Thanks for the detailed explanation of the use of deconstruction in this film, Deckard. I believe it states exactly my points but with intent—“the experiment itself fails” meaning the construction is not to be completed, and “the parts rather than the whole” meaning, well, the construction is not to be completed.
However, I do agree with the complaint about the references as well, wherein the entire text relies so much on intertextuality that it results in empty signs. It is the same problem I have with Jodorowsky movies: I see the visual references to many different things, but even their juxtaposition together does not give me any sense that actual or meaningful communication is taking place—not absurdism, not nonsense, but meaninglessness and insignificance. I also have the same reaction when I read stuff like the following:
“..it is only because the Sino-Soviet actualization of Robespierrian Bonapartism obliges post-Napoleonic Europe to speed up the elimination of the numrous more or less anachronistic sequels to its pre-revolutionary past.”
(Alexandre Kojeve, quoted on page 67 of Fukuyama’s The End of History and the Last Man. The ellipses at the beginning cut short a longer sentence of equally mixed modifiers and referents, this is merely the most dense and thus the best part of this example.) Now technically Kojeve’s criticism has meaning, but why are we supposed to follow it if we’re not the type to ask the simple question, “What the fuck is Robespierrian Bonapartism, and how are the Sino-Soviets supposed to ‘actualize’ it?” I remember reading this one essay in Uni where, and this is not an exact quote, but this raging black lesbian neo-feminist single mother of three (that was her opening sentence) was trying to talk about the, “Hegelian constructs of post-modern Brectian meta-psychoanalysis are ill-equipped for this sort of neo-Pagan cirrhoidic Freudian topography”, or, to cut to the actual meaning of the sentence, “Jack shit.”
I find intertextuality incredibly interesting, especially in the ways that, for instance, “Machiavellian” the word begins to gradually separate from Machiavelli the writer, and then one author’s malapropic (watch that be a misspelling…. heh) use of it becomes popular use of it, until generations later the ‘ian" doesn’t fit the “I”, or alternatively how a single sign can continue through generations and generations through references until one person quoting another is actually quoting that person quoting an idea that derived from an idea inspired by Shakespeare, but one place where I draw a personal line is the point at which references cease to actually refer to specific ideas or analogies and become merely a way of exercising modifiers until language ceases to be communicative and the author throws away clarity entirely.
Which, again, could easily be Godard’s point, but that doesn’t mean I have to like it or even really care after the third reference goes by because I’m in a movie theatre that cannot get the sound levels right with how he messes with audio (so that the audience either cannot hear what is going on or their eardrums are blasted out) and thus cannot pause the piece to look it up.
This is why I think Luis Bunuel is so important to watch. His works contain dense references and strongly layered themes while tweaking expectations to create surrealistic and disturbing juxtapositions but he does so with simple, clear camera movements and concise, careful imagery… and in the end, even if you do not get the precise “theme” Bunuel was working with upon first viewing, you still get a strong sense that though your mind was lead down a familiar alley way that then became a semiotic maze, you still ended up somewhere important. I don’t get that from much of Godard’s films, I get exactly what you described: the structure of the movie from an editor’s perspective, which is so familiar to me that I don’t care to watch it play out on screen.
—PolarisDiB
Well put, Polarisdib. Perhaps in my enthusiasm for this particular film’s (and Godard’s general) approach, I might have given the impression that this is a flawless film. It certainly isn’t. Just because it’s deconstructionist (a point which is often misunderstood, and unfairly criticized, about Godard) doesn’t excuse its shortcomings. Of course, the biggest flaw in the film is its accessibility – if a film’s objective must be explained in such detail, is it really worth explaining at all? That’s a valid point and a question that is entirely subjective to each individual.
You bring up Bunuel, Polarisdib, and that’s a great association. Bunuel approached his films very similarly, but with a more “spiritual” inclination (‘spiritual’ being a very vague term – we could debate the actual pertinence of such a term for perhaps another thread, heh) and Godard was more philosophical, but both had that playful nature and didn’t shy away from bending (or shattering) convention.
In a way, Made in USA is a film which requires the brain to be actively engaged (and “game”) in order to be appreciated and I perfectly understand such a reaction (I had the very same reaction when I was first introduced to Godard a few years ago). Your mention of Jodorowsky is also suitably apt, a filmmaker whose visionary approach is often undermined by his handling/mishandling (or perhaps, unconcern) with conventional narrative. It can certainly be seen as either a strength or a weakness depending on where one’s preferences lie.
Actually, after I posted last, I suddenly recalled…
The Made inUSA screening I mentioned I did not attend alone; I brought along two girls who were working on a class project with me because we had finished for the day and I had told them that it was playing and they expressed interest. One of my companions had never seen a Godard film before, and as we were leaving she said, “Wow, I’ve never seen anything like that, I bet you really love stuff like that, huh?” And I sort of slowly and carefully explained that, yes, I like stuff “like that” but I did not like “that” itself, in the same difficulty I had describing above (with the help of the other girl, who knew Godard and though she did not agree with my opinion, still helped me describe it).
Well what I didn’t realize until just now is what she meant later, when we were editing together the piece we were working on and she said, “Huh, I guess I can see why you call that movie we saw ‘over-familiar’”. I had no idea what she meant and sort of brushed it off, but I guess it really does refer to the sort of editor’s approach to structure and the choices between making parts whole or making the whole a series of parts. Wish she was still around so that I could get back to her on that.
It is very possible that this movie holds much more influence, charm, and mystery to someone who has never been in at an editing table before, though admittedly it could also be revealing, familiar, and comfortable to one who has. Whichever the case, I think I much better prefer looking at this film from an editor’s perspective than I do as a storyteller’s, philosopher’s, or artist’s.
—PolarisDiB
Wow! I really enjoyed reading all the above-mentioned thoughts and ideas. I don’t think I have much new to add but wanted to thank you PolarisDiB for being able to articulate clearly the feelings I have with the film. I was actually asking myself why I enjoy Buñuel and even other Godard films such as Week End (which is one of my all time favorite movies). Other movies are also drenched in references and allusions, however I think it’s precisely what you said about being able to gain something relevant, be it visual stimulation, escapism, appreciation of imagery, etc, even without fully grasping the theme. I remember when I first watched Week End I missed about 70% of the references and political message but I was captured by how the film became progressively strange to the point where they fall into the hands of hippy cannibals. Anyways, I think PolarisDiB you also mention that watching this movie through a different lens might be more worthwhile— another point that I agree with. I think I did myself a disservice by watching this movie half-assed and hoping to be entertained (Not that I’m new to Godard, I should have known). Like Deck mentioned, the film requires its viewer to be actively engaged…
Quite interesting discussion, it’s actually making me like the film more than I did. However, it still isn’t one of my favourites from Godard.
deckard croix
@Edward: I think that’s a possible interpretation. I don’t think it’s specifically relating to this, but still touches on the, as you say, “Americanizing” of everything. It’s difficult to say exactly what Godard was trying to say by all this, but it’s nice to know the possibilities I think.