Interesting topic. I’ll have to rewatch it. But from what I remember, it seemed ambiguous—I thought that many times the color associations were mixed and all over the place. I remember red being used in various ways outside of Marianne. Not sure. Hopefully someone else will be able to break it down further for us.
I can’t say much… but Ferdinand does paint his face blue near the end. Like Jonathan, I’ll have to watch it again.
red and blue, alongside white (presumably ‘natural light’) make up the colours of the french flag. wonder if thats just a coincedence.
the scene at the party with sam fuller has said to have caused lots of discussion in the past, as to how godard actually wanted it to look. apparently some versions have the green color tint to the scene, while some dont. heres a comparison of the scene over at dvdbeaver, using various dvd versions.
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/FILM/Reviews/pierrot_le_fou.htm
the first time i saw the film it had the green tint, and that was projected from film, but its weird how some versions totally toned it down, to the point of it being removed.
looking at those screengrabs that i linked above, i find it difficult to see just how the green could have been removed without going back to the original source. its all very strange. i wouldnt be surprised if godard did it on purpose just to provoke such discussion.
Adam:
The colors red, white, and blue were a popular color combination from the 1950s and 1960s due to its association with BOTH the French flag and the American flag (see Vincent Minelle’s “An American in Paris” (1951) as well). This film definitely offers a lot of commentary on America/France, I think (references to Vietnam and Americans throughout).
The criterion essays also make a note of how important nature was to Godard and this film.
But it’s not just red, white, and blue that are used commonly. Yellow is used just as common as those three. Perhaps it’s that they’re the primary colors (with the exception of white which is all colors together)?
I don’t think there is any specific meaning behind each of the colors, I think it has to do with colors in general and what they tell a viewer. Godard has been quoted ( sorry, don’t have one, but I’ve read a quote) saying his films are mostly nonsense and he doesn’t plant special meanings in his films. It’s up to the viewer to decide for themselves (something Bergman does as well).
One of my favorite scenes is during a drive that concerns the reflection, via medium-shot through the windshield, of multi-colored street lamps. I’ve mentioned this to others who apparently did not notice it.
poste’-double’
“pierrot le fou” is a really, really good godard film. it easily stands with the best things he’s ever made.
R.S. Brown,
I know exactly the shot of which you speak, and I also strongly responded to it. Personally I just thought that was Godard’s way to circumvent the ‘rear projection’ tactic that many American studios (or at least Hitchcock) employed in that era. I thought of it as an extension of his “locations, not sets” approach. The criterion booklet, however, mentions that Godard used those lights (red, blue, green, and yellow) to represent Paris at night as it exists in a person’s memory: as flashes of light.
I love the movie and particularly the expressionalism of godard through his characters. I love it when Marianne sings and the party scene and this line.
Ferdinand: what is cinema?
Sam Fuller : A film is like a battleground. There’s love, hate, action, violence and death. In one word, emotions.
For me, the primary colors represent the natural, particularly in the sense of the natural being what lies in between individual lives, or life in general. The film makes note on several occasions of the space in between life, on the focus of not just particular lives, but many lives, and the space between them. I’m not sure if this really makes sense, but it is something I am still grappling with, as I am sure many people are. If there’s one thing I feel certain about, it is that there is a connection between the use of color and the exploration of space and nature. It’s just hard to know exactly what.
In any case, this is an excellent film.
Amazingly, on coming back to the auteurs, selecting the most current thread (time-wise), this thread came up first. What a true moment of Godardian synchronicity! I have just seen Pierrot le Fou for the first time just tonight! Yes, the colours definitely have a significance. I am with Wily61 that blue is definitely Ferdinand`s colour. He drives a blue car in the film and, of course paints he face blue at the end. Also, he is shot often against either the blue of the sky or sea. Marianne is obviously red, as she drives a red car, wears a red dress, and is `red` (blood) at the end. Yellow I am not so sure about (see Jim W above), but it also repeats throughout the film, especially in the cartoon sequences.
I know Godard, like any filmmaker, likes to throw red-herrings (no connection now to the colour red!) at the critcs. For instance, he has said in interviews that the blue (at the beginning of the film and throughout) of the sky and the shots of the blue ocean are just reflections of nature. He has also said that this film was pieced together in bits as the filming went along. But don`t be fooled – Wily6 is on to something, and I am now going to need to watch it again for its colour symmetry. One has to look scene by scene, at the quick cuts to cartoon, pictures, splashes of paint here and there, etc. Just like none of the literary references are accidental, neither are the visual clues. Godard’s films all look a bit dis-jointed on first viewing, because he is tryiing for so many layers of reference in his work – like parodying cinematically various American movie styles in his film, obscure literary references, characters in his films mirroring literary or film characters, colours, cartoons, politics, documentaries – the list goes on. They are not to be taken at face value..
How tragic that the end of his relationship with Anna Karina was mirrored in that of the two characters, Ferdinand and Marianne. Godard was `destroying` his love for her in this film. Any theories on why the Belmondo character keeps saying “Ì am not Pierrot, I am Ferdinand,” throughout the movie? That`s what bugs me!
because he isn’t pierrot. his name is ferdinand!
Ah, Bobby – you’re driving me nuts! Now, after just finishing the extra features in disk #2 of Criterion’s great version of Pierrot le Fou, and hearing this very issue discussed, I now know you are right. It was absurd the number of times that phrase was repeated in the film, but in the cold light of reflection, Pierrot must be considered Godard’s most absurdist film – as in dada. Since Godard was making it all up on the fly, we shouldn’t make too much of his use of colours, except to state the obvious, that he used the primary colours to accentuate mood and character for a comic-book like effect – Godard at his most playful.
keep in mind that godard said even though he improvises, his improvisation is always the result of careful planning. so i’m highly cynical to the possibility that godard was making it all up on the fly, for any of his films. the very density of his films undercuts that.
so now you have to ask yourself why does marianne insist on calling him pierrot? simply because she prefers that, as she says?
and for me, godard at his most playful is “a woman is a woman”.
Bobby: Now you are really driving me nuts! Since he paints himself at the end in a type of clown’s face (blue, natch), does he then become the clown – pierrot? Are all the references to comic book type illustrations our hint to take Ferdinand as a comic-book type of character – no more real than a clown??? Damn, now I am trying to figure it all out again. Is there a right answer? Do the literary references give us a clue?
I have yet to see a ‘woman is a woman’, but would now love to do a retrospective of his Anna period in films. Nice documentary about both of them on disk #2. She certainly was Godard’s muse during this period, like Monica for Antonioni, or Theresa for Roeg. There’s a whole new subject, for you.
there’s dietrich and von sternberg. kelly and hitch. masina and fellini. but karina and godard might be the most special match of them all.
interesting theory — pierrot the clown. comic books and strips do figure a lot in the imagery of godard’s films.
literary references always give a clue, as do any other references. an artist betrays himself deeply by what he refers to. and godard is the master of referential cinema. he was postmodern before there was such a thing (as agreed upon by critics).
Marianne refers to Ferdinand as Pierrot, a historical French clown dressed in white who is “played the fool” throughout the movie. She is being honest and telling Ferdinand she is going to deceive him but he is too engrossed in his own interests to pay attention. At the end, the red and yellow dynamite around his neck mimic Pierrot’s big white collar. The blue on his face could reference France, or I also wondered if it completes the primary color scheme of red and yellow dynamite. As he blows himself up, red, yellow, and blue, the colors that make up all other colors, become neutralized as he himself is neutralized. Jan
wilky61
“Pierrot Le Fou” is famous for its use of vivid color, particularly the colors of red and blue. What are your readings on this film?
Is the color ‘blue’ associated with Ferdinand’s character and the color ‘red’ associated with Marianne? Or is it too ambiguous to tell? Typically, I would associate ‘red’ with emotion and passion, but ‘blue’ is a much more nebulous color to me. The key conflict in this film (and many of Godard’s others) revolves around the inherent conflict and miscommunication between man and woman— does Godard’s use of color play into this conflict any?
What of the final shot of the film, with the camera resting on the convergence of blue sky and blue ocean? What of the use of yellow in this film? Also, what can be said of the “party sequence” toward the beginning of the film where different shots are tinted different colors?
This is a very complex film, any insight would be appreciated.