Weekend
March 12, 2008 at 4:00 am | In Cinema | Leave a CommentTags: Cinema, Jean-Luc Godard
Watched this film by Jean-Luc Godard tonight. I had to watch it twice, and then do some research to understand many of the things that Godard was trying to portray in the movie… but this is what cinema should be like. It should provide food for thought, and not just kill your brain cells due to extended inactivity (though I will concede that it is fun to watch Rajnikanth once in a while).
There are too many subtleties in the movie to make a list of, and more likely than not, I missed most of them. But here are some things that certainly caught my attention. This post is kind of haphazard because it is 3 am and I’m a little sleepy 
For plot summary and the like, see imdb.
Techniques / devices used in the movie (some of them, at least):
- Use of colour and other symbols: There is a very obvious use of the red-white-blue colours of France and America, especially when it comes to displaying the cars in the movie. It symbolises the materialism and the bourgeoisie in these countries, I think. Also, just the garish advertisements everywhere, the big Shell truck in the traffic jam scene (which is symbolically crushing someone’s small car going in the opposite direction) clearly scream out corporatism and capitalism – it is quite brilliant.
- Distancing the viewer emotionally from the scene: This is supposedly because Godard was hugely impressed by the Brecht technique of interruptions – namely the breaking up of the narrative so as to distance the audience emotionally from the story. Brecht (and Godard) believed that this would get the audience to actually think about the movie rather than be a part of the action. These interruptions are typically achieved in this movie by the interspersion of slides with the date, mileage on the car, time of the day etc., all of which are meaningless in the context of the story. Interesting to note that he uses the red-blue-white colouring in some of the slides, and that he is a big fan of word play. For example, “Analyse” was split as Anal Yse when the actress was describing sexual acts in graphic detail.
- The movie is wonderfully structured. Many themes introduced in rambling monologues come back at other points in the story and nicely fit in. The description of the sexual act mentioned above clearly comes back at the end of the movie.
- The use of monologues and sound: One of the most fascinating things for me was the use of monologues and sound in such a way that the sound really had nothing to do whatsoever with the video on screen. The description of the orgy, for example, feels so weird because of the sheer lack of emotion in the woman’s narrative. She could be reading the stock prices, for all you know. At the same time, the content is something that probably would not even make it into porn movies. There are similar scenes later on where the Congo-ite(?), the Algerian and the hero(!) have their political ideologies enunciated by someone. During that time, the camera just stays on the deadpan faces of the characters. Some random scenes from the movie are interspersed, clearly as interruption gimmicks (point 1). Similarly, in the scene where the pianist plays Mozart, the camera idly wanders all over the farmyard with no purpose whatsoever (well, maybe it captures some emotions, but the style of shooting it was new to me). Finally, the music: the movie starts off with a strangely light-hearted tune, and such tunes come back again and again.But there is some loud dark music, particularly when some of the deadpan monologues are being recited – which leads to a strange impression overall. Things may have sounded different if I’d understood French.
- Dead animals: This was just sick. There was probably no need to show a pig being slaughtered, and a skinned rabbit that was bathed in the blood of the mother-in-law.
Some themes in the movie:
- The movie is quite clearly a satire on bourgeois life. The preoccupation of the rich/middle class with cars. Their preoccupation with fashion labels – when her car is involved in an accident and a woman is burning before her eyes, our lady can only say “Oh my Hermes bag!” The apathy towards the dying – “They are all dead twats anyway” (when they couldnt give him directions because they were not alive. Women playing tennis. Lack of civil decorum.
- The main message of the movie is clearly the breakdown of society. The first scene has some middle class people indulging in small talk over tea in a nice apartment. The last scene shows the same woman eating her husband’s flesh, and asking for more. Brilliant. The movie clearly shows the situation going from bad to worse. One evidence for this being the number of burnt cars lying on the road.
- Cars. This is huge in the movie. All evil in the movie seems to arise out of cars. They stand for materialism, capitalism, corporatism,consumerism – the whole lot. And they start burning up. Also interesting is how rashly the husband and wife drive – one scene where they force everyone else off the road, irrespective of which side of the road they are on, is particularly interesting. Not surprisingly, they force a bicyclist and a pedestrian into the ditch, but they themselves are forced off the road by a bigger truck.
- Does this mean he is a communist? It is not clear. After the big scene symbolising cless struggle – “You are unhappy because you cannot screweveryone on the Riviera like I do”, “Without my tractor, France has no food” – the spoilt rich kid and the farm worker join hands to abuse the common enemy. They exit the scene hand in hand. Of course, there is a lot of stuff about revolution, communism, Engels… but it is not clear that these are fully endorsed by Godard.
- The role of women, and patriarchal society:
- “What is your name?” “Corrine D–.” “No, D– is your husband’s name.” “My maiden name is Corrine Dupont.” “Dupont is your father’s name. You don’t know who you are.”
- The husband sits apathetically while a stranger rapes his wife in the ditch
- The way they try and get lifts is by getting the woman to lie in the middle of the road, lift her legs, and spread them.
- Jesus Christ:
- The “exterminating angel” claims to be the son of God and Alexander Dumas. His companion’s name is Marie Madeleine.
- “Didn’t Marx say we are all brothers?” “No, that was another communist – Jesus.
Particularly enjoyable scenes in the movie:
There are really too many to list, but here are a few:
- The traffic jam. Must see movie, just for this one scene!! Why don’t other people overtake, and break the rules? What about that llama!! Chess and throwball. Oh, the irritating honking! The Shell truck! Amazing! Also, the end of this scene is where the movie really starts getting wild.
- The class struggle – tractor versus rich playboy’s girlfriend. Some of the dialogue is just brilliant. And I loved the conclusion of the scene.
- The farmyard scene with the Mozart sonata. The claim that “all music comes from Mozart” was brilliant.
- The scene where his wife gets raped – has some interesting questions with clearly no correct answers:
- “Is this a film or reality?”
- Would you rather be screwed by Mao or Johnson?” “Johnson, of course.” “Fascist!”
- “Did Israel attack or Egypt?” “The Egyptians, of course.” “What an ignoramus”
References to other movies/books etc.:
- The Exterminating Angel – That movie ends with sheep as well.
- Alexander Dumas (though I don’t get the point)
- Saint-Júst from the French revolution talking about how wealth is not equitably distributed
- Tom Thumb reading Brecht from rote cards
- Emily Brönte, who quotes what is presumably some sort of an Alice in Wonderland dialogue.
Bottom line: This is a must-watch film. Real enjoyment comes from understanding such films, not jokers like Upendra who also claim to be directors.
No Comments Yet »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: Pool by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.
