That’s his methodology in getting something across in a certain way. It’s a style that could be seen as rebellious to “filmmaking” because it may come off more that he’s breaking films. I see your point, though, in some of his movies like La Chinoise where the radical protagonist gets her ass handed to her on the train, and maybe that was Godard’s intention, maybe it wasn’t, but if you compare that with Tout Va Bien you’ll see an almost celebratory aspect to ideals, not just marxism, and the ending he shows those ideas in a more or less accessible way with a tracking shot. But again, I think that tracking shot, just like the painful cuts, and over-dubbing is simply a method to combine the films themselves with the message they’re explaining.
godard is practicing early marxism, or, what i like to call “methodical marxism”. this approach revolves around the ruthless critique of all existing conditions. ruthless in two senses, that it is not afraid of its own conclusions, or of conflict with the powers that be.
Was it Trotsky who called for “eternal revolution?” I think Godard is interested in what motivates people to action. That dialectic of struggle.
Three of his sharpest political movies are not particularly Marxist at all in their rhetoric. Les Carabiniers is an effective anti-war statement, Two or Three Things I Know About Her focuses on the aesthetic effects of commodification, and Weekend suggests that apolitical anarchy is more likely to replace bourgeois culture than any kind of organized political party.
two of the movies you just described qualify as marxist rhetoric to me!
I think that crediting Godard as a theorist on anything outside of the cinematic is living dangerously.
Jean-Luc’s broader example is pretty emblematic of so many self-professed socialists I knew in college, who talked a great game re. ideals and social communities, but could function in tandem with absolutley no one. How do you expect someone who couldn’t even continue functioning in a collective of a half-dozen to expound upon how to structure a country of millions? Let alone the world.
And anything Trotsky had to say—no matter how noble—gets eclipsed in my mind by the image of an ice pick protruding from his ear.
I mean no disrespect to the excellent and friendly Mr. Biberkopf, but that was a revolution, too.
wow. tough words. only important statement from trotsky is the sound of an ice pick going through his head? ok.
and i dont think anyone ever expected or wanted godard to give up cinema for knowledge of how to structure a country of millions. does that mean no one is allowed to discuss or study socialist theory without being able to act on it?
WOW ! Communisum, like Fascism is not a good thing. They both frieghten me.
Capitalism frightens me more.
Capitalism frightens me more.
Hey, Bobby.
At some point between a couple minutes of your posting, and finishing my own response, there was work done on the Comcast cables where I live. So, if the response that follows seems somewhat less than timely, it’s because they were written a couple hours ago.
Just so you know, I’m not cynical regarding Trotsky’s intellect, or ideals; I regard him as a formidable thinker, and an admirable man. But as regards those theories, I’m just a bit wary of where subsequent people in power take them. An advocacy for perpetual revolution is kinda hazardous, and to my mind, that ice pick didn’t murder just Trotsky; my belief that his ideals can be implemented and sustained are, indeed, eclipsed by the reality of how he ended up. Still, my criticism was in fact directed towards Bloody Joe, not Trotsky. But when I chose political sides, I tend to base allegiance on fact rather than theory, and the Stalin regime is an indisputable historical reality.
And Godard’s credibility, for me, isn’t suspect on matters of politics alone, but anything outside of camera placement, palette, and timing. He’s free to express his views to me; I just feel a need to hold his views and ration suspect, on the basis of what he’s evinced of himself, and my own personal experiences in the physical world.
Of what I’ve seen from Godard, creatively, I’d credit Le petit soldat as being his most earnest and believable political work. I think it reveals the integrity of a balanced investigation into a political situation. But beyond that early work, I’m not too big a believer in his critical acumen—though I’ll admit my familiarity with his post-Week End output is down to three or four films. But I don’t apologize for my disinclination towards masochism, and if his critical facilities were on par with his creative gifts, we would have seen from him a film on par with Battle Of Algiers decades ago. There’s not a single political work of Godard’s on that standing—so far as I know from either experience or critical reputation. And that’s not a result of his lacking the directorial chops.
Further, the nature of his fallings-out with everyone from Truffaut to Jane Fonda is very indicative of someone who doesn’t grasp the intricacies of human interaction. There’s no mid-ground, or notion of personal sublimation coming from Godard, and that makes me doubt his grasp of genuine Socialist principles—in either ideal or practical forms.
From my twenties through my forties, I’ve met far more ardent proponents of Communism from citizens of Capitalist countries than I have from Communist ones. My own Grandfather fought on the side of the Communists in the Greek Civil War that preceded the Nazi occupation. But like all the people I’ve known in that political equation, ultimately, the practical migration was towards the West—not the East. So forgive me if my final and most impacting lesson regarding Trotsky comes from the historical rather that the theoretical.
But for what it’s worth as a lighter anecdote, and balanced account, I did once have the honor of serving spaghetti and meatballs to members of the KGB, with no like incident.
Our differing views aside—on both this topic or any other, I do have a genuine respect for your own insights based on my readings of your posts, and I’m happy to continue any sort of dialogue with you on earnest and friendly grounds, private or public. I would have sent this lengthy response as a PM if it weren’t for a perceived need to clarify my prior comments for all the participants of this forum. My apologies to all for going on overlong, and skating on the perifery of the topic.
Godard was a maoist, not a marxist; I have no idea what he is now.
Vivre Sa Vie is one of his best political films, too, in that it shows a free spirit crushed by a society whose rules she can’t seem to follow or fathom. Prior to May 68, Godard’s politics were intuitive and romantic; caught up in the spirit of the student uprisings, I think he tried to embrace a more rigorous logic, i.e. Mao’s, but his French-Swiss sense of irony and delicacy precluded him from being one-dimensional about it. I think he was ultimately a follower of Dziga-Vertov more than Marx-Lenin.
Le Gai Savoir and Wind from the East are probably his most schematically political film, neither one very successful imo, possibly due to Gorin. Gorin without Godard does not equal cinema, but Godard without Gorin already equals cinema plus politics.
I don’t know if it’s fair to say that Godard has bad critical faculties because he never made a film like The Battle of Algiers. I’ve gone on record as saying that Algiers is probably the single best political film ever made, but it is simply giving a very factual, straightforward account of a historical moment. Nothing is superimposed on top of it. Godard could never make himself, as the artist, so absent from a film: his personality, his literary references, his music, his metaphors, his visual poetry are all equally important components of his films. Ultimately, Godard is the subject of every Godard film.
@ no thanks
i hear what you’re saying. i’d love to know your opinion of godard’s new film called “socialism”!
Bobby; for you and Justin, I’d even pay to see it.
@Justin, many thanks for your thoughtful response, and inasmuch as you describe Vivre sa vie as a political film, I’d admit it’s an estimable work by Godard on the subject. But, I don’t remember it being involved with any specific political ideology, (unless Godard is using prostitution intentionally as a political metaphor) and prudence dictates that I don’t go into specifics on a film I haven’t seen in four or five years. Still, based on your description of the dramatic thrust, (and my memories—which find themselves in synch) wouldn’t we have to likewise broaden our criteria to consider many, many films—ranging from Bande ‘a part to Ford’s The Searchers, (and even Landis’ The Three Amigos) as being political, de facto? (And before I go into that last one, I’d need to know first whether you’re an El Guapist, or a Fluglemanian.)
But in all honesty, Vivre sa vie is my favorite and most revered of Godard’s serious works, (Bande ‘a part is no.2) and as pure portraiture, possibly the most sublime work of the New Wave. I’ll have to explore it again, with your characterizations in mind. As for Les Carabiniers, though, I’m much less charitible. With all due respect to both you and David Sterritt, I think Godard shifted from seeing the invisible to filming the unwatchable with that one.
And as for film directors whose work addresses the social, political, and polemical with fervor, Luis Bunuel is a director of more credibility to me, whose life and experience have been at the actual fore of political revolutions. The Milky Way and That Obscure Object Of Desire especially are aimed at ideologies not just Christian in nature—and I think his criticisms are sharpened to cut at both sides.
And I believe it’s said that he was spurred to film The Milky Way based on his displeasure in watching La Chinoise.
No T.Hanks, Vivre Sa Vie is probably my perennial favorite, too. After years of watching it, I decided in my own mind that it’s about a free spirit who is crushed by the system or society if you will. Every place she goes — workplace, social events, public places — has a set of rules which impinge on her freedom. Even prostitution has its rules, and she can’t follow those, either. Won’t follow them and is right not to. But she’s destroyed for being so iconoclastic.
The most political scene is the one in the cafe, where the song on the jukebox is this anodyne pop tune about a couple who has no money and lives in a slum but “they’re in love.” Total pap opium for the belabored masses. And Nana is trying to figure out how much responsibility, i.e. free will, she really possesses. “I turn my head — I’m responsible – I raise my hand – I’m responsible.” Words to that effect. All she has that she can control is her own body, and that is soon to be taken away from her. It’s a mini portrait of a society that desperately needs a revolution. But at that point Godard was not making such blatant slogans. It was more oblique and “romantic.”
As social comment Vivre Sa Vie is top shelf, but I’m not sure Godard had any answers?.. but I like that he continually asked questions.
And I agree with Justin that his films are as much about him as anything external. Most self obsessed artists struggle with the move from the politics of the personal to the politics of community because of that insularity. Godard seems like any other cultured, educated ‘elite’
trying to assuage the guilt of a lucky birth and the trappings that go with it….. and don’t get me wrong, I don’t say that like it’s a bad thing.
He mostly made his signature films at a time in history when idealism seemed it would translate to something tangible, only to see the likes of Thatcher and Reagan rise to domination within 14 or so years of the Paris riots. He may be the ultimate post-modern filmmaker? everything is in the soup if your tastebuds are attuned enough to notice.
i think he is the ultimate post-modern filmmaker. post-modernism seems to spring right from “breathless”, and just grow and grow from there.
Yes, Vivre sa Vie pretty clearly has a theme of oppresion. In the world of Kapital, sex is just another commodity. The same theme carries “Two or Three Things I know About Her”.
What Godard also understood is that when the “children of Marx and Coca-Cola” got a good dose of popular culture … Coca-Cola won.
It reaches its ultimate tragedy in La Chinoise and the tragedy of adolescents playing revolutionary.
They were a joke and were no adequate stand in for a motivated revolutionary working class – see Chris Marker, “Grin without a Cat”. They don’t make films like that any more.
Yep, Coca Cola has the advertising budget I guess… and what ad agency would take on the Marx-Engels account?
Nice tip re the Marker Doinel…. I’ll look for it. thanks.
What do people feel about the assassination in La Chinoise — how she kills the wrong guy first, then goes and kills the right one. Are we supposed to feel, a la Brecht, that this is the way a good Communist should be, and that if an innocent person dies for the revolution, it’s all well and good in the scheme of things? Or are we supposed to feel like this is unconscionable? I think a strong revolutionary might read it the first way, although most of us are probably inclined to read it the second way.
i dont read it so deeply, or so specifically. for me, its another absurdist godard moment. his unique humor. its played as a throwaway moment. i think its another cinematic strategy by him to subvert expectations.
Godard began as a right-wing dandy (eg. “Brethless,” “Le Petit Soldat”) and then in mid-life veered left.
On a rather superficial level.
Now I have no idea where he stands.
Not do I imagine does he.
it doesn’t matter where he stands. only where his films stand.
Not sure about the right wing dandy jibe…. any sources I can verify? as Bobby says if his movies speak for him then Le Petit Soldat at least finds him in the middle. His second film and what you’d expect to be overtly political given the Algerian reference is only directly political in a long speech in the girls apartment, where a political position is laid out that seems to want some sort of reconciliation between right and left? the rest of the film is a rather timid spy plot or an excuse to photograph the lovely Anna in her first film.
Le Carbiniers is likewise a mixed message with a lot of battle footage intercut, but on the surface at least these two films suggest humanist/leftist tendancies at best or middle at worst.
That was Godard at the end of the fifties and early sixties before the counter culture and summer of love and before Vietnam became a headline.
Last year I published an article on Petit Soldat and Claire Denis’ critique of it in her “sequel,” Beau Travail. If anyone wants to look at it, here’s the link:
http://www.ejumpcut.org/currentissue/PetitSoldatDenis/index.html
Comments are welcome.
interesting article. i preferred the first half to the latter. you started to lose me when you went in on literature, terence malick, heavy quotations, and the like. i only wished for a more close focus on the films, structurally and stylistically.
i’m certainly glad you wrote about “little solider” though. i haven’t read enough critical thought on it. i’ve only seen it once on tv, but i fell asleep on it. i’d like to watch it again, and i’d really love to find a copy of “les carabiniers”. that’s the lost godard for me. never seen it or found a copy before, but i’ve been dying to.
Bobby… I can send you a Les Carabiniers…. message me if you want one?
Justin…. massive work, and well done to you. Makes me want to see Beau Travail. I don’t know enough about Godard’s political wind changes, but watched ‘cold’ none of his early stuff seems essentially sympathetic to the right at all.
Not sure about the Malick stuff? I see your point but is it too much to expect one film to encapsulate so much? I really liked the film and wasn’t particularly looking for a history lesson in it, and I’m not sure Farrell was A list enough to muddy the water re star power influence over the structure? I think Malick doesn’t give a rats about that…
again, great writing on the Godard/Denis, thanks muchly.
G. E. Debord about J.L Godard (wich became a famous may 68 slogan by the situationnists and graffiti in the Sorbonne) :
“Le plus con des suisses pro chinois”
The biggest pro chinese swiss asshole.
RaySquirrel
There is something that has always puzzled me about Jean-Luc Godard. All criticism mentions how he expresses Marxist themes through his films. Though whenever there are Marxists and Communists in his films he always seems to mock them. He always seems to portray them as fickle or just plain stupid, and undermining whatever they have to say. He never takes it seriously, seemingly mocking them, turning the camera away, showing messed up takes, humming over the soundtrack.