structure, it rests in the Anna Karenina theme.  The last shot – Godard sits on a dolly in some kind of robe.  He churns away at some kind of coffee grinder.  The sequence lasts at least 1 minute. He is raising the question, “Am I just making a lot of noise?  Am I truly the Idiot of this film?”


echeverria

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-_g0AXKM2E

  

CARNAL GODARD

It’s difficult to believe that there is an aspect of Godard’s work that we haven’t discussed in detail.  With so many images, or perhaps interpretations, there is a component of Godard’s work that has remained primarily latent…at least until we consider Sauve qui peut (La Vie), aka Every Man For Himself aka Cover your ass.  In Sauve qui peut, the audience is treated to a blatant expose of carnal desires.  Throughout the film, there are robust expressions of erotic content.  Ultimately, these themes have been present in Godard’s work since Breathless.  At the same time, the vigorous approach to corporeal analysis transforms into the focus of Sauve qui peut.

There are several examples of erotic discourse within the Godard trajectory.  Several that come to mind include the Hotel room discussion between Michel and Patricia in Breathless.  Speaking of lovers past, the characters count on their fingers to calculate their number of sexual encounters.  During Michel’s turn, he flashes his whole hand once, twice…multiple times to show that he has had numerous experiences. 

In Week-end, Godard makes use of Georges Bataille’s Histoire de L’oeil to construct Corinne’s explicit dialogue scene.  The use of suggestive sexual dialogue informs the viewer that this is a more profound level of interpretation from the director.  As Morrey states, “The appeal to this novel, in which the narrator and his lovers repeatedly smear each other in their piss, shit, blood and sperm, would seem to be an abject, unclean, unrecuperated sexuality, in which the true strangeness of desire appear ungovernable by an normative discourse.” (75)


   

In Tout va bien, the sexual nature of Godard’s exploratory is expressed via graphic imagery of the male phallus.  During the “On va au cinema, on bouf, on baisse” scene, Yves Montand debates libidinous dynamics with Jane Fonda.  After exclaiming that the couple is reduced to “going to the cinema, eating, fucking,” Montand is exposed by Fonda. In her argument, Fonda reduces Montand’s thought process to a single visual: The image of a penis sitting static within a female hand.  The penis serves as an exclamation point to the dialogue within the scene.

These examples serve as a precursor to the shock value that awaits in Sauve qui peut.  After an extended period of time away from feature filmmaking, Godard returns with his most explicit approach to sexualized cinema. The more prominent scenes include the suggestion that a cow’s tongue can serve as an adequate source of carnal pleasure.  Likewise, Paul Godard questions whether a soccer coach has ever had erotic thoughts in relation to his daughter, “Do you ever have the urge to feel up her tits or to fuck her up the ass?” The scene in which Paul Godard jumps over a table to embrace his ex-girlfriend suggests the impossibility of connection between men and women.


Perhaps the most explicit scene in Sauve qui peut is what Morrey labels the “orgy” scene.  Although it is not an orgy in the traditional sense (refer to Eyes Wide Shut, Kubrick, Stanley for perceived mainstream orgy) the scene does bring several questions to light.  During the scene, the boss gives succinct directions in relation to sexual acts and process.  The absurdity of the scene has the tendency to promote laughter as opposed to erotic stimulation.  However, when compared with the wealth of examples that precede this sequence, the viewer can legitimately question the intent of the director.  First, how does the sequence fit within the area of gender studies?  Should we accept the depiction at face value and view it as a harsh criticism or reinforcement of the male gaze?  Secondly, what do these examples suggest about Godard?  During the course we’ve been speaking of the presence of the Godard surrogate.  Does this depiction show Godard for what he really is?  A cinematic Henry Miller or a highbrow Ron Jeremy?  Lastly, should these depictions have extenuating consequences?  It’s widely known that Nabokov faced intense scrutiny for his authoring of Lolita.  Is it justified to expose Godard to similar examination?

I’m curious to hear the dialogue during our next class session.  Unlike before, it is no longer possible to turn a blind eye to Godard’s sexual dynamics.  Quietly, he has dispensed carnal representations within his films.  Like a slap to face, I believe that we have all been woken by the director. If before, we chose not to address the matter, following Sauve qui peut, we have no other option.

echeverria

JLG by PC

This past Friday, I went to Anthology Film Archives to view Portuguese Filmmaker Pedro Costa speak about his new project Ne Change Rien.  In addition to the premiere, Costa has assembled a program of selects that will play throughout the next two weeks.  Within the program, the film Soigne Ta Droite (Keep Your Right Up), a mid-eighties film by Jean-Luc Godard, caught my attention. The film, complete with a Godard as Godard appearance – including a Chaplinesque leap into a Ferrari, expands the filmmaker’s layering of sounds, images and narration.  Although profound, for the purposes of this entry, I would like to concentrate on the accompanying short film, Puissance de la Parole.

As if the free speaking engagement and film selects were not sufficient, Costa is also inserting a number of surprise screenings within the series.  Anthology has billed these proverbial easter eggs as “a selection of miscellaneous music-related clips, videos, and other surprises throughout the programs, demonstrating his genius as filmmaker, curator, and YouTube-deejay!”  Included within the Keep Your Right Up program is the short Puissance de la Parole.

Puuissance de la Parole is an unreleased video commercial prepared for France Telecom.  Two main themes are reinforced via the film.  First, the film highlights Godard’s ability to remain outside of the mainstream, even when funded by a corporate entity.  Much like France / Tour / Detour / Deux / Enfants, the originality of the work is underexposed due to its obscurity.  Nonetheless, Godard does not change his style to appease commercial entities.  In fact, seemingly, his interaction with the commercial world makes his approach even more stringent.  Second, the film suggests an expansion of the aesthetic qualities of Godard’s work.  Puissance de la Parole, translated as the Power of the Word, is one of Godard’s first films created on video.  As Godard warms up to this new technology, it seems obvious that the medium will serve as an enhancement, rather than a detriment, to his visual style.

In the clip provided, observe the intercutting between water, sun, clouds, film and satellite images.  The scene could be interpreted on many levels.  Ironically, as technological determinism, the video suggests a collision between images from natural and modern societies.  In addition, the quick intercutting stresses the tension that has developed between both areas.  Even more delightful, the combination of images creates a new visual aesthetic in Godard’s work.  Although this is not the first time that he has used fast-motion cutting, the rhythm of the cut has accelerated and extended.  Whereas previous films would include short sequences of quick cutting, Puissance de Parole makes use of lengthy sequences of crosscutting.  I’ve always felt that the work of Godard has lacked the aesthetic precision of filmmakers like Marker, Antonioni or Ozu.  With Puissance de la Parole, there is hope that Godard’s video oeuvre will begin to develop a sense of visual pleasure and move beyond a textual/narration emphasis.  As suggested by Godard himself, for brief moments in Puissance de la Parole, he may be a cinematic Picasso, presenting work of a confounding and abnormal visual aesthetic, yet, at the same time, re-defining the parameters of image perception and sight.

Having only seen two late era Godard films, I am eager to view work from the post La Chinoise period.  As Sam mentioned in class, Film Forum will also be showing Every Man For Himself from November 12-25.  These films, along with our in-class screenings, will provide context for an era that is extremely rare: Godard’s work of the last 40 years.

http://www.filmforum.org/films/everyman.html

http://anthologyfilmarchives.org/film_screenings/series/36485


echeverria

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

Godard as Godard: Analyzing Surrogates in Breathless and Contempt

Within the discourse of cinephilia, authorship and domestic relations, there exists another element of Godard’s work that has been highly prophetic.  Embedded within the exploration of the Author with a capital “A”, the presence of self-identification is readily apparent.  Whereas most theorists cite Godard’s relationship with Anna Karina as a defining foundation of his films, I find that his depictions of self are more robust and influential.  In short, Godard repeatedly represents himself as a surrogate assumed by his male protagonists.  Various tiers of literary criticism, including Lacanian mirror stage theory, the doppelganger and the myth of Narcissus, support this assumption.  In contrast to Roland Barthes, Godard is not only the originator of the work, he is noticeably intertwined within the oeuvre.  This reflective quality is noticeable via detailed analysis of the protagonists in Breathless and Contempt.

Most analytical writings make clear mention of the cinematic references within Breathless.  The film represents a clear homage to the American and Italian cinema of the late 40’s and 50’s.  Nonetheless, little is mentioned about the obvious similarities between Michel, the Jean-Paul Belmondo character and the “Young Turk” that was Godard.  A drifter, at times petty criminal, interested in exploring the fringes of Parisian living - this description is equally applicable to Michel and/or Godard as filmmaker.  It is not difficult to imagine Godard undergoing the same pressures and obstacles that are encountered by Michel.  Even more to the point, it is likely that Godard would view his protagonist as an extension of his own personality and exploits.  Dudley Andrew highlights the tempestuous demeanor of Breathless era Godard when he writes “One finds in his writings and memoirs of this period a winning mixture of the brash, pugnacious smart ass (proud of petty thefts from stores, from friends) and of the young romantic, dreaming of the purity of artistic expression.” (4, 5).  Hence, Godard and Michel as drifters and dreamers.


Several ironies are also noticeable within this assumption.  Most noticeably, Godard plays the “newspaper witness” in Breathless.  Upon viewing Michel’s image on the front page of the paper, he proceeds to the nearest police officer to report his sighting.  In recognizing Belmondo’s face, it quotes a similar scene in which Michel observes the image of Humphrey Bogart. Just as Michel appears to visualize his own persona within that of Bogie, it is equally plausible that Godard recognizes the image of Michel as an extension of his own identity.  The fact that he reports the sighting opens further interpretations in regards to the status of both Godard and Michel – two figures who were previously unrecognizable, yet who were developing notice within the public view.

In Contempt, this personal connection becomes even more obvious.  Paul, a screenwriter, mimics Godardian aura more closely than any previous work.  Once again, the “contempt” between Piccoli and Bardot supposedly refer to tension between Godard and Karina.  However, the personal aspects of Paul are more closely tied to Godard as filmmaker.  Noticeably, throughout the course of the film, Paul appears torn between two spheres of influence.  First, the pompous film producer, Prokosch, who writes the checks and has little interest in cinema as art.  Secondly, by Fritz Lang, the creative visionary who defines cinema vis a vis his mere presence.  Once again, it is not difficult to consider how Godard the filmmaker was split between these two forces – an industry force that generates income and, in doing so, commands decision making power and an identifiable, God-like character straight from the chapters of cinema history.


The irony in Contempt rests in Paul’s rewriting of the Odyssey.  Throughout his career, Godard was renowned for quoting classical works of literature.  In this case, it is the Godardian surrogate who must assume the task of rewriting Homer’s classic tale.  This bold responsibility is parallel to Godard consciously winking at himself.  He quotes classic material. However, his cinematic surrogate is afforded the opportunity to author the classics.  This rewriting manifests itself in the last shot of the film when the camera pans to the image of the empty horizon.  The narrator discusses the plausibility of returning home versus the potential to remain at sea and, by extension, continue the adventure.  The conflict that Paul faces reflects the same journey that consumed Godard – to be hopelessly trapped between the industry of movies and the art of cinema.  Ultimately, Paul and Godard are depicted with the same appeal as a character from Greek mythology.  Honorable, voyagers of a ten year journey…cineastes without a definitive home.

echeverria