Masculin Féminin
This movie began very slow and obscurely. Then the woman shooting her husband outside the café abruptly changed the mood. A strong aspect of the film was the usage of long, interview-like conversations and dialogues. Some lasted what it seemed like 10 full minutes! But, what I liked about these scenes were how natural and calm they were. I felt like they were realistic conversations that teenagers may have in real life. In fact, when I watched these conversations, I felt like it resembled what a real life group of friends might capture with an amateur camcorder. I felt connected with the characters by this atmosphere, like I was part of the youth.
There were many themes presented in the movie. But I think what Godard was trying to do was to present the youth in the 1960’s as they were and how they viewed/experienced politics, war, homosexuality, love, sex, and society. Of course, there are much more that I missed. In support to this, he had no adult characters, all were youth.
Initially, I did not understand or appreciate this movie, but after thinking more about it, I find it very unique. Instead of telling a story or a conflict/resolution, Godard created a historical documentary, but still with drama and characters. And at the end, the protagonist’s friend presents his findings to his interview questions. This was also an interpretation of the youth and philosophy.
“Masulin Féminin” by Godard did not use a storyteller and conflict/resolution style, but rather presented life as it was. This is very different from Truffaut and his film “Jules and Jim.” Truffaut’s style in this movie is heavily reliant on a storyteller and a story/plot that is very connected together.
Jules and Jim
Actually, I did not enjoy this film. It was somewhat slow and mellow. It made me bored and feel down. But, on a positive note, I really felt captivated by the trio relationship between Jules, Catherine, and Jim. In the beginning, Jules and Jim look at a slide of a statue. This statue had a smile that immediately caught their attention and interest. Sporadically, the two go where this statue is found. They were caught in the mystery and natural aura of the statue. Then, we follow the lives of Jules and Jim, and how Catherine affects the relationship. If my interpretation is correct, Catherine symbolized this statue and the smile. Yet, at the end, we realize that just like the statue, Catherine is self-confined and impenetrable (according to an interpretation online).
One thing that I did enjoy was watching the amazing friendship Jules and Jim had. Even this untrustworthy woman, Catherine, can’t get between them. Even when Jim steals her from Jules, Jules wishes for it because then he can still be around her. It seems that both are so into this “statue” and what she represents that even love doesn’t get between them and Catherine. Personally, it made me reflect on how great a friendship they had, something I would enjoy as well. Love is such a large, necessary aspect of human life; EVEN a woman they both love, as a woman partner, can’t destroy that. My whole life, I have been exposed to great friendships getting broken or ruined because of conflicts of love and sex. This obviously challenged this notion.
This movie, as well as Masculin Féminin are necessary to watch more than once. These are not typical movies. These two movies really made me think about the deeper meanings and the overall message/theme the director is trying to tell. Unfortunately, I have been around too many simplistic movies that overuse the same themes and same ideal characters that we can almost expect what happens and what the point is by the first 10 minutes of them.
I watched both these movies back to back. And after watching 4 hours of French speaking, black and white movies from great directors, it made me think about something about movies in general. -As we connect with characters and stories in movies, it seems as if we are in the movie and experience the emotions as the characters do. For example, when watching a good movie, like Casablanca, our own lives and environments are replaced with those of the movie. I feel what Rick feels, I fall in love with Ilsa, I respect Laslo, and feel a friendship brewing with the “enemy” Captain Renault. And yet, after 60+ years after the movie, the characters and story seem immortal and ideally forever existent. It’s hard to explain. It feels like Casablanca and its characters never age or never break that ideal aura. Surely the set and actors have aged and possibly died, but that Rick from Café Americana never ages and never breaks the ideal. I am beginning to appreciate film much more than before this course.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Very good observations here, George. Agreed that the naturalism of M/F (as if it were made with a camcorder) makes it feel very "now": another way of saying that the camera style makes it very youthful, full of energy and ideas. I think you're right that its "documentary-like" feel makes us connect to the movie, but not at all in the same way we appreciate Casablanca: interesting that a relatively plotless film like M/F can still be effective on the viewer, despite the lack of a clear "protagonist."
I agree with you that J/J is rather slow, but what about the first 12 minutes? The setup of their friendship happens so rapidly that the narrator hardly has time to catch up before the camera moves to the next edit. I think this shift in tempo (from insanely fast to relatively calm) not only reflects Truffaut's view of that era and its exploding "modernism," but also his intent that we slow down as much as possible to see what transpires between these three characters. In other words, I think he's tricking our senses by changed the speed of his film.
Has there ever been a more beguiling and mysterious female character in the movies than Catherine? And how is it that the movies (their characters and stories) don't die, that they live on in our mind and memories?
It's almost 50 years since the innovations of Godard/Truffaut, and I think that the cinema is still trying to catch up to the ideas and articulations they were proposing. I think the quest for profit-making and crowd-pleasing has always been part of making film, but this singular obsession has drowned us in a tsunami of craptacular film (and film that's entertaining, no doubt, and even well-made). But where do we find films today that push us and our minds as much as these old "classics"?
Just a thought.
Post a Comment