I can understand the Brecht reference: the fourth wall, etc.
Mozart? expand.
I’ll hit this topic up when I get some more time.
It’s a good paper.
Well the Mozart and music thing are kind of together. Godard, in my opinion, is a master at matching music to the mood and feeling of the shot. “Le Mepris” (Contempt) was amazing at doing that, but his music works like his editing. It’s often disjointed and sporadic, but essential and wouldn’t work with the film in any other way. I remember “Week End” because of that constant replay of that melody throughout the film.
The reason I said Mozart was also from a reference in “Week End”. In the ‘Action Musicale’ section a man is playing Mozart in that long tracking shot. He explains to the woman next to him, that "There is music you listen to and music you don’t. Mozart you listen to. Music you don’t listen to is what’s called modern “serious” music…Real modern music is, paradoxically, based on Mozart’s harmonies, you hear bits of Mozart in Dario Moreno, the Beatles, the Rolling Stones or whatever. Modern “serious” music looked for others resulting in what is probably the biggest disaster in the history of art."
Yeah, but isn’t that statement supposed to be deeply ironic? Because Godard knew full well that Serialism and Twelve Tone Composition relied on jarring edits and juxtapositions to achieve an effect close to the experience of the human ear in an industrial age. And Godard’s films do the same thing: moments of fluidity crosscut with stabs and cuts worthy of a knife attack in a back alley. He must have been fully aware of French composition: the works of Poulenc, Debussey, Faure, Messiaen, etc. And Eric Satie, whose piano compositions play with an almost folk music simplicity and then run up against tiny jabs, doubled notes in off-keys and grace notes, which only heightens the experience of romance. The point is, Godard knew of these composers, and he knew that they were running against the grain, against this idea that Mozart “invented” modern music – because of course it isn’t true. But it’s what the elitist pseudo-bohemian Parisian styled bourgeoisee said, because typically these people like to sound like they know what they are talking about without actually making any effort to engage: and I get this sense of revulsion created by having to co-exist with this bourgeoise intellectualism all over Godard’s films.
But it’s an interesting point.
How does the Brecht thing work? Where do you see it and which element of Brecht are you identifying? Method? Style?
Toby, I agree with you that the statement’s ironic, and that his work shares many formal structural elements with ‘modern’ classical music.
In spite of the irony, I think Godard also self-consciously straddles the two forms of music as formal concepts in his work. The Mozart influence seems to me based on Mozart as a composer who exemplified a reintroduction of polyphony after the grand simplification of galant music. In filmic terms, we can think about this as being a recomplexifying of form after certain simplifications (both those of Hollywood B pictures, and also of the early New Wave). In music as in film these simplifications were reactions against a certain kind of complexity: J.S. Bach and the composers of the baroque in the case of music; for film, Hollywood sword-and-sandal epics, perhaps? [Not that Godard necessarily disliked these huge Hollywood films, but he and much of the New Wave seemed more invigorated by the ‘simplified’ films of, say, film noir].
When I’m talking about Godard’s form here, I mean a number of things, including his approach to narrative structure on the level of the film as a whole and the use of recurring musical motifs as anchoring devices.
JLG’s Brechtianism isn’t just 4th-wall-breaking; instead it’s the creation of an unfamiliarity with the image through illusion-breaking techniques. His ‘modern’ music influence is a great example; or his play between diegetic and non-diegetic sound (a great example is the scene in Pierrot le fou where Belmondo and Karina drive with the radio on, and then Godard takes what you thought was a dietetic music source and playfully undercuts that assumption). Another great reminder are the scenes in Weekend where characters complain about the quality of the film, or are asked if they are in a film or in the real world.
Oh, man, that’s a great point. Polyphonics > recomplexification > reaction > Godard. Yes.
And the Brecht interpretation: “instead it’s the creation of an unfamiliarity with the image through illusion-breaking techniques.” Yes again. This is of course a key point with Brecht’s work/theory generally (at least his mid-period plays and practice): the re-awakening/re-framing of perception.
Real food for thought.
I shall digest, sit down to a fat meal of “Weekend” with an entree of “Pierrot Le Fou”, and get back to this, because I’ve got some ideas re: Marxist criticism and May 68.
If people start writing about May ‘68 here, they’ll really get me going… looking forward to your thoughts. I’d get the ball rolling myself, but I’m currently finishing up an essay on cusp-of-‘68 Godardian notions of work and revolution as contrasted with notions of work and revolt in Chantal Ackerman’s Jeanne Dielman, 23 Quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles.
Just to clarify: the timeline is polyphonics (Bach) [leads to] reaction/simplification (galant) [leads to] recomplexification (Mozart). this seems an important notion to keep in mind re:Godard’s post-’68 thoughts on the need for a “return to zero” in filmmaking practice, and a building forth from there…
[I wish I could figure out how to type an arrow without creating crossed-out text!]
You should roll the ball. This is getting interesting.
great article marx and godard are two great people
There’s also much to be said about Godard’s use of dialectical montage to create tension, opposition, and thus a synthesis that can only come from work put in by the audience. This is especially true of his post-‘68 work. Prime examples (in totally different ways) would be Le gai savoir and Un film comme les autres. Now I’ll need to explain those ways, I guess… soon.
for anyone interested in my Ackerman article referred to above, it was published in the most recent issue of Kino Fist, and is available online here:
http://kinofist.blogspot.com/2008/06/this-womans-work-chantal-ackermans.html
May 68 was an interesting event that still not everyone is on the same page of what and how it happened.
http://www.sens-public.org/spip.php?article472
Above is a link to a fairly comprehensive look at May 68 from a political stand point. The controversy, the criticism, etc. What it did to cinema is a whole different story. I might have read it wrong, but didn’t Godard and Truffaut’s relationship become strained during that time period? I believe it was over a rally where Truffaut didn’t participate in something and Godard called him out on it. I know in ’73 is when they send the criticizing letters to each other.
http://www.geocities.com/pincheproduce/godard.html
Above is a link to some of the fighting they did.
Here’s a section from that I wanted to point out.
“However, Truffaut and Godard did not always have such a contentious relationship. Earlier, during the late 60’s, Truffaut brings up an instance of the persona dictating the subject matter of film. In this case, we see the precursor for Godards films in his daily life. Truffaut recalls, “At that time [during the 50’s, when they first met] he was much more cheerful than he is today. I remember particularly that he played innumerable practical jokes. Now he writes them, he includes them in his films, but no longer in his life” 6. Here we see the activities of Godard making the transition from daily life to filmic life. But his sensibility is never lost.
Truffaut notes, “The miracle of Breathless is that it was made at a time in the life of a man in which normally he would not want to make a film” 7. He continues, "One doesn’t make a film when one is sad and destitute. Making a film means that you’re living in a hotel or an apartment, that you are disengaged from material worries, and that you make your film without any distraction from your present thoughts "8. This was definatly not the case with Godard. Truffaut concludes, “In the case of Breathless, the man who made it was almost a pauper. Therein lies the miracle. It is rare that being so unhappy and so alone, one can still make a film” 9. Most would agree, it comes through in this and his other films.
This accounts for the changes Godard made in Truffaut’s original scenario. Truffaut notes, “Jean-Luc chose a violent end [to Breathless] because he was by nature sadder than I” 10. It was these before mentioned pre-conditions that lead to the pacing, the choice of location and lighting, and ultimately the tone of Breathless, in addition to his subsequent works.”
I thought that was an interesting point Truffaut said. What happened to Godard that made him come off like a morose guy? I guess I can’t say with certain that’s true, but his films and his characters are often portrayed that way. Was it the politics that made him so serious? Or did he see the bullshit all around him and chose not to follow it? Truffaut has a valid point, but I also think Godard was right to call Truffaut out. Truffaut’s films had become less and less like the 400 Blows (This sounds a lot like Rossellini fighting with Fellini on what true Neorealism was.) and were becoming more Hollywood. Godard had stayed true to himself in his films, regardless of the climate or taste of cinema. Godard though was mostly an outsider. His later films didn’t make as much money. A great quote from him was he was at an airport "When he [Godard] arrived, the customs officer asked him: “Mr Godard: what are you coming here for? Business or pleasure?” Godard indicated the former. The officer asked what business he was in. “Unsuccessful movies,” Godard replied." I don’t think Godard could have gone the route of Truffaut, they were just two different filmmakers that just shared the birth of a cinematic movement. One became an ambassador of cinema like Martin Scorsese and the other receded into the night like David Lynch with just that moment in time to tie them together.
Tying it back to 68, I think again there was a fundamental difference after 68 with both of those directors. One kept making films as if 68 was still happening and the other forgot about it. Is either of them right? All in all 68 made activism real and not just something they made in their films (at least for Godard). Imagine Godard now, without 68? Would he even be making films anymore?
I don’t know if what I said above makes any sense (NY heat wave is making my brain turn to mush), but I will check it out later or tomorrow. Please keep this thread going. I’m such a beginner when it comes to Godard so I like reading about Godard from other film lovers, their thoughts and feelings about such a mysterious auteur. I mean like Godard said, we have no right to read into his films, but that doesn’t stop us from doing so.
PS: Sorry for the long post
A maybe unlikely and at first seemingly inaccurate influence on JLG is Robert Bresson.
Watching Godard’s later works (from the 80s on), his compositions, narrative structures and pacing are unmistakably Bressonian.
JLG was a huge fan.
^ Absolutely agree.
speaking of godard and may ’68, has anyone ever actually seen the cinetracts he made?
DCDreams – Bresson is a towering influence on Godard after a certain point. Is his ’80’s work closer to earlier Bresson, and his ’90’s/2000’s work more closely related to late Bresson? Just a theory I’m testing…
thoughts? Danny?
to quote the French Situationists on Godard—-
“SWISS MAOIST JERK”
But, of course, you know all those kids ate him up!
Can anyone point me towards some essays on Godard and Maoism/Marxism that my Google searches may not have found? It’s just research for coursework, so I didn’t feel it merited a whole other topic.
Thanks.
I am always intrigued by the more unsuspecting influences on Godard. Certainly we can’t discount American film noir. But some films which Godard loved included Dreyer’s Gertrud, Ophuls’ Lola Montes, Visconti’s Senso, Hitchcock’s Marnie, Sirk’s A Time to Love and a Time to Die — all films whose aesthetics seem completely different from Godard’s, and yet there are probably elements there, beneath the surface. There are also literary references galore: the lovers in Pierrot recite Rimbaud to each other. Weekend begins and ends with two long readings from French literature at its most misanthropic: the wife’s psychiatric session is actually a text from Bataille’s Story of the Eye, and the recitation “Old ocean, I salute you,” in the cannibal compound is from Lautreamont’s Chant du Maldoror.
Godard is such an omnivorous auto-didact that it’s hard to say what has ultimate weight in terms of influences. He also wears his influences so boldly and proudly that they seem more like the bits of things that Jasper Johns incorporated into his collages — was Johns influenced by a tire and a stuffed goat? That’s sort of how I feel about Godard: Maoism is the stuffed goat, film noir is the tire, etc.
I think above all Godard was recording the cheapening of revolutionary sentiment, even as it was brewing. He saw through it. What does he say in Masculin Feminin — “the children of Marx and Coca-Cola.” Marxism is just another name brand. La Chinoise is about the ultimate meaninglessness of political action: the woman assassinates the wrong person. What did Godard believe in? Cinema, cinema, cinema, and high European culture. Everything else was sort of ancillary, in my opinion.
high and low european culture. just like high and low american culture. which makes him an early postmodernist. he saw no distinction between the two.
Thanks for the link to the article at the top of the page. I have an A-level exam on that very subject tomorrow, and this has been hugely helpful for my revision.
Thanks again.
ignore
I’ll read the rest of this later, but while I cannot personally say ‘how much’ of an influence it is, I’ve noticed Godard’s interest in literature. During the ‘beach house’ scene in Pierrot le fou Ferdinand reads aloud from a book called Guignol’s Band [which I later found out was Celine] and mentions Joyce.
There’s also an interest in art, both ‘high’ [such as Velasquez and Renoir who are mentioned/shown in Pierrot] and commercial ‘low’ art such as comics and advertising.
godard was as influenced by marx as he was by the other great artists you mentioned, plus more. it seems that he was influenced by every scrap of information he ever laid his eyes on.
Bobby: ‘it seems that he was influenced by every scrap of information he ever laid his eyes on.’
I think that’s partly why, in my opinion, Godard is fascinating to watch. He seems interested in so many different things that he can’t just focus on any one [I don’t mean that as a bad thing, btw].
he lived what he said. “everything can be put into a film. everything should be put into a film.”
Add Henri Langlois and the Cinematheque Francaise to the influences on Godard.
High and low art in Godard. I’ve always felt the key to understanding it is understanding the pan to Jacques Louis David’s “Oath of the Horatii” during the run through the Louvre in “Band of Outsiders”.
Seems the absolute antithesis of our three “heroes”.
the reading of Guignol’s Band by Ferdinand in Pierrot le Fou is further symbolic because the author’s name was Louis-Ferdinand Celine. That being said…anyone remember the Godard film which utilizes Baudelaire’s “Correspondances”??? I feel like it’s a more recent film.
mezmorized
I wrote a research paper for one of my philosophy classes on Karl Marx’s relationship in Jean-Luc Godard’s films. Below is the link to the paper. (Sorry if it’s a bit long)
http://meziszem.blogspot.com/2008/05/godard-marx.html
Other big influences (that are apparent in his films):
Bertolt Brecht
Mao
Andre Bazin and criticism
Mozart and music
May 68 and politics in general
Discuss.