Trying to determine what Godard believes film should be may be difficult to pinpoint. But after analyzing just one scene in Masculin Feminin, it’s easy to make a few assumptions. Look no further than the bathroom scene between Paul and Madeleine twelve minutes into the film.
When Paul and Madeleine ask each other philosophical and societal questions they really reflect and demonstrate a lot of what Godard thinks film should do. They ask each other questions in various ways but the real questions being posed are by Godard; “Why search for love?” “What do men and women want from each other?” “Why must their always be this sexual tension hanging between a man and a woman?” Godard is using the character’s dialogue to make the audience think about their own philosophies and question social norms.
One particular question that seemed to stand out was when Madeleine asks Paul what the center of the world is for him. Godard uses Paul’s response to caricature what he believes men of the region and era view as the center of the world: Love. Likewise Godard follows the same model and uses Madeleine’s response: “Me” in much the same way to make a point about what he believed women of the time thought.
The whole scene is a tribute to the idea that the world doesn’t revolve around you, except in the way Paul says: “By living, being, and seeing with your own eyes.” By playing up the background noise of the magazine workers’ dialogue, Godard is trying to subtly answer the question they’re debating. That is that the world goes on the other side of the walls, with or without them. But at the same time, the world doesn’t exist to them without their ability to see, be, and think with their own head. For this scene, that’s just a bathroom, and each other. So they’re left to question each other.
Godard’s lengthy shots create an interview –like environment that highlights the differences in the characters by showing them in their most vulnerable state, fumbling to voice their beliefs. The environment he creates is the perfect forum for demonstrating the main idea of what he thinks cinema should do; make the audience question how they perceive the world.
While it is true that to find Godard’s meaning of film is well hidden in his unique storytelling style, it is not as simple as just the mentality of people. He uses the camera as a mechanism to store the past moments just like painters and photographers did before him.
ReplyDeleteGodard does use dialogue as a form of getting his viewers to think about themselves, however, this is usually an effect that happens after the viewer goes home and thinks about the film, which might not happen. During the film, he makes his viewer aware that they are watching a film, which can make the argument that he sees film as a “repository of past times”, like Alison Butler points out. By seeing film as this storage of past times it makes sense that Godard takes a sociological route with improvised lines. This view of film also allows his story in Masculine Feminine to deviate from the thought of “you are not the center of the universe” commentary to the documentation of how people were seemingly unaffected by the world events of the time.
If you see the value of Godard’s work through his interest in the sociology, you can consider the “caricatures” he creates of the two genders, not as caricatures but as real. From the Butler article, you become aware that Godard is concerned with cinematic realism. With that, it is true that the actor brings a part of themselves in to the improvised scenes, so to call their character a caricature is to call the real thing a caricature. It can be said that Godard uses film to place a mirror to society and comment on our perceptions of our lives, but to ignore his use of cinema to document time is to miss his view all together.
-KRE
You make a valid point. I glazed over it, whereas maybe it was more of a focus of Godard. But i did mention it! "...caricature what he believes men of the region and era view as the center of the world" "...to make a point about what he believed women of the time thought."
ReplyDeleteI like the scene you selected and I agree with the points you made in regards to Paul and Madeleine's role as Godard's representation of what young adults existed as in 1960s France. Referring to the lengthy shots and the interview style you mentioned, I see their value as well and I found the non-speaking moments by both characters during those shots as the most revealing. Madeleine's actions while Paul is speaking to her are frustrating for him. She has him wrapped around her finger, knows it, and takes full advantage of that fact. Her mischief is laced with materialism. She's looking in the mirror, putting on makeup, and fixing her hair, which indicates her fascination with herself that comes before addressing Paul directly. She feigns interest by asking Paul questions and responding to him, but she is too busy focusing on her admitted center of the world -- herself. Paul also seems disinterested to an extent, often looking down and at one point, lights a cigarette to smoke (perhaps a sign of boredom ... perhaps he takes up causes until he becomes bored with them). He has a bit more emotion invested than Madeleine, but it's not overwhelming by any means. Paul may talk philosophy, but it's empty, as evidenced by your point -- he simply claims love as the center of his world. He cries activism, but doesn't take concrete action. In fact, his initial attempts to go out with Madeleine seem weak and he's almost whining in this scene. While this situation is more personal for the viewers -- as we're made fully aware that we are thanks to Godard -- it is not much different than the rest of society depicted in "Masculin, feminin" (1966).
ReplyDeleteI think you make a great point with your argument on the dialogue between Paul and Madeleine in this scene. I would like to suggest that the body language of the two as well as the actions of the camera go farther than to explain their philosophical standpoints (or rather, the wavering quality of them), and show the audience the characters of the two. Body language, I believe, can be more truthful than one’s words. We see Paul introduce to Madeleine the idea and falsehood that she has previously told them they could go out on this date, and I thought he seemed confident, and behaved very much as if Madeleine has done so. The camera shifts to Madeleine and it becomes clear she had never told Paul such thing, or have intended it. Madeleine is busy with her makeup; the camera throughout the whole scene shows her either peering into her compact mirror, or move close to the large mirror in this restroom . The camera follows almost her every move, with less than 30 degree angles, creating a jarring effect that makes one feel the one is clumsily trying to stare at Madeleine, invading her privacy, instead of being audiences and studying her with the protection of the movie screen in between. Yet, the camera on Paul on the other hand observed him from the same angle the entire time, truer to the interview format. The scene initially showed Paul as insistent, but obliging to Madeleine whenever she asked him questions, even those that do not relate to going out with him. I believe that the camera depicting Paul as not moving was initially luring the audience into believing his character is staid, especially because his pursuit of Madeleine seemed so. And camera ineptly following Madeleine, enlarging shots of her face and her beautifying her face, and showing her as constantly shifting was also a façade that Madeleine is flighty and vain. But in fact, neither character behaved as the camera work suggested. I believe Madeleine did not verbally succumb to Paul’s lie in this scene, nor, by the questions she asked, showed herself as capricious or shallow at heart. Neither is Paul the constant, firm man his initial persuasion suggested. I quite agree with your statement that Paul and Madeleine are “fumbling to voice their beliefs”, however, I think both of their body language – moving and still – are mechanisms to protect themselves from completing betraying their true characters, protecting their vulnerabilities. Thus, I think from this one scene, the film’s message may be it is what the characters hide that are worthy to think about, after all, in many scenes in this film words struggle to match up the inner feelings of these characters.
ReplyDeleteHailun Zhu
I like the moment you chose! This is one of those moments that seems pretty straight-forward, but which is very contradictory when you start questioning it. I agree with both Ben and Keishla. Godard is commentating on both gender roles as well as on French society. I like how Keishla put it, "to call their characters a caricature is to call the real thing a caricature." Perhaps this is the point. Maybe Godard is not only questioning the reality of camera representation, but the reality of our perceptions of the world. The use of mirrors in this scene seems to compliment this notion. I think Paul's response to the question, "What is the center of your world?" is pretty interesting. For an “intellectual type,” he gives a very stereotypical answer…what he thinks Madeleine wants to hear (“Love”). As Joe puts it, “Paul may talk philosophy, but it’s empty.” In this scene, it is Madeleine who is being honest. I mean, really, if we are honest with ourselves, we are each the center of our own universes. So the image of Madeleine fixing her hair (being a self-obsessed consumerist) conflicts with her dialogue in which she is the truly reflective character. Hailun’s observation that the characters do not behave as the camera work suggests is right on the money! She does an amazing job of comparing the camera’s treatment of both characters and our reactions to (perceptions of) each one. In addition, I think Ben’s observation that the background noise pushes the idea that the world continues despite (and because of) these characters makes this scene even more complex.
ReplyDelete