The Exoticization of America
^ otstranenie
@ Dzimas – By “stylistic” are you referring to the literary composition (imagery, P.V., narrator) or the particular aesthetic “values”/physical techniques? I suppose the two may not necessarily be mutually exclusive. Truffaut’s decision to employ Aznavour is especially noteworthy in this regard. Location (historic and ahistoric) and peopling pester attempts at style (all too often feigned) though don’t they? Couldn’t the admission that there is a need for a particular “style” be interpreted as a sign of defeat?
Such a hefty chunk of noir draws its inspiration from a certain Weimar-era poetic/historic imagination. Doesn’t this seem rather apt when one considers the influence expressionism, and apparently-defeated German philosophic/historic thought as a whole, would go on to have in the Occident as a whole? Certainly not the first (or the last) time an invading group would assimilate the “culture” of the invaded. Makes for a fitting game plan: exoticization-qua-marketing. A lot of the French New Wave strikes me as being particularly “German” in this respect, as opposed to “American.” But is there even a difference on the modern, stylistic level? Though he is not the sole exception to this rule, I think the vital “French” interests of Rohmer perform the admirable task of evading certain “elements of style” while preserving a less self-defeating composition in the process. Perhaps this explains his peculiar longevity and ability to remain on-form. Godard’s historicized style, in comparison, seems spent.
Looks like the Germans have had the last laugh. Their obsession with Kultur (as opposed to Zivilization) having planted its foot(print) squarely on the jaw of even the reviled Russians’ exaggerated sense of looking to render the seemingly parochial somehow strange (and/or estranging). As though a lesson could be learned/taught with such an act of self-deception and witting exoticization (my semi-consistent beef with Russian art/cinema/thought)?
I disagree about Brother – Kitano talks in interviews about the production reasons why he decided to do a film in America but also his intent in representing black/Asian solidarity against “the man” represented by the Mafia. He talks about his experiences as a kid hanging out with his brother’s black GI friends and feeling a real affinity for them. All of which I feel comes out in the film, although it is certainly not one of his best.
Brother is not about an exoticization of America rather an experiment to see if one can make a “Japanese” film in tone and style in America with a mostly American cast.
Ok, but, for a Japanese youth, “feeling a real affinity for” grown black American men almost necessarily involves “the act of romanticizing elements of something, like a culture, that is foreign to oneself,” so what we end up arguing about is at one point imaginative affinity (which to me has a positive connotation) crosses over into “exoticization” (which, I assume, has a mostly negative connotation).
I think it was the liminal status of black GIs. On one hand part of an occupying military. On the other, they are discriminated against within that military and at home. I think it’s the marginalization that Kitano, as a part Korean and poor boy, identified with.
But, yes, the outsider status probably was romanticized by him as well.
That’s a good point about Film Noir drawing from German Expressionism. In the early stages, there were German film directors who contributed heavily to the “style,” but then it took on a life of its own. The jump cuts and other devices Truffaut used probably do go back to the Weimar period and also the early Soviet Avant-Garde. But, he has stated as well as shown his strong interest in “film noir,” and its more contemporary sense of narrative and filming techniques.
Where I am trying to differentiate directors is in their aesthetic interest v. political interest. I think Truffaut was more interesting in film noir as an art form, and how he could use the style of narrative and techniques to further his own work. Godard seemed as much drawn to the American advertising techniques and its use of block colors in making his much more critical films about the “Americanization” taking place after the war. The ever increasing sweep of its influence, which I guess is why Vietnam became such a sore point for him, in spite of or maybe because of the previous French involvement. Very sardonic in Two or Three Things.
Sardonic is a fitting term. Sad to say his films become increasingly ideologically motivated and less witty leading up to and after ‘68. Much more derisiveness. One might say less Rousseau, too much Marx perhaps? In any sense I think there is an unmistakable condition for exoticization that goes hand-in-hand with the (to me) always contentious critique of bourgeoisie society that runs rampant through a progressive worldview. Perhaps even a lack of respect for the so-called middle-class aesthetic. I’ve never personally noticed a lack of respect in the works of Bunuel as much as he was of course fond of scientifically picking and prodding at the group.
I do think Godard was spent by the “events” of ’68 and for that matter by the fact that such happenings allowed for as much preening as they did. I would have thought it would have been quite difficult for someone of his background to digest the movements etc. But alas the affinity for Marxism and Existentialism redoubles and overwhelms the wryness that characterizes so much of his earlier work. For that reason his output has consistently struck me as being the product of an especially ideological, and not necessarily liberally educated, mind. A point of contention arises between his incredulity and his apparent humanism especially when you examine the effect his fashionableness has on films such as La Chinoise and Week End.
“A point of contention arises between his incredulity and his apparent humanism especially when you examine the effect his fashionableness has on films such as La Chinoise and Week End.”
Do you agree that the former is kind of terrible while the latter is still infused with wit and a joyous defiance? I felt that ideologically La Chinoise was all over the place and pretty facile. Indeed, I felt as if he were making fun of his young characters half the time.
I like how you put it – “pretty facile.” Perhaps pretty, facile…? I personally only “like” (reserve some, albeit historically sensitive, sympathy for) one of said youthful characters in the former (Kirilov). The butchery of Dost notwithstanding, the, if you will, “vocation-situation” of young Kirilov (engineer-cum-nihilist) is a tad trite but for that reason becoming. Perhaps it is not “exotic” because this personality-combo could exist in both the idea of Capitalism and Communism, and the exoticization/relativization that forms in the minds of educated people on both sides of the curtain? Otherwise the characters are simply walking/talking sight-gags, and I don’t know if Godard realized that his supposed renunciation/incredulity of/to so-called bourgeoisie narrative is/was a wee bit wobbly here. The deliberate fetishization makes it all the more terrible to actually think about in (blessed) hindsight. In contrast, Week End can definitely be seen as a real romp precisely because of its wobbly nature. It holds its own when exposed to multiple viewings, whereas La C is a one-time struggle for me. Foucault (never thought I’d aprove of something he said) reckoned fashion to be antithetical to modernity, and alas La Chinoise is pure, fabricated, fashionable nonsense, while Week End is nonsense done right.
I tend to agree with you that there is a certain perceptive “defiance” in it. This becomes frolicsome because it is not disrespectful to the bourgeoisie in the same way as La Chinoise (all that philosophical debating with the professor makes me cringe). The way it is shot relates beautifully with this sense of frolic. Is this because, I suppose, Godard’s lampooning is more in the Bunuelian (or even with shades of Renoir) vein with Week End? Certainly its narrative form (being a sucker for the picaresque it brings joy to me regardless of its political orientation) preserves the same empathy that Rousseau would have had for the man of commerce as opposed to the cultural, Marxist veneer a lot of the criticism, I think misleadingly, paints onto it. It is hard to argue with the pleasure one derives from “End of Cinema” in light of “End of History” etc., and his ability to remain aloof from some of the more existential meanderings of La C keeps me involved in the nonsense. I definitely think wit has a lot to do with common sense and there is a lot more of it in Week End.
That being said I would prefer it to La Chinoise primarily because it is most successful in its ability to make the bourgeois couple less bound by the exoticization of their modern predicament, and less a product of the conflation of “American” and “Modern.” They are so delightfully, fashionably French for (bit of a reach) the same reason that “Weekend” and “Happy” (as a sub for Happy Hour) are so delightfully fashionable.
Getting quite heady. I like it! I think film suffers in general when it tries to take on deeper philosophical issues. Not really the best medium. But, I suppose some directors are more adroit than others at juxtaposing their images and text to infer hidden meanings. With Godard I’ve long felt his films carry with them a great number of in-jokes and don’t really bother to try to figure them out anymore. More fun to watch just for the images, which he frames so nicely.
Drifting off topic, I think directors like Roehmer and Bergman come closest to creating a deeper set of layers in their films with complex characters and stories that warrant much closer consideration.
Watched Bob le flambeur the other night. Nice little homage to film noir, with a number of ironic twists. Looked like dapper Bob drove a 55 Chevy Bel Air. Some sexy little scenes with Isabelle Corey, who couldn’t have been more than 16 at the time,
Naughty, naughty ; )
Dapper’s a fitting term for the character himself too (a comparatively dour Nolte did not do justice to this). I do prefer Melville’s somewhat minimalistic take on the “gangster” motif. The hero in his moving pictures is always dapper. And I’m partial to ‘Bob’ – as an earlier manifestation of the style/genre – because it poses the question of what a relatively gentlemanly sort would do given the “demi-monde” circumstances. Doesn’t it seem like the historical imagination has triumphed again? The banal (therefore accused to be bourgeois) gentleman of the demi-monde having been dethroned by the more exotic Lumpenproletariat (conmen and tricksters aplenty).
There is that subversion in these films, which makes them quite appealing. What I like about the French films is the casualness of relationships. Tension is pretty minimal, even if there is an element of tragedy in the end. Unlike the American gangster films, the pretty moll comes out Scot clean, although one assumes Bob will in the end win his suit for damages and find Anne waiting for him back at his apartment.
Drifting away from crime noir, but the recent Russian film, Stiliagi, offers an interesting take on American influence in Moscow during the 1950’s. The film follows a group of “hipsters” who model themselves after post-war American swing dancers of the 40s. This crossover actually existed in the old USSR, with kids from the Communist elite flaunting this American style much to the chagrin of Soviet censors. The film itself doesn’t delve too deeply into these historical roots. Rather the director makes an interesting juxtaposition between this 1950s theme and musical sequences scored with 80s Russian protest rock, such as this riveting scene,
You can watch the movie here.
Erich Kuersten
Don’t forget Godard made his own city into something completely alien and exotic for Alphaville.
A level of estrangement is so important, because without fresh eyes, we find the world stale