While examining film, it is sometimes beneficial to focus
on one particular defining moment in order to gain a greater understanding of
the rest of the film, as well as the concept of film in general. The moment
that I would like to examine closely occurs while Paul, Madeline, Elizabeth,
and Catherine are all at the movies. Upon looking at this scene there are multiple
elements and techniques that stand out as unique and purposeful.
First, it’s important to take note of this “film within
the film.” This deliberate cinematic inclusion is, in fact, a parody of Ingmar
Bergman’s “The Silence.” It seems wonderfully suitable that Godard chose to use
that particular film within his own. “The Silence,” like “Masculin-Féminin,”
also concentrates on the complexities of youth with respect to sex and
relationships. Similarly, both films broach various controversial issues.
Additionally, by featuring this film within the film, Godard manages to break
down certain emotional barriers between film and reality. He does this by
allowing us to see the characters as they watch the film.
As “The Silence” is being shown, the shot not only
alternately focuses on the film within the film vs. the characters, but also specifically
on one person at a time. This manages to exemplify each character’s own
individual reaction to the film. For example, we see Catherine who is subtly
smiling and biting her lip at times. Similarly, we see Paul’s face, which
conveys utter misery as he averts his eyes from the screen. This is exceedingly
complemented by his morose dialogue, which interestingly enough, also manages
to break down barriers between cinema and reality through his own expressed
wishes for his life to have been like a film:
“At the movies the
screen would light up and we’d shiver. But more often we’d be disappointed,
Madeline and I. The images seemed old and flickery. Marilyn Monroe had aged
terribly. We were sad. This wasn’t the film we’d imagined…the perfect film each
of us carried within…the film we would have liked to have made, or perhaps even
to have lived.”
Overall, the concept of character reactions seems to be
extremely important to Godard—not just in this scene, but all throughout the
film. It would similarly appear that Godard was very interested in human nature,
and that many of the techniques implemented in his film were utilized to
examine natural reactions. For example, he constantly breaks the
shot/reverse/shot rule. By having the camera focused on the listener rather
than the speaker, we (the audience) are more capable of seeing his or her
reactions. Our focus is on the facial expressions and the subtle movements that
reveal what the character is feeling.
This leads me to think that Godard wants film to be geared
toward a focus on emotional provocation. This can be understood in terms of the
emotional provocation in the lives of the characters themselves and in the
audience as well. Godard clearly likes to toy with and evoke attitudinal emotions
as he incorporates horrifying and shocking moments into his film in an almost
humorous way (i.e., the wife shooting her husband, the shooting on the train,
the man stabbing himself, and the other man lighting himself on fire.) These
actions come out of the blue in such a way that unexpectedly causes us to
laugh. Of course these aren’t “laughing matters” but, as explained before,
Godard sees film as an opportunity to literally “screw” with emotions. (Perhaps,
just as Madeline screws with Paul’s emotions?)
Perhaps it is Godard's ability to impact emotions both internal to the film and external from the film that also allows him to break down the aforementioned barriers between cinema and reality.
I commend you Aliza for going down this path and getting as far as you have. However, you need to make the jump to Godard's political intentions.
ReplyDeleteYes, Godard does see film as the opportunity to "screw with peoples emotions" - but Godard is not doing this with malice or for escapism - He is most definitely anti-escapism here. Marxist Godard aggressively embraces the role of Plato's philosopher in going down into the cave of French youth in order to break their chains of allusion. In other words, he endeavors to raise the consciousness of French youth, and especially women. He wants to shock them into action.
For while this scene seems to add support to many other images that show young French women as shallow, consumerist, fadish, and misdirected; Godard is no simple anti-feminist. Quite the contrary, as he highlights significant injustices in their 1965 French Catholic subjugation- from primitive birth control (timing) to bestial abortion practices (coat hangers, for god's sake!!)
Godard does distinguish between the annoyed and bored reaction of Paul to the film and the interested and somewhat entertained one of Catherine. So Godard allows his alter-ego, Paul, to go out for a pee so that he could raise the issue of the subjugation of gays and their lack of political action (staying in the closet -and, incredibly, this 4 years before our Stonewall!) Godard's juxtapositioning this against the theatre scene is intentional and should provide political charge to it. It seems to me that the scene shown from Bergman's film and that has the attention of Catherine, is very misogynistic. Godard could be associating Catherine's interest here with a cultural observation made earlier in the film by several African-French regarding the naivete of European youth in listening to Bessie Smith and Charlie Parker. It is inauthentic, fake, and fadish.
If so, Godard is adding to his portrait of the young female that starts with the very first scene where Madeline is browsing a picture magazine while Paul in reading a classic to later scenes of Madeline liking Bach (when being interviewed) because of Paul's interest, and to many other distinctions. Godard likes to employ these dielectical tensions - Male/Female; Marx/Coca Cola; Real/Unreal in clarifying what should be worth our interest - and what should therby raise our consciousness in order to act.
As an example, his insertion of unreal images heightens attention with the realistic ones that follow. And of course adding to this sense of realism is Godard's frequent violation of shot/rev/shot in enhancing the feel of an interview.
This real/unreal distinction dramatically collapses when Paul, now employed as a social surveyor, actually does interview the REAL Miss 19 of France. I am sure that the French of 1965 knew right off that this was the REAL Miss 19, but for the first several minutes I was unsure. (I am even now not absolutely sure).
What Godard was doing here was making his summary arguments in his call to women. He exposes the innocence, naivete, and ignorance of this most angelic icon of France. These other "interviews" might have been fictional - this most certainly was not. Therefore what I, Godard, have been saying all along is quite accurate.
This movie resonates for me even today. For while many of the political calls in 1965 are resolved : gays are out, the pill and abortion are in, and the youth of France brought down the government within the next 3 years. But something about Godard's sense of the French woman persists.
What does our American sense of this matter say when we imagine the scene at the 1996 funeral of Francois Mitterand, the longest serving president in modern French history, a most beloved socialist leader?
At his gravesite and standing next to his wife of 50 years, stood his lover, Ann Pingeot, the mother of their daughter, Mazarine.
Aliza, I completely agree with you that Godard is concerned with observing and manipulating emotional responses. Isn't it interesting that Paul (at least in the clip we see) is wrong about Madeleine's reaction? He thinks she is disappointed, but as you point out she doesn't appear to be so. Paul's commentary contradicts the image of Madeleine's facial expressions, another way (perhaps?) that Godard is "messing" with our perceptions. I also agree with Jim that EVERYTHING in this film has a political charge, and Jim has made some very poignant connections. I especially like your observation of the contrast between the real/unreal interview sessions. What I like about this film is that it DOES still resonate with audiences...and the audience reactions change as time passes and cultural implications morph with the time.
ReplyDelete