Vivre Sa Vie

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2Uqlz_TQG0

One of my favorite scenes in in Vivre Sa Vi is the record store scene that begins about 9 minutes and 21 seconds into the film.  The scene last for approximately 3 minutes and is done in a long take, making use of a dynamic dollying and panning around the store.   To me, this scene comes across as a hybrid of rehearsed / open filmmaking. It is an example of how Godard’s work being mechanically complex and not just conceptually. In fact, everything comes across as  planned with the exception of how the scene ends when the camera pans to a shot looking outside of the window of the record store.


I also like the examples of Distanciation scene in the film, such as when the repetition of lines, or “pick ups” left in the film, which Morrey points out. I think what is enjoyable is how Godard plays with Narrative fiction/non-fiction. There is a definitely a Brectian influence, certain scenes allow the spectator to get caught up in the narrative, just never for too long. The film allows the audience to get sucked in to the conflict or  Nana's finacial burden and her entering prostitution but repeatedly pulls them back, never allowing for complete identification with the character. This method could be viewed as a way to allow the audience to connect with how capitalism essentially traps them in their own decision making, and as a way to avoid the spectator seeing the negative side of capitalism solely through the scope of Nana's specific situation and problem. 


-Joe V.

Foucault’s “What is an Author:” A Retrospective

I thought it would be interesting to revisit the notion of author discussed at the beginning of the semester in retrospect to Godard’s later work. In light of Godard’s Histoire(s) du Cinema screened in class, I was curious to make a few parallels between Foucault’s “What is an Author?” and the issue of history, ownership and citation given Godard’s referencing to other films in this work, especially in Historie(s). This is not a claim to right an argument for or against the notion of  “author,” but merely to pose a few rhetorical thoughts on the intention of authorship, and history. Foucault brings attention to the historical relevance of ownership to text arguing that discourse was not always just a thing, but an act of decent in some cases (108). However, the most interesting claims are his explanations of the “author function.” Foucault writes, “the author function is therefore a characteristic of the mode of existence, circulation and functioning of certain discourses within a society” (108). In short Foucault goes on to describe the issues that pertain to the author function; however his fourth characteristic of the author function seems to be an intriguing parallel to thinking about Histoire(s) du Cinema and Godard. Foucault states the fourth characteristic as follows: “it [the author function] does not refer purely and simply to a real individual, since it can give rise simultaneously to several selves, to several subjects—positions that can be occupied by different classes of individuals” (113). This characteristic describes the complexity of authorship and influence of a given work. Foucault has mentioned earlier of the plural nature an individual because when one hears the name, one also relates the name to multiple references.  In regards to the plurality of the self or “several selves” it is interesting to think about influence being a part of authorship. For Foucault there is a distinction between ownership and authorship. While ownership suggests an inherent right to the work, authorship suggests a beginning or a process set in motion. With this quotation in mind, it is curious the role of ownership/authorship in regards to Historie(s). 

Godard composes a film that is entirely composed of references to other films, but simultaneously Godard put the project into motion. It is not just films that are referenced; it is individuals, media and art. Here, the question of ownership of these referenced texts are sometimes obscure, but other times familiar. The question is: Is it important for Godard to claim ownership or authorship to the film? Leading up to Historie(s), especially in his earlier films, he has laid claim to authorship in his work. However, this claim does not mean for Godard a method set completely in stone. Historie(s) is an interesting example because is lies in the somewhere in the in-between. One could trace the extensive references in the film; however, that only seems to be one component of the larger whole. Godard seems to be one step ahead of critics because it takes time before one finally catches up to his work, and as one does Godard has moved on to something else. That said, one final parallel to Foucault and Godard that needs mentioning is a line in the concluding paragraphs of the essay, Foucault writes,

“…as our society changes, at the very moment when it is in the process of changing, the author function will disappear, and in such a manner that fiction and its polysemous texts will once again function according to another mode, but still with a system of constraint—one which will no longer be the author, but which will have to be determine or, perhaps, experienced” (119).

It seems as though Foucault is speculating a time when the term author is no longer used to describe a work, but examined by, what he calls “the modes of existence” (120). It is interesting to draw attention to how history is portrayed in Histoire(s) du Cinema because it is everything, but simple. The title is a double if not triple meaning, but the content too has multiple meanings because each individual experiences the references a number of ways due to their own personal histories. It means something different for Godard as well. Histoire(s) becomes this working example of a work that could be examined using “the modes of existence.” One possible meaning or application of existence to the film could be the way the references function in the terms of personal memory to the viewer or someone writing about the film. However, this would be only one of many possible modes. The film is unique to those who experience it, an experience that goes beyond the individual who set it in motion, but more importantly how it exists. 

jml

Rhythmic Montage and Music Videos


Eisenstien's writings on montage clarified, for me, the different categories that seem fitting to all types of montage.  However, when I was thinking about Rhythmic montage, naturally music videos came to mind.  Filmmakers usually treat visual elements as the primary and auditory elements as secondary.  However, when it comes to music videos, the whole purpose the video is created is to 'support' the song.  It is used as a marketing tool, allowing the label or artist to create an artist's brand, image, and just for exposure of the song through visual media such as television or the internet.  Music videos can be either narrational or not but they almost always have something to do with the lyrics of the music or the tonality of the music.  Most of the time, they are edited very rhythmically to accentuate the beat of the song.  One interesting example is Michel Gondry's work because he goes beyond editing to use the visual to support the music.  He uses post-production special effects.  I wonder what Eisenstien would have to say about using special effects to tell a story and if he could categorize different types of special effects or not.  A great video of Gondry's to cite would be Chemical Brother's "Star Guitar".

_Sunanda

Bande A Part - Dance Homages

Band of Outsiders was the first Godard film I had watched and upon seeing the dance scene in the cafe, I was hooked on the film.  I thought it was a very simple yet effective way to really describe the characters without being too expositional or verbose.  The voice over which interjects through out the scene describes the thoughts of the characters but furthermore, their dance styles also express who they are.  Arthur's "couldn't care less" attitude is expressed in his loose easy movements.  Franz, who is in love with Odile, obviously makes an effort in his movements to perhaps try and impress her, although his thoughts are flighty.  Odile on the other hand is dancing very consciously of trying to look "sexy" without really achieving it.  We also hear her thoughts and it's obvious she is trying to seduce the men with her dance but as she is an innocent schoolgirl, it is unsuccessful.  It was interesting to find different homages to this scene posted on youtube.  They mostly look like student productions, but are much more succinct.  I suppose it must have something to do with the average attention span these days being shorter which is reflected in these shorter pieces, but they attempt to capture the essence of the scene.


A French Language Homage - Dancing with Strangers 

A Brazilian Production by Students - Bando A Parte

_Sunanda

LIVE FREE OR DIE!

Chiming in with AR’s post, I have been thinking about Rancière’s emancipated spectator in relation to Godard. One of the interesting threads that came up in the class discussion was whether Rancière might be considered post-modern. While I don’t want to and probably can’t offer a complete argument one way or another, I would like to spelunk one important crevice along this fault line. 

Like many post-structuralist arguments, Rancière’s argument for the emancipation of the spectator is based in the rethinking of (deconstructing) a series of apparent oppositions. This is where he discusses the binaries of activity/passivity, viewing/knowing, appearance/reality to suggest that they are perhaps not really so diametrically opposed and that someone who appears passive can really be very active in that their observation is a part of their way of knowing and that the mere appearances they are observing can tell them many things about the world. 

Simultaneously, however, Rancière makes the case for the importance of the impenetrably garrisoned individual. This, I maintain, proclaims loudly against the pomo annihilated subject. Does Rancière’s argument go this far? I think it might. While we must submit to a vast blurring of boundaries it is only through the “irreducible distance” between the viewer and the viewed that we are capable of composing these, our own poems out of the timber of the forest of signs and facts – a notion that is the foundation of the possibility of emancipation for Rancière. 

Godard on the other hand, believes that “in the cinema, we do not think, we are thought.” For Godard, Rancière's one irreducible distance is abolished by the very nature of cinema. The viewer and the viewed are one. He wants to make us think, it’s true. In fact, according to this argument, he wants to "think us" – a totalitarian proposition if I ever heard one. Of course, I don’t think Godard really wants to be a totalitarian, he wants us to be free, but his epistemology is opposed to the realization of this goal. He seems to be operating under the New Hampshire state motto, but read as an imperative: Live Free or Die!

-Jerry Prokosch

Kehr mentions Histoire(s)

For those interested, the main topic of discussion in Dave Kehr's Sunday DVD column for The New York Times is Godard's recently released "Histoire(s) du Cinema" on Region 1 DVD. You can check out the article here.



Erik

Rancière, Kierkegaard, Heraclitus and Godard

“Knowledge is not intelligence.” Heraclitus

The separation and/or difference between teacher and student have been discussed by philosophers aplenty.

Rancière discusses intelligence equality, the distribution of the sensible, and social emancipation. He pursues an interrelation between art and the proletariat and effectively attracts the distinction between knowledge and intelligence while abolishing the hierarchy between teacher and student. For Rancière intelligence is equal for all. People can equally gain intelligence by defining and recognizing signs. Everyone has the same potential of gaining intelligence. The schoolmaster is ignorant if he believes inequality of intelligence to be inherent.

Kierkegaard makes a similar argument in describing the essence of the teacher as a learner. “To be a teacher does not mean simply to affirm that such a thing is so, or to deliver a lecture, etc. No, to be a teacher in the right sense is to be a learner.” The Point of View for My Work as an Author (1848).

In addition, Heraclitus wrote in 5^th century BC “Let us therefore notice that understanding is common to all men.  Understanding is common to all, yet each man acts as if his intelligence were private and all his own.” This quote may be easily compared to Rancière’s 2009 quote “He does not teach his pupils his knowledge, but orders them to venture into the forest of things and signs, to say what they have seen and what they think of what they have seen, to verify it and have it verified.”

There seems to be a similar philosophy amongst Ancient Greece to 19^th Century Denmark to Modern-day France, where intelligence is on an equal playing field and all are capable of accessing it.  Godard, however, challenges this idea. As a Maoist, Godard is in favor of the proletariat. However his art attracts the educated because his references are literary as well as philosophical and this can isolate the worker. A differentiation exists in the way these philosophers describe intelligence and Godard’s exclusivity. Intelligence may be equal, yet Godard’s oeuvre contests this philosophy.

-ar