What I know going in
It’s a French new wave directed by Jean-Luc Godard, that’s it.
Immediate Reaction
I honestly have no idea how to respond to this movie. At no point in
the movie did I have any idea what was going on. In fact, I don’t think I even
understood the basic plot until I read the Wikipedia summary. Also, I fell
asleep about 1/3 of the way through and woke up around 20 minutes later. Of
course, I rewound the movie and picked backed up where I fell asleep, but,
honestly, looking back I probably could have kept the movie going without
missing much. This is not really a knock against the movie, even if you knew
the plot in detail; it wouldn’t accurately describe the experience of actually
watching it.
I will do my best to narrate my experience of watching the film now. At
its most basic, the film concerns the characters of Marianne Renoir, played by
Anna Karina, and Ferdinand Griffon, played by Jean-Paul Belmondo, who Marianne
has nicknamed Pierrot. They go on a crime spree throughout the French countryside.
Although is technically told in a linear manner, the way the film progresses
feels like Godard snipped each reel into panels and then randomly pieced them
back together. This sensation is created by Godard’s frequent use of jump cuts
and very minimal use of exposition. There also several sequences in the film
where the two main characters will rapidly talk back and forth about what is
happening, while images quickly flash by. In addition, Godard will often zoom
in on artwork, posters, and ads that are displayed throughout the film. All of
these techniques lead to me feeling very disoriented and confused throughout
the entire film.
Obviously, this sensation was intentional on Godard’s part. Whenever a
movie is filmed in a distinct manner, I think it’s always important to ask why
the director made that choice and if the style fits the characters and themes
of the movie. I am having some trouble sussing out the subtext in the film. The
radical and abrupt nature in which it was filmed appears to reflect the decade
in which it was made. Of course, it was made in the 60’s, a period of rapid and
revolutionary societal change. In addition, the film is considered one of the
seminal works of the French new wave movement, a changing of the guard in
cinema whose main purpose was to break all the rules previously established in
filmmaking.
Therefore, I think the chaotic nature of the film is an effective
reflection of the turbulent nature of the sixties. The main characters movement
from boredom in a bourgeoisie society, to complete free-fall echoes Godard’s
disordered style. By extension, one could argue that it also represents decade
in general. From moving out of the repressiveness of the fifties to the
sixties, in which everyone feels like a thousand different impulses are pulling
in them all directions.
Further thoughts
What I love about film is that I find it to be the only medium capable
of truly imparting a feeling, impression, or emotional state. The best films
cannot be ruined by plot description, because reading a film’s story will never
be able to recapitulate how the visual language of film creates and delivers a
mood or emotion to a viewer. Realizing this was the key to understanding Pierrot le fou. At the beginning of the
movie, Jean-Paul Belmondo’s character recites this line from an art history
book:
“Past
the age of fifty, Velasquez no longer painted anything concrete and precise. He
drifted through the material world, penetrating it, as the air and the dusk. In
the shimmering of the shadows, he caught unawares the nuances of color which he
transformed into the invisible heart of his symphony of silence . . . His only
experience of the world was those mysterious copulations which united the forms
and tones with a secret but inevitable movement, which no convulsions or
catacylsm could ever interrupt or impede. Space reigned supreme . . . It was as
if some tenuous radiation gliding over the surfaces, imbued itself of their
visible emanations, modelling them and endowing them with form, carrying
elsewhere a perfume, like an echo, which would thus be dispersed like an
imponderable dusk, over all the surrounding planes.”
Later, Ferdinand states that he
intends to create about not about specific instances or specific people, but
about life and about people in general. These statements mirror Godard’s own
desire to make an impressionistic movie. Unfortunately, this is the first
Godard film I have seen, so I can’t comment on how much of a break it is from
his previous work. However, after reading a few essays about the movie, it does
seem that this film was distinct from his earlier movies, which were heavily
based on Hollywood genre flicks and more concerned with plot.
In contrast, with Pierrot le Fou, Godard did not want to
deal with specifics. As I detailed earlier, he wanted to make a movie that gave
the viewer an impression of the 60’s. In addition, Godard had recently divorced
Anna Karina during filming, which gives the film an interesting personal twist
if one sees Ferdinand as a Godard stand-in. So, the film is also able to impart
the emotional fallout between Karina and Godard without really dealing with the
specifics of their relationship.
Why is it on the list?
Well, after viewing the film I
was left in a very chaotic and confused state of mind. Therefore, I would say
Godard was extremely successful in effectively conveying the nature of the
times, his own psychological state after divorcing Karina, and his desire to
move into a more abstract and impressionistic style of filmmaking.
No comments:
Post a Comment