Introduction
What makes Jean-Luc Godard’s films so
unique and what about them changed and what would remain the same as he would
evolve as a filmmaker? Is there anything in particular that can unite films as
diverse as Le mépris (1963), 2 ou 3 choses que je sais d'elle (1966),
Le Vent d'est (1969), Soigne ta droite (1987), Histoire(s) du cinéma (1998), and Film Socialisme (2010)? Since his first
full-length feature À bout de souffle
(1960), a Parisian crime thriller
influenced by the Hollywood film noirs
from the 40s - and which proved its cinephilic credentials by being dedicated
to the B-movie studio Monograph Pictures - to his agitation-propaganda, video
work and the most recent digital and 3D films, Godard has engaged with three
primary principals: cinephilia, formal experimentation and politics. If some of
his films are so different than the others it is because in them Godard solely pursued
one of these principals to the disregard of the others. But if there is
consistency to Godard’s oeuvre it is that he inevitably returns to an
equilibrium.
Having revolutionized the ideas of a modern,
self-conscious cinema first through criticism as a film critic at Cahiers du Cinema and then through
filmmaking along with the nouvelle vague
directors, Godard has then spent the subsequent fifty years of his life making
over one-hundred cinematic works on a variety of formats, which are consistent
in their constant interrogation of the world and the medium’s potential. This
paper will explore Godard’s signature filmmaking traits with a particular focus
on his Dziga Vertov Group (DVG) films and his subsequent film and video work. As
well as how these new political filmmaking practices were conceptualized at Cahiers as they themselves were
radicalizing.
The mass student protests in May 1968 was
the catalyst for Godard to spend 1969 to 1973 with the DVG where with
Jean-Pierre Gorin, Jean-Henri Roger and Paul Burron, among others, they escaped
the authorial point-of-view for that of the collective. They made over ten
films that represent the theoretical summit of what is the ‘political film,’
which was for them a form of social intervention that also radicalized the film
form. After this period in his life, Godard, with his new wife Anne-Marie
Miéville, moved to Grenoble where he started an alternative video production
and distribution company, Sonimage. Like the Hitchcockian wrong man, Godard
needed to fall from grace, having to denounce the entertaining commercial films
of his early career to pursue the logical conclusions of a cinema of protest,
before he can re-invent himself in the 80s having matured, where he now could focus
on the intimate and explore the political through the personal.
There is a binary for Godard, which is
that cinema offers both the potential for an authentic human experience along
with a form of deception. For Godard, acknowledging how that the later –
cinema’s veil of fiction – is corrupt inevitably complicates the former and makes
it more difficult to search for authenticity and honesty in the creative
process. If Godard has appeared cynical or ironic, in either his films or
public media appearances since the 80s, it is because these positions have
become the general starting point for a serious discussion of the human
condition within the growing, omnipresent televisual and new media landscape of
late capitalism.
Dziga Vertov Group
“The problem is not to make political
films, but to make films politically,” writes Godard. This mantra is useful to
understand the DVG films. To make a political film or to make a film
politically there are some defining questions that must be asked: What is the
role of cinema on the cultural front-line? What can a film achieve on a local,
national and global context? How to film the Marxist class struggle? What is
the ideal organizational form of a society? What alternative does communism and
socialism have to offer against a dominant global capitalism? What is the
relationship between theory and practice? These questions don’t have any easy
answers nor are they static but instead are both personal and social, and
evolve with maturation and in response to a changing world.
The DVG films and Cahiers in the 70s due to their militant position offer an
interesting case study to answer these questions. Jean-Luc Comolli and Jean
Narboni were the chief editors at Cahiers
from 1965 to 1974 and they changed the editorial position of the magazine from
a classical cinephilia towards a more modernist one, which emphasized emerging
new world cinemas, political films and theoretical texts. This is the period of
fighting back against the “authoritarian” Fifth Republic of Charles de Gaulle.
There is the protest against the censorship of Jacques Rivette’s La Religieuse (1966) and there is the
Henri Langlois affair, there is the closing down of the Cannes film festival
and the May 1968 student riots. This period of heavy politicization at Cahiers not only reflected larger cultural
ideas of political engagement but was also an attempt to catch up with the
social engagement of one of its foundational figures Godard whose film La Chinoise (1967) was a catalyst for
their change. With this change came a distancing between the magazine and its
publisher Daniel Filipacchi who they would eventually split with due to
disagreements over having to publish more on a popular cinema (which is what he
preferred and also had commercial imperatives) and afterwards they reduced
their publishing to only four issues a year, which they would print at the
French Communist Party publishing house. There is a retreat to marginality,
which is against a mainstream cinema and the official ideology of France. These
changes would be in parallel to Godard’s political utopianism, which he was
trying to achieve with his own filmmaking practices with the DVG.
One particular incarnation of Comolli and
Narboni’s new editorial position would be their essay “Cinema/Ideology/Criticism.”[1]
It was a way for them to lay out a proposition for a more scientific form of
film-criticism beyond a less ‘subjective’ aesthetic, religious and moral
criteria. For Comolli and Narboni, “This implies awareness of its own
historical and social situation, a rigorous analysis of the proposed field of
study, the conditions which make the work necessary and those which make it
possible, and the special function it intends to fulfill.”[2]
By this Comolli and Narboni mean that they would interrogate their subjectivity
just as they would the films and their relationship to its ideology. One of the
important points of the essay is when Comolli and Narboni describe the
relationship between cinema and the economy,
One the one hand it is a particular
product, manufactured within a given system of economic relations, and
involving labor-factored within a given system of economic relations, and
involving labor (which appears to the capitalist as money) to produce – a
condition to which even ‘independent’ film-makers and the ‘new cinema’ are
subject – assembling a certain number of workers for this purpose (even the
director, whether he is Moullet or Oury, is in the last analysis only a film
worker). It becomes transformed into a commodity, possessing exchange value,
which is realized by the sale of tickets and contracts, and governed by the
laws of the market. On the other hand, as a result of being a material product
of the system, it is also an ideological product of the system, which in France
means capitalism.[3]
Comolli and Narboni would adopt a more
aggressive Marxist-Maoist position where cinema was utilized as a tool on the
cultural front against a capitalist industry of profit. As Sylvia Harvey argues
in May ’68 and Film Culture the impact of May ’68 greatly contributed
to the development of Marxist film criticism in France.[4]
The emphasis at Cahiers and at other
intellectual cultural journals like Cinéthique,
Tel Quel and Positif would be
that of a bourgeoning new kind of film writing based around theories of ideology
and a materialist understanding of culture and culture production. Christian
Metz and the study of semiotics along with Jacques Lacan and psychoanalysis
would become important analytical tools for the Cahiers film-criticism in this period.
In this period the ideas of the French
Marxist philosopher Louis Althusser were becoming influential. In his essay “Ideology
and Ideological State Apparatuses” Althusser defines society dually: It has an
infrastructure, which is it’s the economic base (e.g. the ‘unity’ of the
productive forces, the relations of production), and a superstructure, which
includes the state and the law.[5]
There are two potentially different forms of state apparatuses: there are the
Repressive State Apparatuses and the Ideological State Apparatuses. The basic
difference between the two is that the, “Repressive State Apparatus functions
‘by violence’, whereas the Ideological State Apparatuses function ‘by
ideology’.”[6]
The Ideological State Apparatuses present themselves to the immediate observer
in the form of distinct and specialized institutions, which includes religion,
education, family, media etc. And even though the idea of ideology is an
abstract concept it is rendered physical by concrete subjects incarnating them.
As Althusser writes, “there is no ideology except by the subject and for
subjects. Meaning, there is no ideology except for concrete subjects, and this
destination for ideology is only made possible by the subject: meaning, by the
category of the subject and its functioning.”[7]
What is interesting about the cinema and
film criticism of this post-68 period is how by pushing the boundaries of
cinema and politics it exemplifies an uncompromising commitment to political
cinematic forms as well as the limitations on what they can accomplish. Godard
was already becoming more politicized before he joined the DVG. The iconoclastic
cinephilia of Godard’s early films and the nouvelle
vague in general was meant to be a revolutionary rupture within film
history. Godard’s key filmmaking stylistics created a shift in acceptability in
filmmaking practices and led to a transition towards a new modern cinema. Some
of these stylistics include technological effects that arise from practical
filmmaking solutions, a nonchalant worldview as incarnated in people’s attitudes
and gestures, a youthful and fast-pace style, an original and daring approach
to the creation of content and adaptation, and a sense of daring and scandal. Even
though there was a joyous and entertaining quality to Godard’s pre-La Chinoise films there was a still a
political aspect to them. For example Le
Petit Soldat (1963) is about a soldier during the Algerian War, and Les Carabiniers (1963) is about a
dystopian society always at war. Even in his famous interview with Fritz Lang Le Dinosaure Et Le Bébé (1967) Godard
was already describing the negative effects of French censorship and his
combative nature against it.
When the DVG goes to Czechoslovakia to
make Pravda (1969) or Italy in Lotte in Italia (1969) they are
travelling to engage with international social movements while creating films
that attests to this radical spirit. Their Marx infused method aims for the
revolutionary seizure of power and their tactics called for an organized
movement. Some of their championed causes included the workers movements, civil
rights and third world struggles. A goal of the DVG was to highlight protest,
which the media was not covering, along with to democratize the filmmaking
apparatus by allowing the workers and strikers to make their own films. The
group is generally credited to have made nine full films: Un Film comme les autres (1968), British Sounds (1969), Pravda,
Le Vent d'est, Lotte in Italia, Jusqu'à la
victoire (1970), Vladimir et Rosa
(1971), Tout va bien (1972), and Letter to Jane (1972).
The group was in activity up to 1972 and
they disbanded after the pair films Tout
va bien, about a manifestation at work meat factory and how it was reported
in the news, and Letter to Jane, a gauchiste critique of the Tout va bien American star Jane Fonda
and her liberal humanitarian activism for the anti-Vietnam War movement. The films
of the DVG are famous stylistically for their aesthetic techniques that include
a Brechtian form, a Marxist ideology and lack of personal authorship. Quite a
few of the films remained unfinished or were denied the right to be projected. If
by pushing cinema, which at its roots is an industrial narrative art-form that
is most regularly identified with the Hollywood factory, towards politics the DVG
and Cahiers were proposing a radical
break with its tradition and instead the pursuit in uncharted territories of a
new political cinema.
The DVG film about the Palestine
Liberation Organization Jusqu'à la
victoire could not be completed by the group so Godard and Melville would
later make from the material Ici et
ailleurs (1974). Godard and Melville would go on to create other works on
video, which includes Numéro deux
(1975), France/tour/détour/deux/enfants
(1977), Comment ça va? (1978), as
well as some short-films, documentaries and other miscellaneous videos. After
this Godard’s return to more traditional fiction films was first with Sauve qui peut (la vie) (1980), which
was the first of a series of films marked with autobiographical currents. The
other films include Passion (1982), Lettre à Freddy Buache (1982), Prénom Carmen (1984), Détective (1985), and Grandeur et décadence d'un petit commerce de
cinéma (1986). These films were also controversial and Godard was never a
director to receive unanimous praise – for example, see the negative critiques
on his films from the Positif
throughout his entire career – and some of his films like Je vous salue, Marie (1985) would condemned by the Catholic Church
for alleged heresy. In this period Godard also adapted King Lear (1987), which became an extraordinary and freewheeling mediation
on William Shakespeare and language.
Godard, Capitalism and
Woody Allen
In Anne-Marie Miéville’s Nous sommes tous encore ici (1997)
Aurore Clément plays a stand-in for Miéville while Godard acts for himself as
the two of them relive and discus their intimate romantic and personal dramas,
in a tradition similar to what Godard did with Anna Karina in the 60s. The film
is divided into three parts. It begins with two women (Clément and Bernadette
Lafont, two icons of the nouvelle vague)
reciting one of Plato’s Dialogues as they perform domestic chores, and then it
goes to Godard on an empty stage where he recites Hannah Arendt's essay
"The Nature of Totalitarianism," and finally in its longest section Clément
and Godard go about a day in the life of a married couple as they discuss their
social disappointments and personal fears.
Godard is often typified as being an
angry, reclusive, vague, impenetrable, unwelcoming, serious, formalist etc.
There are too many negative character traits associated with him even though
the films themselves remain most of the time unseen, especially his output
since the 70s, and this unfair characterization tends to overlook the diversity
of his oeuvre and his warmth, generosity, honesty and humor. It is true that
since the DVG films some of Godard’s key themes include a negative critique of
capitalism and the human alienation that occurs within it – as illustrated by
the reoccurring character of the prostitute in his cinema, selling herself to
the uncultured business man – and an impenetrable approach to form – for
example, the allusive Navajo subtitles for Film
Socialisme – but since his departure from the DVG there has also been an
internal questioning of humanity, which has made him less cynical. For example
in the extended documentary-television series France/tour/détour/deux/enfants on a mother and her two children,
there are the children that speak for themselves, and reflect a kind humanity,
which both humbles the criticalness of Godard’s inquiry, and shows how Godard’s
critique of a capitalist society has validity, because at times the children reflect
on the sadness of the world. In Sauve qui
peut (la vie) the mother-children relationship is a site of emotional
struggle within a very harsh landscape.
This transition from the political to the
personal is a really interesting shift in Godard’s career as it illustrates the
limits of the former and interrogates the idea of the self-expression and the
creative process of the later. The Godard-Miéville pair and their output is
actually very similar to another director and his work and the relationship
with his wives: Woody Allen and Diane Keaton, and Allen with Mia Farrow. If one
looks at Allen’s career and his films after his shift away from slapstick comedies
to more serious intellectual comedy-dramas: the films between Annie Hall (1977) and Celebrity (1998). Even though Allen's films
after this start to feel more like a routine activity then they do as political
statements, in these early films there are many key social themes and personal
anguishes that are being explored, which make for an interesting comparison
with the films by Godard from this period.
The most obvious connection between
Godard and Allen is the documentary Godard made on him, Meetin’ WA (1986). Opening on a shot of Godard looking out a window
onto Central Park with a superimposed drawn portrait of Allen onto, Godard
begins by describing his friendly relationship with the famous New York City
director. This is the beginning of their eventual meeting. In Meetin’ WA there then a lengthy conversation
between the two that is filmed in Godard’s characteristic filming style as it
is interjected with sub-titles and has an unusual approach to perspective,
sound and editing. The two directors discuss the press, acting, architecture,
inter-titles (“The way you use it is a cinematic device, the way I use it is a
literary device.”), cinematography, the changing nature of cinema, and the
dying repertory culture in New York. There is a shared anxiety between the two
directors and it is more than just personal as they bring these doubts to the
visuals of their films.
Some scenes that stick out in Allen’s career
that seem Godardian include: The scene in Annie
Hall (1977) where Allen’s character goes to Los Angeles and critiques the
sitcom with its laugh-track, in Stardust
Memories (1980) there is the director who is angry towards his appreciative
audience, in The Purple Rose of Cairo
(1985) the young woman who meets a character that walks right out of a
movie-theater’s screen, the dealing with gender and race issues in Radio Days (1987), and the documentary
on the philosopher in Crimes and
Misdemeanors (1989). The list can go on. Another connection between both
directors is their interest in doomed couples that inevitably break up (e.g.
the couple in Tout va Bien). They
both also have an interest in jazz that they include on the soundtrack of their
films. Godard has even casted Allen in his film King Lear.
Though there are influences by other
comedy directors on Godard, most notably Jerry Lewis and Frank Tashlin but also
Jacques Tati, Woody Allen and his anxieties, which are both personal and
social, are an important reference point for Godard’s 80s films. It is through
this return to a classic interest in cinema and the films of Woody Allen, and
away from the directly political, that Godard was able to re-invent himself in
the 80s by shifting the subject of his films more towards himself in a stylized
comic representation, which would become a starting point for him to discuss personal
experiences, though somewhat ironically, and their relation to the social body.
Conclusion
A key aspect of Godard’s cinema is its
role as historical memory, which is both political and cinematic. This can be
seen in Histoire(s) du cinéma in
regards to politics through its
interrogation of the ability of cinema to document and make sense of war and
the abuse of human right. This can be seen in Alain Fleischer’s documentary Morceaux de conversations avec Jean-Luc
Godard (2009) in terms of film
history when Godard takes Jean Narboni into his film collection and
discusses the key directors of the medium as they browse through his VHS
collection. Raymond Bellour highlights this Proustian quality to Godard in the
essay “When the Photograph of Cinema is Written”[8]
where he discusses Jean-Francois Chevrier’s book Proust et la photographie and its relation to Godard and other
art-film directors like Michael Snow, Hans-Jürgen Syberberg, Chris Marker, Marguerite
Duras, Jacques Fieschi, and Thierry Kuntzel. Bellour highlights the modernity
of nostalgia amongst all of them and how this trait builds upon the classical film
narrative model, “being Proustian means scratching that film, not accepting its
mirage.” For Bellour being Proustian also means,
attacking the image’s substance, its
irrepressible tendency towards naturalism, and its mechanical consent to
tendency towards naturalism, and its mechanical consent to the dispositive (there are many ways of
going about this, but the voice – words, phrases – is certainly one of the
privileged access points: touching the image from the outside, it alters and
reconstructs it, modifying its enunciation).[9]
While for Daniel Morgan in Late Godard and the Possibilities of Cinema
describes Godard more in pictorial terms. [10]
There are five key filmmaking stylistics to Godard’s work since 80s, according
to Morgan, and they are: an argumentative quality to the montage, manipulated
images, a medium specificity, an authorial point-of-view, and a natural beauty.[11]
The films have less to do with a photographic realism as elaborated by André
Bazin and more to do with painting and a wider tradition of image making. For
Morgan,
His understanding of cinema, as I’ve been
arguing throughout is fundamentally impure, containing multiple styles, media,
and forms of appeal. And so photography is not entirely eliminated from
Godard’s account of cinema: it takes a place within the wider ecology of
artistic media that cinema contains and is built out of, no longer the privileged
medium, but one of many.[12]
There is a sense of rediscovery that
comes from acknowledging the impurity of cinema, and through this comes the
potential to renew the contemporary relevance of its forms. The cinema has a
complicated relationship to represent the social and political realities of
they day as it evolves with the new technologies of media production and
distribution. Godard brings to this whole situation an emphasis on the medium’s
aesthetic potential, its philosophical role, and ability to protest. With Godard’s
new films like the recent 3D projects 3 x
3D (2013) and Adieu au Langage
(2014) he is paving the way for the future of cinema.
[1] Comolli, Jean-Luc & Jean Narboni.
“Cinema/Ideology/Criticism” from Movies
and Methods Volume II. Bill
Nichols ed(s). California: University of California Press, 1992.
[2] Ibid.
[3]
Ibid.
[4] Harvey, Sylvia. May '68 and Film Culture. London: British Film Institute, 1980.
[5] Althusser, Louis. On The Reproduction Of Capitalism: Ideology And Ideological State
Apparatuses. New York: Verso, 2014.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Bellour, Raymond. Between-the-Images. New York City: Distributed Art Publishers,
2012.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Morgan, Daniel. Late Godard: and the Possibilities of Cinema. Berkeley: University
of California, 2013.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid.
No comments:
Post a Comment