To creditJean-Luc Godardwith revolutionizing cinema may feel, at this point, redundant, but that’s because it’s a credit that’s entirely due. Praising Godard’s invention is akin to laudingOrson Wellesforhisinnovation, or notingAlfred Hitchcockwrote the playbook on crafting thrillers andStevenSpielbergessentially birthed the summer blockbuster. The fact is that Godarddidrevolutionize the art form—rebirthed it, even—and invented a new language that largely remains engrained in contemporary cinema. His impossibly prolific output throughout the 1960s is untouchable, with movies likeBreathless(1960),VivreSaVie(1962),Bandof Outsiders(1964), andWeekend(1967) being crucial works that are essentially synonymous with the French New Wave. It’s certainly (and understandably) this ‘60s period for which Godard is most widely known, with the pop-art sensibility, effortless coolness, and suave combination of stylish entertainment and intellectualism making for a truly singular viewing experience. These moviesfeelfresh and timeless, and they remain a solid gateway into Godard’s later, more complicated works.
Too frequently, though, do the New Wave-era flicks take the spotlight away from Godard’s work during the ‘80s and beyond. While not as immediately gratifying or digestible as the lightweight, freewheeling works from his first decade, they are no less inventive and rewarding. One of the most fascinating aspects of Godard’s career is its utter refusal to remain the same or play by the rules. His filmography was born shapeshifting: fromBreathless,Godard was constantly reassessing what he wanted to make, and he repeatedly posed the question of what a film could, or should, be. By the time that the final act of Godard’s career came around, the beloved auteur had abandoned most of what had once made him so recognizable, crafting instead a series of boldly experimental films that dismantle the medium that he had devoted his life to.
RELATED:Remembering Jean-Luc Godard With His 11 Best Movies, From ‘Breathless’ to ‘Pierrot le Fou’
“Incoherent, Maddening, Opaque”
Godard’s 2010 workFilmSocialismewas dismissed byRogerEbertas “incoherent, maddening, and deliberately opaque”. Ebert’smostlyright, but it’s not as much of a bad thing as he meant it.Film Socialismeisn’t incoherent but itismaddening and opaque, and that works towards its benefit. The plot, to be summed vaguely, surrounds a bunch of caricatures conversing on a cruise ship, then, suddenly, the focus transfers to a country home where a pair of children question their parents about their political beliefs. It’s filled with arresting imagery: a woman watches kitten videos on her laptop, a llama stands tethered to pumps at a gas station, and a cruise ship tears adventurously across the azure sea.
All of this is wrapped up in the package of the film’s disorienting aesthetic, which impulsively alternates between beautifully-framed high definition digital cinematography and shots of such low resolution that they look like they were captured on a mid-2000s cell phone camera. With these flourishes, Godard pushes forward into the uncharted frontiers of cinema while simultaneously recalling the game-changing inventiveness ofBreathless.
As bewildering asFilm Socialismetends to be (especially upon first viewing), there is little to no screentime in which Godard’s competence can rationally be questioned. He evenreleased a 4-minute trailerfor the film that solely consisted of the whole movie played in fast-forward. Is it a prank or something more? Sure, it’s easy to imagine Godard, the aging prankster, grinning devilishly at the dismay of anybody trying to surmise what the picture is about, but this sped-up version is also much more than a simple fuck you to convention. Considering the film’s abrasive digital aesthetic and Godard’s tendency to embrace the convenience of home video, the trailer (and the film itself) challenges the way films are made, watched, and interacted with. After succumbing to an odd montage of footage that ultimately sums up much of the film’s intention,Film Socialismeends flatly with the words “no comment”. The work, perhaps, speaks for itself, and no benefit can be gained from objective explanation.
Godard Does 3D
GoodbyetoLanguage(2014) damns 3D cinema by indulging in its limitless possibilities through the most untraditional of methods. If actually seen in 3D, one shot in the film thrillingly splits into two separate shots, one to be seen in each eye. Why do this? Is it because hecan, and because nobody has done it before? That may be part of it, but there’s also tremendous poetry in the scene. Two distinct views are presented. Taken in at the same time, one is layered atop the other. Seen separately, depending on which eye is used, the views become separate while still occurring simultaneously. The film’s couple, who are separated in this “separating” shot, is thus still linked. (Those who view the 2D version of the film may need to do some imagining, but the result is practically the same). On a narrative level,Goodbye to Languagegladly digresses from the “plot” (if one can really call it that) over and over again to make new statements or begin new threads that lead to a dead end, a successful recreation of the fractured attention span of the digital age. Woven throughout the film is a massive omnibus of intertextual references that would take a lifetime to adequately research.
Godard Dismantales Structure
Godard’s swan song,The Image Book(2018), completely dismantles the structure that he’d been toying with sinceBreathless. As if finally unburdened by the pesky constraints of narrative and traditional concepts of coherence, Godard indulges in building a jarring collage of distorted images and sounds. It’s essentially a continuation of—or an epilogue to—the filmmaker’s own 8-part video seriesHistoire(s) du Cinema,in which the history of cinema and the 20th Century at large are examined through the juxtaposition of clips and images picked from a wide buffet of popular and otherwise artistically important international films and artworks. WhereHistoire(s) du Cinemahad the grandiose ambitions of telling the story of some 80-ish years of moviemaking,The Image Booktakes on pondering the power of the almighty Image itself, questioning the obligation of filmmakers and artists when attempting to represent the world around them. Towards the center of the film, Godard narrows his focus to Western civilization’s cultural portrayal of the Arab world and the ultimate decay of the Image.
It’s all a bit abrasive and cryptic, even infuriatingly so at times, but that’s just part of its form. When talking aboutFilm Socialisme,Ebert criticized that Godard forced the audience to do the heavy lifting in understanding the work. It’s a valid point, but withFilm Socialismeand his following two works, the act of deciphering Godard’s intention is really more of a challenge than a workout. Some of the images and juxtapositions speak for themselves (a combat jet cut against a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it snippet of the shark fromJaws) but most require a bit more work to unpack.
Back when Godard famously decreed that “cinema is truth 24 times per second” inLe Petit Soldat, the filmmaker was finding ways to project his truth via the art of filmmaking. InThe Image Book, Godard eschews plot entirely to craft a baffling experimental visual essay that works to state the truths he believes in through untraditional methods. The first moments ofThe Image Bookplace images of the French comic strip character Bécassine alongside a cropped image from aLeonardo da Vincipainting. LikePierrot Le Fou(1965) clashesLaurel and Hardy-like gags with an affinity for “high art”,The Image Bookcuts and pastes a lifetime of encyclopedic knowledge into a kaleidoscope of disorienting images that teeter on psychedelia. There’s only a minimal amount ofThe Image Bookthat is original in the traditional sense; in other words, the vast majority of the film is composed of repurposed clips and images, with only a select few being actually shot solely for the project. The images that are utilized are nearly always altered drastically, digitized, saturated, and often distorted to the point of becoming unrecognizable.
For some, it may be a bit too much to digest in a single sitting. It certainly was for me. But the effort required to adequately unpack this ambitious last work isabsolutelyworth the end result.The Image Bookis as engaging as most Godard films, like a cipher encoded, then presented intimately through snapshots and whispers. When talking aboutBand of Outsiders,Godard fondly recallsusing wide-angle lenses to rebelliously shoot close-up shots and using handheld cameras for tracking shots simply because it wasn’t already being done. With Godard’s last creative lap, the filmmaker applies this practice to an already altered state of cinema in which decades of more rules had been broken by generations of filmmakers. These last three films each feel like a newfirstfilm for Godard in the sense that they attempt to blueprint a direction for cinema to follow, even if Godard himself is the only loyalist willing to follow the measurements.
Godard Could Have Gone Commercial If He Wanted
Going back to 1963, withContempt, Godard teased the possibilities of what he could do with a sizable budget (movie stars and cinemascope tragedy galore!), only to promptly turn away from them. It’s a film filled with rule-breaking, but it’s also one of the filmmaker’s most immediately accessible works. It isn’t inconceivable to think of a career in which Godard makes movies likeContempt, in which moviegoers could have their expectations satiated. Could he have dabbled in high-profile English language films like his New Wave accomplicesFrançois TruffautandMichelangelo Antonioni, or turned to make simple but intellectual romances àlaÉric Rohmer? Movies likeContemptshow the ability, but the landslide of increasingly erratic films that followed show the disinterest. His final few films change course one last time, shifting towards something different and reinventing what artistic cinema can be. These particular films are less accessible thanContempt, Weekend,or evenLa Chinoise, but hidden under their uninviting veneer are treasures that are truly rewarding.
Godard had always been an intellectual filmmaker. Even in his poppiest works, he tended to throw philosophical, historical, and literary references without abandon.Film Socialism, Goodbye to Language,andThe Image Bookall find Godard at his most unapologetically cerebral and formally stubborn. In these films, Godard, always the pioneer, utilizes digital cinematography and the existence of DVDs and streaming to his advantage in conjuring something new. These are movies that may benefit from an immersive theater viewing, but they also benefit greatly from the ability to pause, rewind, and think.
When appearing onThe Dick Cavett Showto support his 1980 filmEveryManForHimself,Godard rejected the suggestion that the film was a sort of comeback for him. “I never went away,” he gripes. For most, it’s a rational statement to make—the politicized work that took up a decade of Godard’s filmography with works likeBritish Sounds(1969),Le Gai Savoir(1969), andTout Va Bien(1972) would have little commercial appeal, andEvery Man For Himselfreturned to resembling something that could be profitable. At the core of Godard’s disapproval of the word “comeback,” though, lies an absolute truth. He hadn’t gone anywhere, notreally, and it was only the audience that had left him.
With Godard recently passing away at the age of 91after a preposterously accomplished career in filmmaking, one can step back and see the full picture of his life’s work. From the start, his intention was to change the viewing and making of films into something truer, something more intelligent and emotional. His last three films, each of which finds new ways to press the reset button on cinema in order to start anew, show a master of his craft and his most uncompromising. They make for the ultimate ending to a storied body of work, an accomplishment of his lifelong goal to dismantle cinema, images, and language.
