Simultaneous Watching & Analysis Week 12: Made in U.S.A. by JLG

Somewhat similar to JLG’s Alphaville which took sci fi and hard boiled conventions and turned em on their head with help of Eddie Constatine (already famous for playing the character of Lemmy Caution), Made is U.S.A. is a spy story with a girl in the Bogart role instead of a pock marked tough guy. Paula Nelson (lovely Anna Karina whose vibrant dresses, despite the trenchcoat, are a major stylistic difference from the bleak dark Alphaville and clash nicely with the violent atmosphere of the story) is looking thru hotels, gyms, garages and cafes to find her missing lover who may have died in war or simply may be hiding. She is sort of a PI narrator drinking whiskey and packing a gun. She states at one pont this is “a Disney movie with Humphrey Bogart” and very much like Bogart she seems to be looking for truth and ethics in a hazy world.

This film is more hazy then most. It is Disney in the sense that it is manufactured. It takes place in a place called Alantic Cite that is obviously Paris, tho an odd somewhat future version, and the names of characters are pop culture identifiable Richard Widmark, Daisy Kenyon. Paula says at one point, “fiction overtakes reality.” and this is true of the film with its soundtrack of noises (and images) that don’t fit the scene and oddball characters (a midget gangster that checks his head everytime an empty trigger is pulled) or the whole witty bar scene that seems to be connected to a mention of Lewis Carrol in the scene prior.

One character seems to be channeling Don Adams (Get Smart was released a year before) and no mod pop item is left unturned. Worth noting that despite a very complex mystery plot, by far the most moving scene is a, possibly, incidental one where Marianne Faithfull sings “As Tears Go By” in English (JLG would soon devote a whole movie to a song Sympathy for the Devil)

This movie is obscure and detached while still seeming sunny and open. It is a lot of things (maybe a comment on the divorce Korine and Godard were going through). But mainly it is a ton of involving scenes without a false note (QT take note 90min deconstructions of genre that actually do something beyond the genre besides talk, talk, talk are how it is done)

“maybe a comment on the divorce Korine and Godard were going through”

I’ve heard Harmony Korine was hell to live with.

The beginning says something about thanking a peer or professor or professional for teaching the importance of combining imagery and sound, and I really feel that’s the brunt of most of this movie. It was eclectic and colorful, but I have to admit not much else about it held my attention.

This is the example of an experimental film where the experiment itself was not all that successful, in my opinion. I think that it is interesting to watch only as an experimental film or a Godard film—others wanting anything else from it will not receive.

—PolarisDiB

This film at times felt rather disjointed, as if ideas were being filmed rather than a coherent whole.

“As if ideas were being filmed rather than a coherent whole….”

…thy name be Godard. He’s an interesting director, and can teach many a person many things about film both in what he does and what he says, but rarely do I find his movies to be self-contained enough to warrant much more analysis than the overall ideas he throws out there in each individual scene.

—PolarisDiB

for me, his ideas contain more vitality than most filmmakers.
This is a mod film that works as homage as much as a commentary.
I think he does have a fair amount of completely cohesive pieces (Alas for Me, In Praise of Love, King Lear, New Wave to name a couple)

I agree with you Den, It’s just this film didn’t seem to (coalesce?).

There is certainly vitality.

I am not saying his ideas are bad, or even uncohesive per se. I am just saying that his individual pieces are not self-contained enough for me to feel they necessate individual assessment separate from his body of work as a whole or his character as a cultural and film icon.

—PolarisDiB

I agree with both of u regarding this film. It is one of his weaker vehicles (considering it is followed by Sympathy for the Devil and Alphaville was a year or two prior) in that it is little more than compulsively watchable (a feat in itself) but still.

…

it would be helpful if you provided streaming links.

I LOOOOVE Godard, but I wasn’t crazy about this one, either. The one scene aside from that one /\ that I really thought was great was the one where Karina and Szabo are standing in front of the wall saying things at the same time. The worst, though, was the scene in the bar that was just elementary musings on language. That scene made me finally understand why some people hate Godard.

I like Made in USA. I can’t exactly say why, but I do.

I saw it for the first time last summer when it was making its theatrical tour, and twice again in the past twenty-four hours. I’m tempted to watch it again, but will resist because I think a third time is such quick succession will only burn me out on it without giving me any further insight or clarity.

I do remember fairly clearly seeing it last summer. It was a double feature with 2 or 3 Things I Know About Her. It was a beautiful summer evening and I took a long walk through the park on my way home. I even wrote a little something about the experience, but sadly lost that file when my hard drive decided shortly after to implode. It would be interesting to take a look at it again to see what my initial perception was. What has stuck with me is Marianne Faithfull’s lovely rendition of “As Tears Go By,” the nonsensical, contradictory wordplay in the bar, and the tape-recorded messages. The recordings were only memorable because they were so violently grating on the ears in the movie house, so much so that it made my head throb. Thankfully they weren’t so terrible on video. I also remember that much as I did like Made in USA, I liked 2 or 3 Things much better, I suppose because its message was a little more straightforward and easier to grasp. Godard had toyed with the idea of showing the two films simultaneously in alternating reels. It was mentioned in the theater literature last summer, but they resisted the temptation. I think that would have been cool.

What I find surprising about Made in USA is its acceptance over forty years after its release. I think it is its cinematic qualities that really saves it, otherwise it would be nothing more than a dated time capsule, and one marked with the personal point of view of a single individual. Its pop cultural references and political message are rooted singularly in the mid-sixties, and it is Godard’s own message, one I gather that was intended to be scathing, one I think that audiences—at least American audiences—might take offense to, even though appears to certainly not be the case. As I type this I wonder what Godard himself may think of how his intentions played out and what he thinks of today’s regard of the film (I did a quick Google search and didn’t find anything, if it even exists, but it’s not big deal to me, really, but just a curiosity).

I do enjoy the vibrant colors of the film, and the playfulness it does have, playfulness maybe intended to mitigate the harshness of the message (maybe too much so—but, then again, I think I may be putting too much emphasis on that “message”). Anna Karina is a doll and I liked her bright colors and the many close-ups of her face.

Overall, it is a film I like very much, though it is enigmatic. I was very happy to see it was part of the “Simultaneous” series because I really looked forward to delving a little more into it, delving deeper into it, and appreciating it even more—even if the “why” is still slippery.

To anybody who would like to see Made in the USA – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2B4AE2MbbmE

..

Mmmmm, what a perfect film…

…

I think it was a piece of shit, even worse than Passion and almost as shit as detective. I hate having my time wasted by films like this.

I’ll throw my thoughts out there for now. Bear in mind that I watched the film in two distinct halves (stopping at about 40 minutes last night), and so my opinion on it may be rather incoherent. Also bear in mind that many of the films I’ll make comparisons with are not particularly fresh in my mind.

I managed to extract two major threads running throughout the film: the nature of American influence on America (starting with the title, Made in U.S.A., references to Walt Disney, references to the American political environment) and a discussion of politics or, rather, a discussion of the discussion of politics (the film ends with the unanswered question of how we should now refer to the “left” and the “right”).

Godard’s attitudes towards America seem to be highly contradictory – both in this film and in his catalogue in general. He seems to both utterly adore aspects of American culture (as shown by his warm embrace of the crime picture and the detective novel in this film, as well as films like Band of Outsiders) while despising it at the same time (consider the crass American movie producer in Contempt, or the simple American sailors in Pierrot le fou). Perhaps, however, he makes the clearest distinction here between the political ills of American culture and the wonderful art it produces (as stated before, the film is a gleeful embrace of the great American detective pictures of the preceding era) in this film. He embraces the films of Howard Hawks, and describes his latest feature as “a Walt Disney film with Humphrey Bogart”, while condemning discussion of American politics within French politics (during one of the cassette tapes, if I recall correctly). These references to The Big Sleep and Disney don’t at all sound bitter, but they really demand re-examination considering the strong anti-consumerist messages of 2 or 3 Things I Know About Her, the film he made simultaneously. Walt Disney is very much a symbol of sugar-coated entertainment, intended for mass consumption – the very thing he reviles in many of his films, and the very thing he appears to embrace here.

Perhaps the dicussion of American cultural influences, with its confused and mixed messages, is intended to be read alongside, and inform, our reading of his discussion of political discussion. The discussion of politics isn’t confined to ideology as it would later be in a film like Tout va bien, but rather – much like Masculin, féminin and La chinoise – a broader comment on politics (as a subject) itself. Whereas both the previously mentioned films (Masculin, féminin and La chinoise) deal with political culture in France, this deals with how politics itself is discussed. And perhaps the confusion of his feelings on American influence is supposed to mirror his final statement in this film on the discussion of politics. “How then should we define them?” asks Karina at the end of the film (or something along those lines, I’m paraphrasing), and the answer given is silence. Godard appears to define the American influence on France as a stifling one – one that confuses discussion of domestic French issues, and one which is unwelcome – while embracing it gleefully.

Sorry if my thoughts aren’t particularly well fleshed out or structured, but I didn’t want to labor over it too much. I plan to watch it again soon and report – I have a feeling there is much more to uncover here.

Thank you for your input Allan. That was a very thorough analysis and I’m happy you spoke up and supported your feelings the way you did.

I agree with these above mentioned comments:

“This is the example of an experimental film where the experiment itself was not all that successful, in my opinion. I think that it is interesting to watch only as an experimental film or a Godard film—others wanting anything else from it will not receive”

“This film at times felt rather disjointed, as if ideas were being filmed rather than a coherent whole.”

I finally had a chance to watch this film. It took a lot of effort and I just couldn’t get into it. Visually, with all the pop art colors, Anna’s 60’s/ mod clothing, and Anna’s beautiful face, Faithfull’s rendition of “As Tears Go By”, I was pleased, but the whole PI crime story just didn’t hold up for me. I was even happy with all the different techniques Godard used in the movie—repetition of certain dialogue, contradictions in speech, loud sounds to mute certain words (e.g. Richard’s last name—which he apparently did to avoid censorship), etc etc…but what I have issues with is the endless thread of references. You know…when I’m watching an episode of Family Guy and there are references here and there, it’s funny and it can be witty or clever. But when every damn thing is a reference to something else, that’s just annoying, especially when the story itself doesn’t capture my interest enough to let the reference go by. Every character name was a reference to something else, we have Anna reading S. Beckett, we have numerous references to 50’s/60’s noir film, B movies, literature, WWII, the French Gestapo, etc…I found it cumbersome and unnecessary.

@ H- “Sorry if my thoughts aren’t particularly well fleshed out or structured, but I didn’t want to labor over it too much. I plan to watch it again soon and report – I have a feeling there is much more to uncover here.”

I think you made perfect sense. And I agree with you about the duality in Godard’s feelings regarding things American. He does seem to love and despise it simultaneously.

most of us love and dispise simultaneously

Hey all. It’s after 6am here so I NEED to take a break after mixing for several hours … anyway.

The thing one really has to understand (and it’s often a subject I’m completely unable to explain to people in regard to my own approach to music) is that Made in USA is “deconstructionalist.” This is essentially what everyone in this thread has been describing. It’s taking a conventional structure and focusing on the parts, rather than the whole.

Another thing I see a lot of people misunderstanding about Godard is that he’s not always trying to be clever – this is just the “curse” of approaching material in a deconstructionalist way. Being “clever” is missing the point, the point is to show the audience, “Here, this is what you’ve been seeing in cinema the entire time, but I’m not going to make this EASY on you and arrange it all in a palatteable way. You’re going to see as a composer/director/creator sees it.” Disjointed, contradictory, overwhelming, repetitive – these are qualities which all “creators” are familiar with, whether it’s film, music, writing, whatever. These are things that audiences are usually blissfully ignorant of and yet when they’re confronted with it, they are confused and, often, have a very low opinion of it.

This is the objective of the majority of Godard’s works and Made in USA is, in a way, quintessential Godard, in that it represents his worldview entirely in just a single film. Why does Godard have such a divisive presence? Because that’s the nature of the game he’s playing. This isn’t “Godard” only, this is Joyce, Burgess, Chaucer, Voltaire, etc. Godard is just one in a long line of deconstructionalists in art history.

Comments such as Allan’s are typical trite responses to this. Once again, one must cease “conventional” thinking and appraise the film for what it is, not what one expects it to be. It IS cumbersome and hopefully this difficulty can help people to understand, from a different perspective, what it’s like to be on the “other side” of such art. It’s important not to look at it as “references” (even though they are, they’re “references” on the entirety of art in general) because then we think of QT and that’s just a downward spiral.

The film IS very structured and that’s what’s disjointed about it, it’s awkward because there’s no smoothing out of the transitions, there’s no “icing” on the cake (so to speak). These are not really references (any more than making a “noir” film is a reference to ‘everything noir’), it is Godard playing with cliches and subtypes and conventions in order to make you realize … these are conventions. It’s a film about commentary not about narrative.

I loved it.

B+

@Deck- Do you think the film has the same quality if someone does not catch or understand all the references?

For me once I looked up a shitload of things, I thought to myself, “Ohhhh I get it, that makes sense”

But maybe that’s just me…

I agree with you about the deconstructionalist part and do appreciate that aspect of Godard’s work, and at the same time felt like the film was too much work. Perhaps if I had watched it during one of my energetic weekends, rather than when I was checked out it would have been different. (This was my first viewing)

Well, they’re not really references, that’s what I was trying to explain. They’re “conventions” that are taken out of context, essentially laid bare and unaccompanied. Someone made the point earlier that there’s a bit of absurdity in the film (like Carroll) and there is that too, but it’s not just absurdity really – or not JUST what people conceive of as absurdity. Absurdity isn’t just nonsensical things being indulged, absurdity itself is a commentary on what its exaggerating. Now, normally one thinks of Lewis Carroll’s works and those are absurd in the strictest sense, in that they’re merely nonsensical and, for all intents and purposes, meaningless; but Made in USA isn’t meaningless, so it’s absurd, yes, but not in the same way that Carroll is absurd.

And I don’t think this understanding is necessesarily required for someone to enjoy it, but it does help. It’s rather like (though much more simplified) reading through Joyce’s Ulysses; it’s enjoyable, yes, but it’s difficult to get through until you really get what he’s doing.

I disagree with you. There are both conventions and references being played with here. When every single character is named after someone else (a character from another movie, another director, political figures, etc) well then those are references not conventions. Now having Anna Karina take the Humphrey Bogart detective type role, that’s a convention. Using hi and lo culture qualities in different ways throughout the film is using conventions (possibly out of context), but when Anna Karina reads a passage of Samuel Beckett, I think that’s a reference to something. Yay? Nay? What do you think? Just a few examples of how I’m defining these two differently.

I see what you mean. Character names are, of course, references, but the whole bar scene, an early scene after she knocks out the guy with her heel, the gym sequence, the scene where they’re in that kind of warehouse or whatever that was – those are all conventions taken out of context.

And I’d even say that the whole Bogart reference isn’t a convention, but a reference. It isn’t a convention because it’s just a character, not some kind of structural or pivotal point. Sure, characters CAN be conventions, but it isn’t used in this film as some kind of central focusing point, it’s a throwaway inclination to something else (i.e. a reference).

The thing to remember about references and conventions (and there IS a very thin line which separate the two) is that references merely refer, they don’t embody or assume significance (once again, think QT – what separates QT from Godard is that the former uses references predominantly and the latter uses conventions predominantly [or rather, “anti-conventions”]). Conventions are what comprise a genre. Just the Bogart character in of itself isn’t a convention unless we actually start seeing some kind of consistent influence, but Karina doesn’t act like Bogart and doesn’t (as far as I can remember, there may have been one or two quotes) even quote a Bogart line, so her similarity to Bogart is superficial. Sure, she wears a trench coat, but it’s done in such an unrealistic way (trench coat and purple outfit underneath, rather humourous I thought).

And if characters quote lines from other works of art, those are references. Indeed, practically every film ever made (I’d say from the ‘60s on, maybe even before that, I’m not too familiar with films before the ‘60s) has references of some kind, it isn’t restrictive to just Godard.

Also, I almost forgot to mention (and I didn’t see it mentioned in this thread yet) the significance (IMO) of the title Made in USA. Of course, this is subjective I think, but this is a rather common viewpoint. The word “liberte” is mentioned many many times and it’s a running theme throughout the film, not only narratively (such as it is), but also structurally. We, as an audience, are liberated/freed from the constraints of convention. I think (and this is entirely my own opinion, not validated by Godard in any specific way), that Godard is implying that we are “freed” from the traditionalism of the U.S. He works within the “noir” genre (a genre which gets its name from how the French would refer to American crime films in the ‘60s) and more specifically, with a Bogart-like protagonist (more accurately, a Hammett-esque protagonist) and Godard even references Disney early on the film. There’s countless (as Natasha and others have pointed out) references to American pop culture and yet there is no adherence to the convention inescapably inherent in that culture.

In approach, there is a lot that Made in USA has in common with Pierrot Le Fou. There’s that same non-linear narrative (though Made in USA is definitely much more extreme in this aspect) that focuses more on the “act of being abstract” – which is what a lot of Godard-detractors refer to when they criticize (and perhaps, rightfully so in some cases) his work.

the Bogart and Disney references have conventions attached to them that are helpful for understanding.

Bogart (trechcoat, tough talk, whisky) is oft the moral center of a questionable world as is Karina.

Disney is manufactured in the extreme as is Atlantic CItie.

Those particular names tell us exactly where we are going.

Wow, really digging this thread—much more insight into a film than I would ever have come to on my own. Thanks all, for the education.

Deckard, you mentioned “libert´” being mentioned in the film as a “freeing” theme of sorts. I remember the word shown at least twice, once in red and once in blue, being riddled with bullets. Do you think that may possibly imply that French liberty is being killed, possibly by U.S. political and cultural influence overbearing or overrunning French culture?