Cannes, May 68, The New Wave & Godard

Left To Right : Claude Lelouch, Jean-Luc Godard, François Truffaut, Louis Malle & Roman Polanski (Cannes 1968)

             Context for the above picture : It's May 1968. France is experiencing sociopolitical unrest as students and factory workers are striking and taking to the streets to protest the capitalist regime of  De Gaulle. This turmoil happens to coincide with the annual Cannes film festival. The revolutionary spirit doesn't spare Cannes as Godard, Truffaut, Malle and Polanski are holding debates to demand that the festival be cancelled as a show of solidarity with the protesters. After many filmmakers (Alain Resnais, Milos Forman, Carlos Saura) withdraw their films from competition, the festival is eventually cancelled.
            The events of May 1968 were to have a profound effect on Godard's career.   He embraced extreme politics and embarked on what his commonly referred to as his radical phase. This wasn't particularly surprising in that Godard had always been thematically the most socially and politically conscious filmmaker of the french New Wave : Le Petit Soldat (1960) depicted the franco-algerian conflict; La Chinoise (1967) was about a group of students holed up in an apartment and plotting a revolution. So, in the wake of May 1968, he teamed up with filmmaker Jean-Pierre Gorin and founded The Dziga Vertov Group (named after a famed 1920s soviet filmmaker). The collective's films were brechtian in form and marxist in ideology, moving away from auteur theory. I also happen to think they're the most unwatchable in his filmography.
            One Could make the argument that Godard's departure from the French New Wave cemented the movement's demise as a cohesive unit of innovative filmmaking. But to be precise, the movement had been on its last legs for a while. The films consistently flopped at the box office and the filmmakers had trouble finding financial backing. But Godard having been one of the most visible members of the wave, his rupture with the movement certainly marked the end of an era.
            I greatly admire Godard as a filmmaker and count many of his films amongst my favorites. Still, he always struck me as someone who tried to work out some bourgeois guilt (he's from a wealthy background) in his films. The smug and aggressive tone of his discourse is emblematic of the type of liberalism that perverts the quest for social justice into a self-congratulatory badge. What ripple have these esoteric works of art in the social sphere? Are they engaging in honest discussions that could further change? Isn't their inaccessible language preventing said discussions? Those are some the questions that always come to mind whenever I try to watch anything by The Dziga Vertov group. Some of Godard's detractors have always accused of him disingenuous. But the most surprising of these detractors was Truffaut, Godard's longtime friend with whom he spearheaded La Nouvelle Vague. In a letter  that marked the end of their friendship , Truffaut states : "The idea that men are equal is just theory for you. You don’t feel it. That's why you can't love love anyone or help anyone beyond throwing a few dollars on a table"......."You just want to play a role and it has to be a big role. I think the real militants are like cleaning ladies: it’s not pleasant work, it’s daily, it’s necessary. But you, you’re like Ursula Andress, a four minute cameo, time for the flashbulbs, a few striking quips, and, poof, you disappear, back to the lucrative mystery"
          Godard's post 1968 seem to be indeed the work of the man that Truffaut is describing. Still, Godard ought not to be discounted. Films like Breathless and Vivre Sa Vie  are testament to his genuine talent as a director. And it's easy to understand why his name has subsided in the western film canon.

Random Thoughts On Mumblecore

I recently came across this review for “Daddy Longlegs”, a mumble-core film I saw last year and promptly forgot about (It wasn’t bad just not particularly noteworthy). The article’s writer wasn’t particularly impressed with the film either, which led her to make some interesting observations about the mumble-core movement. I’m not sure I totally agree with her claims  but they do articulate to some extent  why I’ve never really fallen in love with any of these films. Here are some of her quotes :
“Part of the problem is that the filmmakers look to John Cassavetes as their cinematic father, inheriting his penchant for handheld camera, overlapping dialogue, and jump cuts. But they have failed to develop his depth and humanity. In a Cassavetes film, we had seriously flawed individuals and even if we couldn’t muster affection for them we could always see them as painfully human”
“But mumblecore is proving to be as reliant on conventions as the Hollywood system it claims to be rebelling against. But sometimes they manage to hide their cliches behind the tattered facade of shoe string budgets.”
“So the mumblecore disciplines do not seem to come to filmmaking from a passion for cinema but rather from a desire to document themselves. This narcissism is one reason I’ve found it difficult to warm up to the mumblecore movement.”
She’s generalizing and oversimplifying but I think she’s getting close to something here. I don’t think documenting one’s self necessarily is necessarily bad .After all, art has been about the need for humans to express and document themselves. But what happens when that documentation comes from a generation of people who upload pictures of their food on the internet? Isn’t it navel gazing for its own sake?
Also, I’d add that the singularity of perspective has somewhat bothered me about the movement. And it’s not even so much the singularity (since that is more or less the norm within the western artistic canon) but how weirdly solipsistic it is. For me at least, these films hardly ever manage to transcend their immediate milieu. I’m not even sure if that should be required quality for great art. But can it withstand the test of time otherwise? What do you guys think?

Céline et Julie Vont en Bateau (Jacques Rivette, 1974)

The film is a lesser known gem of the French New Wave. Rivette defies all expectations of film and the result is utterly mad and nonsensical. There really isn't much in terms of plot. Two women meet by accident and set off on a series of bizarre adventures. It's fantasy presented as mundanely as possible. Watching the film is akin to falling down a rabbit hole where logic has ceased to be important. It's a thrilling ride if you don't push too much for answers. David Lynch as cited this film as a major influence and anyone who has seen "Mulholland Drive" will immediately make the connection to "Celine and Julie". It's also interesting to note how differently from his "New Wave" peers Rivette's camera gaze upon women. They aren't looked upon for sexual gratification. Rather, they are allowed to be fully humans. I'm skeptical of applying the Bechdel test to determine fair gender representation in a film but "Celine and Julie" would pass it with flying colors. I can't think of a single other New Wave film this can be said of.
PS : The film was partly inspired by an Henry James short story “The Romance of Certain Old Clothes”. While reading the story won’t elucidate much of the film’s narrative, it does help follow along with the castle scenes.

Un Conte de Noël (Roubaix!), A film by Arnaud Desplechin (2007)

“Schizophrenic” is the only apt adjective I can think to attribute to Desplechin’s directing style. I have loved it in the past (Kings & Queen) but found it to be quite unnerving this time around. Still, the honesty and complexity of the characters kept me drawn in for the entire time. Not to say that the two and half hours of duration time were totally warranted , especially since I was left with such an unsatisfactory feeling at the end. This is a film that definitely requires multiple viewings. But for now, I will say that it’s an audacious, jumbled mess of an effort that frustrates in some most parts but shines in others…

On The Subject Of Biopics

Say no to biopics. They essentially dilute someone’s life by reducing it to facts (either taken out of contexts or presented without proper perspective). In a way, they are an extension of nefarious celebrity culture in which we force ourselves into the private lives of public figures. If we’re being honest with ourselves, is watching a biopic drastically different than perusing some tawdry tabloid mag. Don’t get me wrong. I understand how facts about an artist’s life can better inform our understanding of their work. But let’s not make a god damned movie about them. Genius work really stands on its own

Contagion (Steven Soderbergh, 2011)

Marion Cottilard 

“Contagion” is a fairly captivating film featuring more than adequate performances by its star studded cast. As it is too often the case in films with a large ensemble, the characters aren’t fully fleshed out nor are they onscreen long enough for the audience to really care about them. Soderbergh’s direction is for the most part clinical, although at times quite reminiscent of Fincher’s style in “The Social Network” (a feeling further enhanced by a score that could have easily been written by team Reznor/Atticus). It’s not at all a bad film but it’s one I’ll quickly forget about. 3 out of 5 stars

Stoker (Park Chan-wook, 2013)

Stoker is less a horror/suspense story and more a coming of age tale. An awkward young girl, aided by a seducing devil figure, embraces her nature. This somewhat cliché story still had the makings of an original film. Alas! This powerhouse of actors is completely wasted on a rather weak script. Whatever tension exists within the film is purely contrived by Chan-wook’s frenetic camera who just won’t let well enough alone. His overdone direction desperately scrounges for atmosphere (even when there is none) in every frame. The film is beautiful to look at and it’s interesting enough to retain interest for a bit. But by the time the end credits roll, I found myself shrugging my shoulders in indifference.  2/5

A Dangerous Method (David Cronenberg, 2011)

Cronenberg’s latest film is also one of his blandest cinematic offerings. Depicting the friendship and fallout between Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud, the film just lies there like a dispassionate lover,  only allowing its characters to go through the motions, which they do rather unconvincingly.
Jung and Freud are adequately portrayed by Michael Fassbender and Vigo Mortessen. But Kiera Knighley once again annoys with a performance that manages to be both dull and over-the-top. Vincent Cassel, in contrast, shines as Otto Gross but his screen presence is unfortunately limited to just a few scenes.
It should be said that “A Dangerous Method” has some of the most stunning cinematography I’ve seen in a film this year. But, it is also quite forgettable.
2.5/5