One moment in the film, Godard films Paul
leaving a building and walking out into the street. In modern Hollywood film, I
would assume the shot would be filmed with Paul in the center of the camera the
whole time. The scene if shot in modern Hollywood would arise no particular interest
of the viewer. It would have no impact on the overall understanding of the
film. Godard does not shoot this scene in what we would assume as normal. He
shows Paul walking out of the building but staring directly at the camera. As
he passes, the camera moves ahead and slightly up, removing him from the shot
but then focusing back on him as he crosses the street. As the camera refocuses
on him, the viewer realizes that Paul is still staring directly at the camera.
The scene reveals a lot about what Godard believes
film should be. Paul staring at the camera allows the viewer to come back to
reality and realize that this is a film. The awkward staring of Paul is unusual
to the viewer and makes them rethink their surroundings. Godard does this
intentionally because he believes the viewers should understand that film is
just that, film; it is not theatre. Godard believes that the impact film and
its editing has on the viewers is a far different than that of theatre and he
wanted to make this clear throughout his film.
Film certainly has the editing aspect of it, but that’s not to say that theatre can’t do similar things. The speed of the cuts might be quicker than theatre could ever hope to be, but transitions can still happen rather quickly and still be jarring. Not to mention that theatre has it’s own share of addressing the audience. Not just in farces, where the actors gesture towards the audience, but in just about any Shakespeare play that features an aside to the audience. We’re being let into this world, like in this film, until someone steps through the “fourth wall” in some way, be it the screen or curtain to shake us free of our reverie to say “hey, you jerk, you’re in a movie”.
ReplyDeleteI also appreciated the inclusion of real people. When the crowds pass by, they do the same thing, they look at the camera as this foreign object breaking up their scenery. That’s what a camera is. And it’s perfect for a story about two very good looking people. Typical Hollywood movies usually cast very good looking people, and Paul is certainly that. They have to be good looking to the point that you would believe a camera being trained on them at all times. So when Paul is among the people, it is important that we are simultaneously reminded that we’re in a film theatre. It not only tells us that Godard is unconventional and that his film is an unconventional one as well, but it also tells us that Godard doesn’t think any film should have to follow convention. I don’t think Godard was saying that “film has to be in this way”. I think it’s more important to think he was saying “film doesn’t have to be in this way”.
I agree with you, Logan, that Godard seems to suggest that "film doesn't have to be in this way." It's interesting that his techniques rely on upsetting an established code, though. His audiences will only be jarred if they are used to the Hollywood IMR. So, I agree with Craig that this moment makes the viewer realize that s/he is watching a FILM. While breaking the fourth wall is common in theater, as Logan points out, the jarring effect is specific to film viewing. Since the IMR was so well established, Godard was able to break from it. This begs the question: in order for there to be a decisive break in thinking/social action/art, must their be a dominant mode of representation established beforehand?
ReplyDelete