Recently I’ve watched two new films by Godard, Two or Three Things I Know About Her… and Pierrot Le Fou. Before I used to look down on Godard’s color films (mostly thanks to Weekend and Une Femme est Une Femme), however, with these two new films seen, this view has changed. While Two or Three Things is appropriately gritty filmed, Pierrot Le Fou I daresay is Godard’s most visually stunning film, at least of his color ones. It really shows Godard coming to an aesthetic conclusion with himself. Narrative-wise these two films are very different, although they do have a lot of similar characteristics that are familiar touches of Godard. Godard has always been very interesting to me since I for the first time saw a film by him, Alphaville, some two years ago. He’s always been such a revolutionist in the film-form, and few recognized directors I’ve seen has done something like he does.
In the Two or Three Things I Know About Her…, we follow Juliette, a house-wife who one day of the week turns to prostitution to feed her family. Although she is presented in the beginning as the ‘protagonist’, the films seem to sway a lot of other areas, and has often been said to be more about Paris than Juliette. It is more an exploration of life in Paris, and Juliette is but one set-piece. I like the word, ‘set-piece’, because that is a lot about what this film is, ‘set-pieces’, and this is where I felt the film excelled. While many of Godard’s earlier films, Breathless in particular, leaned towards more ‘classic’ narrative stories, Two or Three Things I Know About Her… is unhinged and fractured, almost floating aimlessly throughout, and there is little character development or plot. However, this film is more about observations and reflection of both contemporary life then and cinema itself. During the film and in the introduction we hear a narrator, Godard himself, whispering into the microphone. Godard explains to us, here is the actress who is going to be acting in this film, and then later introduces the character. The immediate strength of the film is the way it forces the audience to realize the machinery of it. This makes the set-pieces more effective, as we can focus on what they are actually telling. There is no attempt at trying to create the ‘illusion’ of cinema here, instead the film distances the audience from the fictional world. So far, to me, it seems as Two or Three Things is Godard’s most formative and mature work. Characters and events seem less random, and to some extent, this reminds me of Vivre sa Vie, which is probably his most mature film, although one of his first. However much I admire Godard, his films often feel fragmented, as if things are a bit unrelated. In this, however, through the fragmentation of the narrative itself, the film seems to be more cohesive and takes a stronger form. It’s like an essay, with different points and paragraphs, but comes together through the introduction and conclusion, which makes the film seem much more ‘whole’, one of my new favorites by Godard.
The other film I saw was Pierrot Le Fou, and while showing moments of brilliance, was a bit of a disappointment. Not to say that this isn’t a very good piece of cinema by Godard, but I expected it, unlike One or Two Things, to be one of his best. So what’s the problem? Well, Pierrot Le Fou has a straightforward narrative, which I often don’t think favor Godard’s cause, except for in Le Mepris. The film is excellent for the first hour, but starts to fall apart after that, and I was a bit alienated from the film for some time, until it picked itself up again and came to a glorious conclusion. The problem I had with this film is of the one I discussed when talking about Two or Three Things, that the film itself feels very fragmented, both form and narrative. Here is one of the wonderful ironies of Godard’s films, that a film with a somewhat cohesive narrative feels more fragmented than a film that I built of fragments of story. I’m not telling you though not to watch this, because for all its faults, the film has some excellent moments and is way more interesting than what you usually see in the cinema today. On another note, Pierrot Le Fou is probably the most aesthetic pleasing of Godard’s films that I have seen so far. Unlike a lot of his other films, where he avoids this consciously, the shots are wonderfully composed, and at times look stunning. Anna Karina has rarely looked as beautiful as here. The film is shot in south France I believe, at the coast and in summer. This is used to contrast the characters predicament. Oh, I guess I haven’t mentioned the actual story, well, Ferdinand has escaped from his boring life through murder, together with his girl-friend Marianne, and as they escape from the police attempt to get by on the country side. As usual, with Godard’s films, the story is pretty simple, but obviously it’s not there the strengths of his films lie.
So, I’ve felt a bit more enlightened on Godard after seeing these two, especially Two or Three Things, which really show Godard at his formative height, and few of his films have achieved such a great blend of his different ideas and techniques. While Pierrot Le Fou was a bit of a let-down, it still showed that Godard could, if he wanted, create beautiful shots that challenge any of the great visual directors of our times. Colin MacCabe, who wrote Godard’s biography, wrote at the end that he saw Godard as a poet, and some scenes from Pierrot Le Fou absolutely proves this point, while Two or Three Things makes him more out as an essayist. I believe though that Vivre sa Vie is an amazing blending of these two personalities, and urge everyone to go see this film. Yes, I am a huge fan of Vivre sa Vie. Regardless, Pierrot Le Fou and Two or Three Things are both very good films by Godard, and to people who wish to explore this filmmaker further, I can only heartedly recommend these two as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment