If this is Godard at his most brilliant and breathtaking as everyone claims, then I think it’s safe to say that I simply don’t understand what the big deal is. Admittedly there are some nifty shots and some memorable moments scattered throughout the film (the famous minute of silence and run through the Louvre among them) but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s mostly boring, predictable and peopled by agonizingly ignorant characters who are dogged by a hopelessly pretentious narrator.
See, these three dolts are in love with popular culture of all stripes (but mostly movies) and imagine themselves as the heroes in their own film or pulp novel. When they dance in a café they hear a jazzy score playing in their heads (which is absent when pretentious narrator man is speaking his banalities). When they decide to sit for a full minute in complete silence, the whole world goes silent around them as if they are the only people in existence. And when they decide to steal money from Odile’s house, they imagine themselves to be some kind of gangsters.
The thing is, since Godard is quoting heavily from and referencing at every turn various other films and novels, he’s no different from his characters. And while that might otherwise be charming, in this case that makes him sort of an idiot. But at the same time he realizes his obsession with pop culture makes him a romantic fool and accepts that it is so. This however, does not excuse his relentlessly pretentious narration. But in this context I can’t see the narration as anything other than a joke and a not very funny one at that.
So yet again, when the film is over we’re left with the eternal question of “art” films, namely did the artistic, symbolic and metaphorical aspirations of the film outweigh the pure entertainment value and if so is the film still worth seeing and talking about. In Band a Part it’s unquestionable that the artistic concerns of Godard far overshadow the entertainment concerns so the key question is whether these symbolic and artistic elements make the film worthwhile. It’s half-century reputation as one of the classics of French cinema would seem to indicate that the answer is yes. And I agree that the film is pretty watchable despite it’s lack of an interesting plot. But I cannot agree that the film is worth adding to the canon. It’s worth a look but there are far better films that manage to make as many references as this one but in a way that doesn’t become the complete focus of the film. After all, anyone can string together a bunch of references and call it a masterpiece but not too many people can hide those references in a film that has being entertaining as it’s primary objective. In both Band a Part and Breathless, Godard constantly references American films, television shows and novels that are hugely entertaining as well as being full of symbolic meaning. If he really wanted to pay proper tribute to these works of art he shouldn’t have simply strung together a bunch of references to them and called it a film. He should have made a film that references them but does what he admires about those works as well or better. Maybe it’s me forcing my desire for what these films should be, but it’s hard to be Orson Welles or Jack London and pretty damned easy to name a character after him and call it a day.
No comments:
Post a Comment