some bollocks

8/14/2019 Some Bollocks

1/6

Patrick Whittaker

Some Bollocks about Godard toAdd to the Mountain of

Bollocks Already WrittenAbout Godard.


2/6

Patrick Whittaker

Some Bollocks about Godard to Add to the

Mountain of Bollocks Already WrittenAbout Godard.

When talking about the work of Jean-Luc Godard it is illadvised and well nigh impossible to consider his filmswithout reference to his critical writings. Indeed, Godardhimself has often asserted that his filmmaking is as muchan exercise in criticism as his writing. The two areinextricably linked and, as Chris Darke notes, Goddard'swriting can be seen as preparation for his directorial debutinA bout de souffl (France, 1960).1.

Before becoming a director, Jean-Luc Godard was acritic for the influential film journal Cahiers du Cinema.

In the 1950s, Godard -- along with Andre Bazin,Francois Truffaut and other Cahiers writers -- promoted

auteur theory which argues that cinema should beapproached with the notion that the director is the author that is the prime creative force behind a film. Thenotion was not new and had been around since the1920s2but Cahiers gave it fresh impetus.

The main tool of auteur theorists became known asmise-en-scene criticism. The term mise-en-scene wasborrowed from the theatre and refers to the way thingsare arranged within a scene.

The Cahiers group claimed that certain directors couldlay claim to being artists. This notion and the argumentsused to support it became known as les politiques desauteurs'.

Auteur theory would probably have stirred littlecontroversy but for the fact that the Cahiers groupbestowed auteur theory on certain Hollywood directorssuch as Alfred Hitchcock, Howard Hawkes, John Ford andSamuel Fuller. They argued that even though these

directors worked within the studio system, they
http://www.coldfusion.freewebtools.com/NonFiction/godard.html#sdfootnote1sym%23sdfootnote1symhttp://www.coldfusion.freewebtools.com/NonFiction/godard.html#sdfootnote2sym%23sdfootnote2symhttp://www.coldfusion.freewebtools.com/NonFiction/godard.html#sdfootnote1sym%23sdfootnote1symhttp://www.coldfusion.freewebtools.com/NonFiction/godard.html#sdfootnote2sym%23sdfootnote2sym


3/6

nonetheless had a consistent, discernable style thatmarked each of their films as their own.

Of course not every director was so elevated in theeyes of the critics. Any director who lacked a personal

vision (the main criterion for being deemed an auteur)was airily dismissed as a metteur-en-scene.

As Francois Truffaut put it in his seminal article UneCertaine Tendence du Cinema Francais which appeared inCahiers no. 31 in January, 1954 : when they (thescreenwriters) hand in their scenario, the film is done: themetteur-en-scene, in their eyes, is the gentleman whoadds pictures to it'.

Jean-Luc Godard was even more blunt when he

addressed 21 major directors. Your camera movements,'he said, are ugly because your subjects are bad, yourcasts act badly because your dialogue is worthless; in aword, you don't know how to create cinema because youno longer even know what it is.'

In 1960, Godard put his money where his mouth wasand directed A bout de souffl which was as much ahomage to the Hollywood films he loved as a reaction

against the conservatism of contemporary French cinema.It was also his chance to put into practice that which hehad been preaching as an auteur theorist. If ever a filmwas covered in the indelible fingerprints of its director, About de souffl is it.

With this film, Godard tore up and then rewrote the rulebook, but that is not to say that he re-invented the gamecompletely.

In many respects, Breathless (to give it its English title)

a story about a hoodlum on the run from the police -- isHollywood film noir given a post-modernist slant.Stylistically, it owes more than a passing nod to Italianneo-realism as well as those American directors Godardregarded as auteurs.

Right from the start, Breathless is determined tomisbehave itself. It opens with the protagonist, Michel(Jean-Paul Belmondo) preparing to steal a car. In voice-over he announces that he's an arsehole -- or possibly a

tough guy depending on the translation. Either way thefilm has immediately broken with cinematic tradition.


4/6

As he rushes through the countryside in his stolen car,he talks aloud to himself. Then he suddenly turns to theaudience and says, If you don't like the sea, and youdon`t like the mountains, and you don`t like the big city,

then go hang yourself.' This is very subversive. The fourthwall is broken and we have been made active accomplicesin Michel's activities. From here on in, it is impossible toview the film in the manner to which we have becomeaccustomed.

Godard used a number of techniques that wereunconventional and which by rights should have spoiledthe film as a piece of convincing cinema. These includedshooting with black and white film, the use of hand-held

camera, long takes and most iconoclastic of all jumpcuts. According to the perceived wisdom of the time, About de souffl should not have worked and yet it is oneof the most cinematic of all films.

Until Breathless came along, it was pretty much agreedthat the editing of a film should be seamless -- that is theaudience's attention should not be drawn to itsconstruction and should be left to lose themselves in the

plot. Godard, however, goes out of his way to remind usthat we are watching a film. Scenes that other directorswould linger over, making sure we catch every significantdetail, are put together in a seemingly haphazard mannerand it's often a case of blink and you miss it'. Forinstance, when Michel shoots the policeman, we areoffered a series of shots that give us no chance toanticipate what is about to happen and it is some secondsafter the sequence that we realise what has just

happened.This frenetic editing is taken to extremes with the use

of jump cuts. Even today this technique is frowned uponas the mark of an amateur but Godard clearly knew whathe was doing and there is no doubt he could have avoidedthe jumps if he wanted to. Clearly he is thumbing his noseat the cinematic old guard.

The editing in Breathless, its use of natural lighting,actual locations and black and white film stock, all give

the film a less than polished look. This is no accident.Godard has put a lot of effort into making Breathless the


5/6

rough diamond it is. This is the critic in him comingthrough. He wants us to question the way films are madeand to be aware of the conventions of cinema.

Of course there is more to Breathless than its form and

technique. It has a story line which could have been liftedfrom any number of Hollywood B-movies but which ishandled in a highly idiosyncratic and non-formulaic way.The plot has all the ingredients of a fast-paced thriller butGodard goes out of his way to confound our expectations.As David Borwell3 notes, Brief scenes some largelyunconnected to [Michel's] goals alternate with longstretches of seemingly irrelevant dialogue'. Add to this theart house contrivance of almost one third of the film

consisting of a conversation that is mostly small talkbetween Michel and Patricia (Jean Seberg), the girl hethinks he may love, and we are a long way from familiarB-movie territory.

None of the elements that make Breathlessextraordinary originated with Godard. Other film-makershad used them before him but never so self-consciously.A bout de souffl draws attention to the way it is put

together in a manner that most other films go to greatpains to avoid.It should be borne in mind that Breathless was not

alone in its aesthetic. Other Cahiers writers had alsomade, or were about to make, films with the same mindset. These films have been lumped together under theheading ofNouveau Vague (New Wave). Each was radicalin its own way, but none as radical -- and subversive -- asBreathless.

Bibliography.

Nelmes, Jill (ed.), An Introduction to Film Studies 3rdEdition, London, New York, Routledge, 2003

Hayward, Susan, Cinema studies 2nd Edition, London,New York, Routledge, 2000
http://www.coldfusion.freewebtools.com/NonFiction/godard.html#sdfootnote3sym%23sdfootnote3symhttp://www.coldfusion.freewebtools.com/NonFiction/godard.html#sdfootnote3sym%23sdfootnote3sym


6/6

Bordwell, David and Thompson, Kristin. Film Art. AnIntroduction. New York, McGraw-Hill, 2001

1 Nelmes; p.443

2 Hayward; p.20

3 Bordwell and Thompson; p.367

Patrick [email protected]
http://www.coldfusion.freewebtools.com/NonFiction/godard.html#sdfootnote1anc%23sdfootnote1anchttp://www.coldfusion.freewebtools.com/NonFiction/godard.html#sdfootnote2anc%23sdfootnote2anchttp://www.coldfusion.freewebtools.com/NonFiction/godard.html#sdfootnote3anc%23sdfootnote3anchttp://www.coldfusion.freewebtools.com/mailto:[email protected]://www.coldfusion.freewebtools.com/NonFiction/godard.html#sdfootnote1anc%23sdfootnote1anchttp://www.coldfusion.freewebtools.com/NonFiction/godard.html#sdfootnote2anc%23sdfootnote2anchttp://www.coldfusion.freewebtools.com/NonFiction/godard.html#sdfootnote3anc%23sdfootnote3anchttp://www.coldfusion.freewebtools.com/mailto:[email protected]

some bollocks

Documents