I was contemplating making a thread on this, only titling it something like “Heavy weight on the viewer” or something along those lines, but I definitely think so. The prime example is the isolationist picture “Film Socialisme,” a cold, displeasing effort from Godard. The film is the bare minimum of what cinema can be, and feels it can just connect disjointed, out of context clips together and hope the viewer can make sense of it all. We go to the movies to be shown characters and a story, not spliced up footage thrown together with no resemblance of coherency.
“We go to the movies to be shown characters and a story, not spliced up footage thrown together with no resemblance of coherency.”
I don’t.
@Robert
A couple of comments:
1. By “surface,” I’m thinking of the plot or sequence of events and the way they’re linked together. In MC, Movern’s bf commits suicide leaving her with money and a manuscript; she uses the money to take a trip to Spain with a friend; she sleeps with a guy, wanders in the desert, and cuts a signs a book deal. She goes back to Ireland(?). I don’t think that has much meaning in and of itself, and it’s certainly not interesting in terms of a dramatic narrative. Compare that to Jaws or Raiders of the Lost Ark. If I describe the plot and sequence of the events, the meaning or the way the films would be interesting and compelling would be rather obvious, imo. (Of course, what is interesting depends to some extent on the individual, but I think we can speak in meaningful generalities.)
2. For films where the meaning and interest isn’t in a clear-cut story (e.g., MC), the ease or difficulty in extracting the meaning from a film can vary from person to person. Sometimes a viewer is “in tune” with the film, so its meaning seems obvious; there’s no effort at all in getting the meaning. So even though one might still have to “extract” or “construct” the meaning, but this process is so effortless it seems like the meaning was on the surface.
At other times, the viewer may be “out of tune” (e.g., wrong mood, insufficient experience, etc.). In such cases the extraction or construction can be quite difficult and maybe the viewer won’t be able to construct any meaning.
Of course, the third option is that the film is actually incoherent (i.e., devoid of meaning) and no amount of effort or being “in tune” will help.
How do we know when the meaning is too difficult to extract or there really is no meaning? That’s another way of expressing the purpose of this thread.
@Steve
Along similar lines as Aly, suppose the “spliced up footage thrown together” has a coherent meaning, sans character and a story? Couldn’t that also be a meaningful and worthwhile film? Most people prefer good characters and a good story, but I don’t think this is a necessary requirement.
Essentially, yeah—just because something doesn’t follow a familiar narrative form hardly makes it incoherent.
Kent Jones# re: Godard:
“Godard makes narratives which are sliced up, reconfigured, abandoned and finally exploded. What is left – intentionally, I think – is a ruin. And as Charles Péguy says in the quotation that opens Picard’s essay, “Ruins are eternal . . . to be clear, I am not using the word “ruin” pejoratively but descriptively. When one thinks of a film by Resnais or Kubrick, for instance, one imagines a solid construction. But from an architectural standpoint, Godard’s films are phantom structures with missing doorways and unfinished walls, moss-covered stairways and half-assembled plumbing. To a great extent, this is deliberate, of course. In his later films, Godard takes strands of narrative and builds over and under them, extends or atomizes certain motifs to the point where they become unrecognizable as elements of one single narrative . . . they are neither neat nor orderly, “solvable” nor “decodable” "
One could argue, I suppose, Jazz, that by the logic of this thread, Godard’s films become “too much work” when they become" unrecognizable as elements of one single narrative" (to me though, we’re then getting to a place where I have to use the notion of “too much work” as an ironic compliment to the work).
@Matt
If by “narrative” you mean a story—like a standard three act structure—then I agree with you. Films don’t need this. I have no problem with Godard’s films simply because he eschews or deconstructs a narrative. My problem with Godard is that I haven’t been able to assemble a coherent meaning from many of his films. A part of me feels like you could be using “narrative” to mean a coherent whole. If that’s true, I don’t really agree—i.e., I think films have to be a coherent whole—with or without a story.
Btw, “too much work” doesn’t mean that a viewer has to work hard to understand the film. I don’t care how hard a viewer has to work to get to the meaning—as long as the film contains the meaning (besides, the degree of difficulty or ease is relative to the invidual viewer, as I mentioned). “Too much work” mostly means the situation where the viewer has to fabricate the meaning from a film—i.e., when the artwork doing enough to provide the meaning, if that makes sense. Clear as mud, huh? :)
“My problem with Godard is that I haven’t been able to assemble a coherent meaning from many of his films. A part of me feels like you could be using “narrative” to mean a coherent whole. If that’s true, I don’t really agree—i.e., I think films have to be a coherent whole—with or without a story.”
Jones again:
“I do not share the belief that any of his films is 100% coherent and unified. Rather, I agree with Alain Bergala that from “Passion” on, the work has come to us in an endless stream, resisting finality, drifting toward and away from cohesion – I once saw this as a limitation, but I no longer do . . . The political and historical cogency of Godard’s cinema has always existed within (and sometimes been overwhelmed by) a greater existential urgency, because the films are always asking: How do I (Godard) live? What is this thing called “I?” Who are these others like me but not me, and how is a “we” formed?"
Me now:
Circle back to Morvern Callar with “cogency [exists] within (and sometimes been overwhelmed by) a greater existential urgency . . . How do I . .. live? What is this thing called “I?” Who are these others like me but not me, and how is a “we” formed?”"
“the situation where the viewer has to fabricate the meaning from a film”
Right, but as I said some pages back, I don’t think there’s a clear delineation that would hold true for every film (because of the various relational dynamics between story and visual, text and subtext, etc.), so there’s no principal that can be extrapolated from a few example films.
@Matt
The political and historical cogency of Godard’s cinema has always existed within (and sometimes been overwhelmed by) a greater existential urgency, because the films are always asking: How do I (Godard) live? What is this thing called “I?” Who are these others like me but not me, and how is a “we” formed?"
(I haven’t watched a lot of his post-60’s films, so keep that in mind.) If I understand this comment correctly, Jones is saying that the film is about asking existential questions. The film itself may be incoherent in a conventional way, but if this incoherence serves a meaningful purpose effectively than in a way the film could be coherent. If I make a film that has a fragmented quality, but this fragmented quality serves what the film is about, then I could say the film is actually whole and unified.
Circle back to Morvern Callar with “cogency [exists] within (and sometimes been overwhelmed by) a greater existential urgency . . . How do I . .. live? What is this thing called “I?” Who are these others like me but not me, and how is a “we” formed?”"
You mean, the MC could be about raising existential questions? I think my own interpretation is pretty close to that. (You know that I don’t agree with DiB and Seen Said’s position on the film, right?)
Right, but as I said some pages back, I don’t think there’s a clear delineation that would hold true for every film (because of the various relational dynamics between story and visual, text and subtext, etc.), so there’s no principal that can be extrapolated from a few example films.
You could be right. I’d have to do this with a lot of specific films before I could answer this with any confidence.
“You mean, the MC could be about raising existential questions?”
Something like that, yeah.
How do we know when the meaning is too difficult to extract or there really is no meaning?
i’m reading some pretty arcane stuff and it occasionally occurs to me that it is all BS, but for some reason I continue reading. I feel it must be meaningful to me in some way i don’t now understand.I extract what meaning i can and then…turn the page.
@Robert
i’m reading some pretty arcane stuff and it occasionally occurs to me that it is all BS, but for some reason I continue reading. I feel it must be meaningful to me in some way i don’t now understand.I extract what meaning i can and then…turn the page.
This brings up another point. I also experience something similar with movies. Sometimes I’ll watch a film that I won’t understand at all—it seems meaningless. But then my gut feeling says that there is some meaning underneath—as if the film I’m getting the meaning on a subconscious level. If I spend the time and effort, I can either find (“construct” or “extract”) the meaning from the film. Then again, I’ve had this feeling and after analyzing the film, I’ve come up empty. In that case, I conclude that the film doesn’t have much meaning and isn’t very good.
Mullholland Drive is an example of the former; while something like Enduring Love is an example of the latter.
Oh, there are a few films that I never fully figure out, but I still like. Denis’ L’intrus is an example of such a film.
Robert W Peabody III
Movern Callar too much work to be meaningful?
It is all right there on the surface.
DiB was saying there is nothing there.