Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on May 31, 2008 17:40:55 GMT
This is what I'm talking about, baby.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 31, 2008 21:21:05 GMT
Ohhh indeeeeeeeeeeed.
|
|
|
Post by quentincompson on Nov 23, 2008 0:02:28 GMT
Saying you have to be a Maoist to appreciate Godard is like saying you have to be a homosexual male to like The Smiths or a Communist to enjoy Imagine by John Lennon. I didn't say you have to be a Maoist to appreciate Godard. What I meant to convey via my sarcasm was that scenes in which characters do things like writing 'Mao' on the ground do not make for a film of substantive political content. Godard's not trying to make deep political statements by having his characters write Mao on the sidewalk. It's more a question of why they do it. In Masculin feminin it's fairly clear Godard is criticizing the superficiality of JPL's character. He's essentially just as shallow as his girlfriend the pop singer, and it's just pointing to the way capitalism has made liberalism and revolutionary ideology trendy and popular as yet another way of making money. Just look at all the people who wear Che shirts in the US, yet still decide to stay in and contribute to the country and pretend to have the best of both worlds when you can't change anything by wearing a T-shirt. It's absurd and Godard's commentary is spot on and far from didactic.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Nov 23, 2008 1:28:41 GMT
So the sum of Godard's political statements in these films is that the 'politicised' youth don't have the courage of their convictions or are poseurs. That's what he means by "make films politically"? Isn't that shallowness kind of ironic, given that he was a Maoist around this time? Does that make this film the equivalent of scrawling 'Mao' on the ground?
|
|
|
Post by quentincompson on Nov 23, 2008 17:57:41 GMT
I honestly cannot remember the other films which use graffiti, but as far as MF goes I don't see how this is the sum of his political commentary at all. The film is multi-layered like all his best work and attacks capitalism from all angles, with some instances more subtle than others. Like I said is not just saying the characters are posers it's showing how consumer society can take something against it(like rock and roll music) and turn it into something which it thrives in. That and how it makes said individuals completely nihilistic and egotistical to the point that the sum of their political involvement is graffiti or talking about their vague understanding of Marx in a cafe while wearing designer clothes.
I could care less if Godard is a Maoist, he obviously thought he could change people's ideas about the world with his films and later realized that he couldn't. There's hardly any Maoist sentiment in most of his films it's more concerned with criticism of the current structure and installing some kind of desire for change within the viewer. But obviously his films have just proved themselves right as his work has been misinterpreted and adored more for their originality,humor and coolness then their actual real purposes. You have to look no further than Tarantino's love for Vivre sa vie when he clearly has no understanding of what the film is really about.
|
|
|
Post by svsg on Nov 23, 2008 18:02:51 GMT
he obviously thought he could change people's ideas about the world with his films and later realized that he couldn't. I don't know if anyone was ever able to bring about a social change through films. LOL, I definitely need to see it now.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 23, 2008 22:22:40 GMT
Tarantino's interviews and opinions are always a massive cringefest.
His charlatanism makes me gag.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Nov 30, 2008 0:24:41 GMT
I honestly cannot remember the other films which use graffiti, but as far as MF goes I don't see how this is the sum of his political commentary at all. The film is multi-layered like all his best work and attacks capitalism from all angles, with some instances more subtle than others. Like I said is not just saying the characters are posers it's showing how consumer society can take something against it(like rock and roll music) and turn it into something which it thrives in. That and how it makes said individuals completely nihilistic and egotistical to the point that the sum of their political involvement is graffiti or talking about their vague understanding of Marx in a cafe while wearing designer clothes. But what else does it say? That last thing is the same as the first thing (that the character are poseurs). Well, that's fair enough, but are his films right about whatever else it is they have to say? I mean, if Godard was a Maoist when he made this film, and he's ridiculing his characters' naïvité by depicting them writing 'Mao' on the ground, then surely we must presume that Godard thinks he has a much better understanding of Maoism than his characters do. Does that come across in the film?
|
|
|
Post by quentincompson on Nov 30, 2008 2:46:24 GMT
Firstly I think I've made two slightly different points about Godard's charecterization.
The more subtle commetary on JPL's character being fake despite appearing to be poltically motivated, and Goya's character(politcally apathetic) becoming inhumane through her emphasis on materialism, most obviously shown by the ending when she seems unfazed by her boyfriends death and coldly states her intention of killing her child with a curtain rod.
There's also the instances of violence in the film which the characters are mostly indifferent to. In the one case a protestor sets himself on fire and it is clear the interest lies in the act itself rather than the motivation behind it, Godard suggesting the individuals inability too really change anything.
As to your second point from my personal experience I do think his commentary is spot on, particularly in today's world, but maybe I'm just pessimistic and misanthropic, or maybe I'm delusional in thinking violence sells and actually has an effect on the way people behave.
As for Godard's political stance, again I don't care, I can only read what he has put into the films. I think his afinity with Mao has little to do with the actual pro's and con's of socialism and it's practical application, as it does with the desire to destroy the class structure, install some equality and make people care once again about the Other. I don't see why him being a Maoist makes his films any better or worse, just as I could care less if Heidegger supported Nazisim when I'm thinking about what he has to say.
|
|
|
Post by Anasazie on Nov 30, 2008 10:06:41 GMT
Wonderful stuff!
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Nov 30, 2008 15:55:47 GMT
As for Godard's political stance, again I don't care, I can only read what he has put into the films. I think his afinity with Mao has little to do with the actual pro's and con's of socialism and it's practical application, as it does with the desire to destroy the class structure, install some equality and make people care once again about the Other. I don't see why him being a Maoist makes his films any better or worse, just as I could care less if Heidegger supported Nazisim when I'm thinking about what he has to say. Heidegger doesn't talk about Nazism (though it's far from an incidental issue). Godard does talk about Maoism. So that's a bad analogy. Maoism is explicitly a part of what Godard has to say. I didn't say his being a Maoist makes his films worse. But given that he was a Maoist, if he's just ridiculing his characters for 'commodifying' Maoist ideology then he must be implying that he's got a much better understanding of Maoism and is much more serious about it... unless he's ridiculing himself. And unless the film communicates something substantial about Maoism itself, his attack on fashion-Maoism can only be snide, shallow and elitist, can't it? You say you don't care about Godard's political stance, but you must do to some extent. Without knowing that Godard was a Maoist at the time that he made this film, you could interpret his ridicule of his characters as a ridicule of Maoism itself, or of 'socialist'/state-communist philosophy in general. In fact, if he offers no contrast (if he doesn't show what he sees as serious revolutionary activity), is that not exactly what he's doing?
|
|
|
Post by quentincompson on Dec 2, 2008 3:42:48 GMT
But it's not an attack on fashion Maoism as I already said, it's an attack on how such things come about. He's not ridiculing the individual but society as a whole.
His films are far too sympathetic towards the youths struggles to be elitist, MF may be a bit colder but other films such as La Chinoise identify even more with the struggles which come with any hopes of revolution.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 10, 2008 9:59:31 GMT
For some reason, I can't remember when/where in Masculin Feminin Paul and Madeleine were referred to as "the children of Marx and Coca Cola."
|
|
|
Post by bobbyreed on Dec 10, 2008 18:05:53 GMT
It's an intertitle near the end.
|
|