10 2307@25651100
10 2307@25651100
10 2307@25651100
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Threepenny Review is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Threepenny
Review.
http://www.jstor.org
glamour, saturnine caprice, sorrow, fatal innocence (Daisy Miller as a kill embodies the proud reductionism of artists steal."
and crepuscular cultural denunciation. er, not a victim). The light and noise of the entire movie. There is no freewill At the risk of Gallic hyperbole, I'd
Some of these won prizes (FirstName: Paris, the glamour of the Champs in this Manichean melodrama, this suggest that such theft is also a species
street static universe of Racinian absolutes of shocking juxtaposition?a form of
Carmen, 1983) and provoked contro Elysees with the lamps coming
versy (HailMary, 1985) or, like In on at dusk and gleaming through the that have shrunk to the scale of a creative collage, a willful distortion of
Praise of Love in 2001, were embraced B-movie. Kitsch fatalism. The last echo conventional aesthetic order. Perhaps
night. The central sequence of the lov
as evidence of the "self-surpassing cre ers' dialogue in the tiny room of the of a classical world. Modern in its Godard's most famous bon mot came
ative renewal of one of the century's Hotel de Suede (nearly one third of the combination of novelty and cultural in a conversation with a master of cine
in its pop-cul matic melodrama
leading artists" (to quote Godard's film) with its Picasso and Renoir post nostalgia; postmodern (either Georges
and ers tacked on the wall, the squawking ture pep. Profoundly self-comforting in Franju or Henri Clouzot, the sources
biographer critic, Richard Brody).
the static melancholy that lies beneath "But M. Godard, you
Two of these fifteen films?In Praise of radio, the symphonie concrete of the conflict): surely,
Love and Passion in 1982?contain traffic in the street below, the ciga its virtuoso hyperactivity. at least acknowledge the necessity of
moments of great beauty and creative rettes, banalities, and bickering, and having a beginning, middle, and end in
force, but none of the ten I've seen the buried disaster (and possible moti your films." "Certainly, but not neces
vation for betrayal) of her pregnancy are the central and most sarily in that order." For Godard the
approaches the distinction of Godard's
and his brutal indifference to it,despite Aphorisms tropes in Godard's essence of cinema is not the mise en
early films?particularly Breathless, his problematic
films. Though W. H. Auden and scene but montage?not the fluid
first, My Life to Live, his fourth, his self-proclaimed obsession with her. ninety
Louis called aphorism direction of actors in continuous space
Contempt (1963), his sixth, and Seeing Breathless again today, I find Kronenberger
an genre," in and deep focus (epitomized byWelles
Alphaville (1965),hisninth. the light and sound and sprung rhythm "essentially aristocratic
For me, even after many viewings all still exhilarating, even though the our age of putative democracy its char and Rossellini and beloved by Andre
over many years and long periods of adolescent self-dramatics and the flood acteristic authoritative tone seems to Bazin, the critical seer of the nouvelle
indifference or impatience, these four of pretentious (yetnow also impressive) mask anxiety. For Auden, "the aphorist vague), but the kind of editing that cre
continue to arouse and allusions to films, art, and literature does not argue or explain, he asserts; ates new meanings from the juxtaposi
curiosity
a and in his assertion is a convic tion of shots. Godard's films do resem
intense emotion (including both admi high and low can become drag. The implicit
ration and exasperation), and to pro realism of the central tion that he iswiser or more intelligent ble metaphysical or modernist poetry:
psychological
love scene, with the camera and mon than his readers." For Susan Sontag, "The most heterogeneous ideas are
voke, even demand interpretation. Like
all works of art that appear to be clas herself an aphoristic essayist and violence nature and
tage enacting the characters' advance yoked by together;
sics (not authoritarian monuments but and retreat, their frustration, attrac admirer of such aphorists as Barthes, art are ransacked for illustrations,
But her Walter Benjamin, and Godard, and allusions; their
works that emit polyvalent force, tion, and evasion, still works. Canetti, comparisons,
unso and their
rewarding repeated attention over betrayal now is so abrupt and extreme "aphoristic thinking is informal, learning instructs, subtlety
many years), they exceed their declared that it seems misogynistically imposed, ciable, adversarial, proudly selfish." In surprises; but the reader commonly
intentions and cannot be reduced to and Belmondo's wonderful swagger? Godard's case, especially, the aphorism thinks his improvement dearly bought
the critical or historical cliches they particularly in the superb encircling smacks of adolescent absolutism; its and, though he sometimes admires, is
rhetorical conceals and com seldom pleased." Of course, Dr.
appear to invite.My purpose here is to traveling shot in the travel agency? precision
doesn't distract as much as it once did pensates for formlessness and confused censure has become praise,
try to understand how the tensions Johnson's
films between from his character's ideas and feelings; it represents an and "pleasing" the audience is the last
throughout Godard's sociopathology
the from conflict, thing a modernist or postmodernist
story and essay, between aphorism and (car theft, assault, murder). Still, escape ambiguity,
drama and vivid self-advertising glamour of their nuance, and most of all any possibility artist desires. Without contraries there
lyric, between personal
can of reply, of riposte, of argument, of dia is no progression. Conflict is all:
impersonal didactic declamation bodies, voices, and gestures transforms
once famously arranged for
produce both nasty trifling and gran them into something more than flat, logue. It always declares itself the last Godard
deur?not merely grandiosity (though cartoons. The formal word?apocalyptic, authoritarian. the great B-movie director Samuel
nonpsychological
and allusive richness so Godard's extravagant citations and Fuller to declare in a cameo in Pierrot
they certainly contain plenty of that) complexity
but grandeur masked in self-defensive brilliantly described by Michel Marie allusions serve both as autodidactic le fou (1965), "A filmis likea battle
in the familiar in his Comprendre Godard (ten kinds camouflage and as treasures for a ground. Love. Hate. Action. Violence.
irony modern/postmod
ern manner. of cars, dozens of films and works of boastful cultural potlatch. They run Death. In one word, emotions."
throughout his life and work. Truffaut But if forGodard juxtaposition is the
I should confess that, like so many literature) provide gravity as well as
other young people in the nineteen-six of course, the natural recalled Godard frequently taking heart of cinema ("direction is a look,
grace. And, light,
ties, I was wildly excited by his early the hand-held documentary-style cam every book off a shelf when visiting montage is a heartbeat," he wrote in an
movies, which I saw again and again in erawork, the majestic virtuosity of the friends and reading just the first and early essay), story is the devil. Godard
Winter 2010 25
at night in contemporary Paris?in the ment takes place in La Chinoise, where ruminations move between Delphic fog There are certainly many who praise
monolithic buildings of La Defense, in Godard includes a debate on terrorism and banality ("Europe has memories, the films of Godard's late period, but
the national radio headquarters, and in between Wiazemsky and her teacher America has T-shirts"). In several forme they never achieve the charac
the home office of an international com Francis Jeanson, a political philosopher Godard casts himself as a goofy film teristic force of the late works of (say)
puter company?to show us that the and former Algerian War activist, in director/holy fool, and inmost of them Picasso, whose recently exhibited late
dark future is already here, Alphaville's which she blandly calls for bombs and he uses the naked female body for paintings and prints of musketeers and
dramatic chiaroscuro recalls Lang's and he with great courtesy and clarity shock and awe, as if Courbet's nudes remind us of the true scale of
Welles's symbolic intensities.To be sure,
it can be sappy and preposterous
(Lemmy quoting Pascal on his horror of
infinite space is a doozy), but its visual
ingenuity and momentum are extraordi
nary. It has a place beside Metropolis
andModern Times.
ing like Ondine in a sweater and a and equanimity (unlike theMaoists). ry worker and?as her rival for the by Paul Valery, who gave Godard Latin
By contrast, Godard's very next film, love of a Polish film director?Hanna lessons as a boy. For me, the aphorism
poorboy cap). These aspiring revolu
tionaries speechify, study, quarrel, and Weekend (1967), was a shriek of Schygulla playing thewife of the facto epitomizes many of the themes, predic
finally assassinate two men, one by a rage?a monomaniacal satire of a con ry's bullying owner. Much of the early aments, and perplexities of Jean-Luc
Feminine sumer culture of lust, greed, rape, and part of the movie is devoted to the Godard's life and work: "The ardor
stupid mistake. Masculine
was full of neurotically self-conscious car crashes (including the greatest traf filmmaker's efforts to overcome his aroused in men by the beauty of
or blandly conformist young people fic jam in movie history), culminating creative block, to find a story and to do women can only be satisfied by
short on cash and anxious about their in two hectoring speeches on Third more than photograph tableaux God."D