Godard moments. Activity 1

When watching Godard’s film, I can’t help remembering and bringing up a moment that was confusing and a little jarring for me to watch. I am not referring to the scene in which Paul’s day ends with a man stabbing himself, but the scene immediately proceeding that. This moment, in summary, begins in a laundry shop, and Paul is telling a story about what just happened to him to Robert. In a typical Hollywood movie, this conversation would be about the stabbing that it followed, but it was not. It was about an entirely different story, and an entirely different subject. Godard wants you thinking about this moment separate from the previous moment. This new piece of cinema is hoping to invoke a completely different reaction, completely different set of emotions as the last scene. Sure, the entire movie arrives to one major theme or question that the filmmaker is trying to make, but I believe that Godard is trying to say that the path to that theme or question is the filmmaker’s choice, and that worrying about plot or audience pleasure is only going to take away from the strength of the filmmaker’s reason for the film.

You can make this case about the moment in the laundry room without even regarding the previous scene. Up until this point, Godard’s shots had been very long, uncut shots of people’s faces as they had conversations with their peers. We never were able to look away. Here, we see Paul pace and walk around, telling this story. While I felt we never actually missed any part of it, every sentence or two would be interrupted by a cut of the camera. These cuts weren’t introducing any sort of time change, except for maybe a second or two, as Paul would be a few steps and a few words ahead of where he was. The story itself is not what is important to Godard at the time. What’s important is viewing one of our characters as he attempts to recreate, in entertainment and in emotion, something that happened to him that he felt worthy to say. His choice to cut up the scene, while it makes the rest of the shot less structured and less “pleasurable”, it better creates the type of feeling both a viewer of Paul’s story, and Paul’s consciousness feel as he tries to retell his experience. 

Masculin, féminin (France, Godard, 1966)

First shot, young man writing in a booth. Lights a cigarette. Camera is in front of his face, neutral height.

A young woman enters the coffee shop. You can see him in the corner. He speaks to her. Both shots so far have been long and stationary. Zooms in on her. He speaks but is no longer in the shot. The shot is now officially 180 degrees from the original shot.

Next shot is “of her point of view” looking at him, reading to her.

Back to her, front camera shot, neutral.

Then the murder happens.

Missed a bit of the montage, no sound, the sound came in abruptly back into the shot.

The conversation in the copy shop with the male friend, turned political, then with audio of the conversation still playing, propaganda of sorts showed up in big letters over black. “Hyman Labor” “Resurrect things”

If the shots as of now are not following the “180 rule” I’m not noticing. The rooms they are in seem easy to navigate and understand so far.

Rnadom three. This montage had more sound, had more structure. Having the main character made it easier to follow.

“What do you think is the center of the world?” “Love” “That’s not true, you think its you.”

4A – For some reason I really enjoy that. This tells me that most likely this won’t have anything to do with what I just saw in 3, but probably about the girl being a virgin and the man pursuing her.

Philosophy and Filmmaking share the same thing.

I’m glad Paul’s in love with me. I might let him screw me, but he better not become a pest.

Nothing left but a man, a woman, and an ocean of spilled blood. This movie is clearly the filmmaker providing her opinions and views on humanity, shown through the eyes of our “protagonist”. I’m not apposed.

“The mole has no consciousness, but it burrows in a specific direction”

SO things aren’t going well for the couple. I have no perception of time in this movie. Meaning I don’t know if they’ve been together for a few months and he asked her to marry her or a few weeks and the song was implying that he did become a pest and is just being SUPER lonely heart artist.

Man just stabs himself. Didn’t get that one. I’ll wait for the propaganda I guess. Murder count 3-6

The laundry scene is interesting. It’s a “long shot” in every sense, a story like they’ve done before, but almost every sentence or two is cut, not following either the 180 rule or the 30 degree rule.

Ever notice that masculine has the word mask in it? And ass? And feminine? Nothing at all.

What an odd living arrangement.

Sleep, that can shut the eyes, conceal me a moment from myself.

A look right into the camera after the weird sleeping scene, and COMPLETE propaganda.

Dialogue, what a consumer product.

This Miss 19 person didn’t seem to be very interesting, but I enjoy her non educated take on the matter. You can see why she won Miss 19.

You don’t go around trying to fall in love. And when you do, It’s great.

No one in these movies ever get that offended.

The only montage ive been able to focus on had an aggressive action in it. Maybe that’s what they are pairing with the propnganda

That film that we wanted to make, or more secretly, that film that we wanted to live.

 If you kill a man, youre a murderer. If you can 10,000, you’re a conquerer. If you kill them all, you’re god.

Long live the French army was followed by a montage I swear that’ve already shown. Polling becomes not a observation of behavior, but a value judgement.