-Jean-Luc Godard
Looking at a particular moment in Godard's Masculin Feminin, I am going to attempt to answer the question: According to the techniques used in this moment, what do you think Godard believes film should be?
Based on the moment I’ve chosen, I believe that Godard wanted to make filmmaking more accessible to people, if only just seemingly so.
The moment I chose to look at occurs toward the end of the movie when Paul interviews Miss 19. The shot is a medium shot of a young woman standing in front of a window. The woman is backlit, seemingly from natural lighting. Directly preceding this shot is a title screen that reads "Dialogue with a Consumer Product."
The caption and the interview style that Godard uses in the scene with Miss 19 interest me the most.
The caption provides the lens through which the spectator is supposed to view the following interview, stating Godard's purpose directly. I feel like this technique makes filmmaking accessible because titles and captions are relatively easy to insert before and after scenes, which allow the director to make a statement without needing much production experience to do so.
Moreover, his use of an interview style between Paul and Miss 19 is a simple one. The camera does not move for the entire scene, but rather stays focused on Miss 19 as Paul asks questions from off-screen. It seems like a real interview is taking place, with Miss 19 simply answering questions from Paul unscripted. Someone with very little filmmaking experience could easily set up a similar scene and would simply need to come up with questions for the interview.
Using this moment as an example, I believe that many techniques that Godard employs in the film make filmmaking seem more accessible to those with little or no experience, which seems to fit in well with the anti-capitalist and anti-consumerism message of Masculin Feminin. Other techniques that he uses that reinforce this idea are his use of long shots that do not feature (or require) much editing, as well as his use of street scenes that feature real people on the streets of Paris. Godard simply sets up a camera and films.
While some of his techniques may seem amateurish and simple to execute, Godard really did know what he was doing. At the beginning of his career, Godard had worked as a film critic and had no actual filmmaking experience. His experience, rather, came from his close observation and analysis of films as a critic and self-professed cinephile. Since he knew the “rules” and “language” of filmmaking, Godard was able to intentionally break those for effects that are unique to his films. It is Godard's gift in making his techniques look so easy that is one of the reasons he has been cited by some as the single-most influential director on other directors of the 20th century. The Hollywood studio system that had dominated the filmmaking industry for decades made it difficult for newcomers who were either outside the industry or who wanted to bring variation to movies to make films, so Godard's approach was a refreshing change that encouraged other auteurs to try filmmaking.
Like Quentin Tarantino, to name a popular contemporary director that has been heavily influenced by Godard.
So, back to the original question: According to the techniques used in this moment, what do you think Godard believes film should be?
My answer: Using the moment of the Miss 19 interview as an example, I believe that Godard wanted to make filmmaking more accessible to people.
Danielle,
ReplyDeleteI truly liked your explanation of how he wanted to make cinema more accessible to people of all intelligences. I definitely see where you are coming from but I start to question whether this was his true motive. Many other film makers of the period did not use this technique so to viewers this could possibly be seen as confusing. I know to a modern day viewer like me I was taken off guard when the camera never switched for us to see Paul asking the questions. In my opinion, I think Godard used these techniques to break with what people were used to in film. This film is from the 60s so I think he was into breaking conventions. With the abnormal montage, breaking of the fourth wall and interview like shot composition, I think it is possible he was showing that cinema can be different from what we are used to. I like that you mention Tarrantino who has been influenced by him. I think both of these filmmakers are interested in showing the non conventional. Many moments in Masculin Feminin showed the power of Godard and his methods in defying the normal. I remember when viewing the film that he put random shots as transitions between two scenes. I felt that these made no sense and did not flow within the narrative or film itself. I think this is just one example of how Godard looks to not only give his own twist to films but also defy previous filmmakers. I definitely see your point because if someone who had not viewed many other films in their past saw this they would definitely be able to follow along easier because there would be no invisible cutting or methods used by modern day filmmakers. I like your explanation but I also think that he is trying to defy past filmmakers.
Jesse Moss
In reading your explanation for what Gordard believes film should be, it was refreshing to see that a possible implication of his techniques could be to make film-making more accessible. However, I do not think that making film more accessible would be his primary motive behind his unconventional style. Had this movie come out earlier in the 20th century before most of society had already been exposed to film, then I feel you would be right; but at this point cinematic techniques had already been established and to break from those traditions would cause more discomfort to the audience rather than form a familiar connection with them.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, I believe that in using his individual techniques, Godard intends for the discomfort caused to the audience to make them question the very nature of film, and why they feel the way they do. Godard also intended, with the very same discomfort, for certain scenes to stick out in the viewer’s mind. For instance, in the real world, when we talk with someone and say something on accident that creates discomfort, we remember that moment for an extended amount of time. We also continually reflect on that moment for longer than we would if the moment had proceeded normally.
As you said, Gordard’s techniques absolutely seem “amateurish and simple to execute.” They certainly do make film seem more accessible to the common man. Yet, in 60’s society it is possible that people would have already been accustomed to film for western techniques and so Gordard’s style would have been disconcerting. In this case, the discomfort caused would have one primary intention for the viewing audience, reflection. There would be reflection on the nature of film itself, and the underlying themes presented in the movie. This reflection caused by Gordard, would cause the audience to perceive and think about the social messages in the movie
Sean Warfman
You are commenting on two important (not necessarily contradictory) ideas here. First, I agree that Godard (and other French New Wave Directors) wanted to make film more accessible...for other filmmakers. They found the traditional French cinema banal and non-intellectual (much like the portrait of consumerist females in the film). Also, the war had depleted the finances, technology, and studios to make IMR films. With the advent of more "mobile" cameras and sound technologies, the cameras could go out on the streets. This allowed for greater film-making opportunities (without the exorbitant studio costs). But, I also agree with Sean and Jesse that the STYLE is less accessible for spectators, more disruptive. So, while Godard wanted filmmaking to be more accessible for filmmakers, he also wanted to jar his viewers into questioning established cinematic language. A true revolutionist!
ReplyDelete