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