A midst the many inter titles that riddles Jean - Luc Godard's 1966 film Masculine Feminin, one stuck out at me as the most important insight into what Godard thinks film can be. The title reads, "This movie could be called The Children of Marx and Coca-Cola". This eludes to the fact that Godard uses film in a way to make political statements and present many of his political views. When you apply this idea to the film as a whole, it fits very well. It is apparent throughout that the male lead, Paul, embodies the idea of film Marxism in a human form. He is dominated by a number of ideas such as meaningless acts of political activism, that bear no relation to the reality in which he lives. At the same time, he is ignorant of many of the real relationships that do exist in his society, such as those between Madeleine and Elisabeth, and even Elisabeth and himself. He is very oblivious about what's going on around him. It is also worth noting that all of the other main characters in the film, except for Robert, are completely oblivious to many political and international affairs that don't directly affect them. They don't know about the wars going on, they don't know what countries they are in, and they have no idea what they are about. By making the characters so oblivious to current events, Godard is making a comment on the self-involvement of most people and their lack of knowledge about the things that are going on around them.The Coca-Cola generation refers merely to the youth culture of the 1960's. This can be seen through the music choices of the film, the characters obsession with sexuality and the american way of life, and the day to day activities of the main characters.
My favorite part about this inter-title is how it not only relates to the specific characters but also to the title of the film, MASCULIN FÉMININ, which posits an extremist view on gender on both a political (Marx) and domestic (Coca-Cola) level. Godard clearly views men as politically informed and both patriotic and rebellious at times. He presents women as domestically occupied (Coca-Cola), worrying about beauty and fashion. Again, this is an extremist approach which Godard unquestionably wanted us to know. With the quote being about the "children" of "Marx" and "Coca-Cola," he could be implying how the contradiction of the two ideologies of socialist and capitalist thought are relative to the contradiction between the psyche of men and women--even though we're all human, we're all so very different from the opposite sex. Whether it is innate behavior or a societal influence, this separation of mind leaves a distance between us, especially between the main characters of the film, Paul and Madeleine. The title of the film reminds me of Stanley Kubrik's "A Clockwork Orange," a title that displays a contradiction between the natural and the aesthetic, the organic and the mechanical, a clash that resembles madness. The title Masculin Féminin, too, presents a distinctive contradiction at the center of the film on a grand scale. This inter-title presents a more specific contradiction, pertaining to political and social views. Godard could be using this technique, at first, to baffle the audience by it's unconventionality and, secondly, to wake them up by the lapels, slap them in the face, and scream, "THIS ISN'T REALITY! THIS IS A FILM! THIS IS WHAT I THINK! NOW YOU THINK!" His unconventional style, not only in Masculin Féminin but all of his films, and his view of film as "cinema," rather than a two-hour mind-absorbing phenomenon, are the reason his films have been studied over the years and present troubling, almost rhetorical, stances on film.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Doug that Godard's oppositional ideologies are an "extremist approach." You have both made some really good points about the diametric oppositions going on here. My question, since you both think Godard makes political and philosophical commentary with his intertitles, is: Is he being honest or sarcastic? Is the world for Godard black/white, male/female, consumerist/socialist, etc.? Or is he, as Doug puts it, pushing his spectators to think for themselves. Does Godard want us to see the opposites as he presents them or question our black/white perceptions of the world? (I'm not sure if there is a clear answer to those questions btw).
ReplyDelete