308 Masculin féminin
-
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:27 pm
- Location: London, UK
I just saw the BFI's mid-90s VHS release (cropped to 1.66:1 and there's no question 1.33:1 is the way to go - heads keep getting cut in half and you can't read the top of Leaud's graffiti that he scrawls on the toilet door) and really enjoyed it. Very funny at times (Scene 4 is followed by Scene 4A) and Godard's lengthy "interview" sequences (especially the initial conversation between Paul and Madeleine) are rivetingly odd. For those, like myself, who approach Godard with trepidation, this is one of his most watchable films, even if it is a bit throwaway once its all over. Certainly recommended as a rental, at least.
I did the same comparison Narshty and to have Kurant explain the framing himself certainly explains why there were two versions in circulation.
The subtitles on the UK and US versions are amusing to compare at times. The problem is to do with whether to opt for idiom or for a literal phrase. For example: Leaud writing on the toilet door is either translated as "Down with the republic of Rat Finks" or "Down with the republic of cowards."
The subtitles on the UK and US versions are amusing to compare at times. The problem is to do with whether to opt for idiom or for a literal phrase. For example: Leaud writing on the toilet door is either translated as "Down with the republic of Rat Finks" or "Down with the republic of cowards."
- Fletch F. Fletch
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:54 pm
- Location: Provo, Utah
Yes, that is one of my favorite scenes from the movie as well. That, and the little speech he gives about his disillusionment with cinema: "The images were dated and jumpy. Marilyn Monroe had aged badly. We felt sad. It wasn't the movie of our dreams. It wasn't that total film we carried inside ourselves. That film we would have liked to make, or, secretly, no doubt, the film we wanted to live." I love this bit and it could so easily be applied to the state of movies (mainstream Hollywood ones at least) today.BWilson wrote:Saw this at the nuart in LA on Saturday night. Loved it. One moment in particular was brilliant. When Leaud goes up to the projection both and reads the projectionist the riot act about proper aspect ratios. Holy shit that was hilariously observed. I can't believe the scene isn't more widely discussed on film fanatic message boards like this one.
- Michael Kerpan
- Spelling Bee Champeen
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
- Location: New England
- Contact:
- Galen Young
- Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 8:46 pm
In Heaven wrote:Does anyone know the name of that wonderful song in the Rialto re-release trailer for this film?
"Tu m'as trop menti" written by Chantal Goya's husband, Jean-Jacques Debout. The soundtrack is still available. Pick it up and you will see where Criterion got the idea for the artwork on their DVD disc label. Too bad Criterion didn't add it in as extra!
- justeleblanc
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:05 pm
- Location: Connecticut
-
- Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 4:19 pm
- Location: NJ, USA
- Contact:
I love the initial conversation, amazing scene.duane hall wrote:I found Paul's first conversation with Madeleine, and the later conversation with Catherine-Isabelle (when she's eating an apple) quite charming.
Great film, lots to digest. I'm a Godard virgin, but I've instantly fallen for his tune.
Also: the two critics in the supplements are some of the most amazingly enthusiastic guys ever. Great discussion.
- domino harvey
- Dot Com Dom
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
- gubbelsj
- Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 2:44 pm
- Location: San Diego
My wife and I recently rewatched both Derek Jarman's Jubilee and this one back-to-back, kind of a Disaffected Youth Subculture Weekend- type project. Different movies, definitely, but also quite similar in subject matter and the coopting of emerging youth movements by older artists standing outside said culture. After watching Jubilee for the first time in a couple of years, we both tentatively agreed it wasn't quite as horrible as we'd remembered (I do emphasize the "quite"). But after checking out Masculin-Feminin, we quickly agreed it may be time to finally recycle Jarman's film.
Everything that seemed clumsy, pretentious or condescending in Jubilee was swift, witty and authentic in M-F, and yet Godard's film remained a complete manipulation and total attack upon the observed culture. Yes, Godard's the better director, and he was clearly more experienced in 1966 at making movies than Jarman was in 1977 ( I think Jarman did improve, with Caravaggio and War Requiem in particular being respectable offerings). But I've also been thinking that perhaps Jarman had a wee too much art-school in him to recognize or connect with punk's working class roots. Did Godard's Marxist sympathies keep him closer to the Paris sewers and bistros?
What's extraordinary about Godard's film to me is how effortlessly and completely he paints a picture of despair and decay, a portrait quite haunting and genuinely disturbing, all the while keeping the unwary viewer rather entertained. It's only afterwards, or during a second viewing, that the random violence and rampant ennui truly registers with the viewer, once we've grown accustomed to Godard's shock tactics, those distancing techniques that crop up in every film of his, yet always manage to surprise me each time out. Despite all Jarman's freaky looks and Hyde Park-Speaker's Corner rants, despite punks setting rubbish bins afire and strangling transvestites, the connections just aren't made - the film is unable to produce a convincingly disturbing display of impending apocalypse.
Perhaps it's the humor in M-F which truly distinguishes it from other would-be Youth Culture as Societal Decay films. BWilson mentioned above the aspect ratio discussion. And how about the other examples of black humor running through the film? The film within the film, the Swedish erotic art flick, is certainly disturbing as a depiction of a soulless sexual encounter, but it's also pretty hilarious, what with the solemn grunting-as-dialogue schtick and the Bergman parody. My favorite moment is one of the cheapest laughs - when Paul sternly shouts "the door!" at the distraught woman racing after her son and estranged husband, as if he fully expects this panicking individual to make sure the door is firmly latched behind her before chasing down her soon-to-be-lost child.
I can already hear the responses - oh wow, dude makes the wild argument that Godard's a better filmmaker than Derek Jarman? How controversial! I know comparing films by different directors, especially those separated by culture and decade, is a bit lazy, yet I found the similarities in theme and differences in realizations striking. As Emma Goldman said, "If I can't dance, I don't want your revolution."
Everything that seemed clumsy, pretentious or condescending in Jubilee was swift, witty and authentic in M-F, and yet Godard's film remained a complete manipulation and total attack upon the observed culture. Yes, Godard's the better director, and he was clearly more experienced in 1966 at making movies than Jarman was in 1977 ( I think Jarman did improve, with Caravaggio and War Requiem in particular being respectable offerings). But I've also been thinking that perhaps Jarman had a wee too much art-school in him to recognize or connect with punk's working class roots. Did Godard's Marxist sympathies keep him closer to the Paris sewers and bistros?
What's extraordinary about Godard's film to me is how effortlessly and completely he paints a picture of despair and decay, a portrait quite haunting and genuinely disturbing, all the while keeping the unwary viewer rather entertained. It's only afterwards, or during a second viewing, that the random violence and rampant ennui truly registers with the viewer, once we've grown accustomed to Godard's shock tactics, those distancing techniques that crop up in every film of his, yet always manage to surprise me each time out. Despite all Jarman's freaky looks and Hyde Park-Speaker's Corner rants, despite punks setting rubbish bins afire and strangling transvestites, the connections just aren't made - the film is unable to produce a convincingly disturbing display of impending apocalypse.
Perhaps it's the humor in M-F which truly distinguishes it from other would-be Youth Culture as Societal Decay films. BWilson mentioned above the aspect ratio discussion. And how about the other examples of black humor running through the film? The film within the film, the Swedish erotic art flick, is certainly disturbing as a depiction of a soulless sexual encounter, but it's also pretty hilarious, what with the solemn grunting-as-dialogue schtick and the Bergman parody. My favorite moment is one of the cheapest laughs - when Paul sternly shouts "the door!" at the distraught woman racing after her son and estranged husband, as if he fully expects this panicking individual to make sure the door is firmly latched behind her before chasing down her soon-to-be-lost child.
I can already hear the responses - oh wow, dude makes the wild argument that Godard's a better filmmaker than Derek Jarman? How controversial! I know comparing films by different directors, especially those separated by culture and decade, is a bit lazy, yet I found the similarities in theme and differences in realizations striking. As Emma Goldman said, "If I can't dance, I don't want your revolution."
- GringoTex
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:57 am
Godard is about as big as it gets in France. He's more of a celebrity there than Spielberg is here. Yes, there has been the backlash in France, but that's as much a sign of adoration as anything.domino harvey wrote:it's interesting that they showed two French critics, as most Godard adoration is from Americans.
- GringoTex
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:57 am
I have to disagree about a few points. Godard's Marxist sympathies did nothing but keep him above Paris's sewers. Which is why he was able to view the social situation with such honesty and detachment. Godard was a Swiss expatriate, and only an oustider could have made those early films. Truffaut was the one who was close to the sewers, and Godard always worshipped him for that. That's why the former's films are all about placement and the latter's all about displacement. I don't think it's possible to completely understand Godard and Truffaut without loving them both.gubbelsj wrote: Did Godard's Marxist sympathies keep him closer to the Paris sewers and bistros?
What's extraordinary about Godard's film to me is how effortlessly and completely he paints a picture of despair and decay, a portrait quite haunting and genuinely disturbing, all the while keeping the unwary viewer rather entertained.
- gubbelsj
- Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 2:44 pm
- Location: San Diego
I'm so glad to hear you say this, because there seems to be an accepted cliche about Truffaut and Godard being personality litmus tests - "d'you like Truffaut or Godard? The Beatles or the Stones? etc..."Langlois68 wrote: I don't think it's possible to completely understand Godard and Truffaut without loving them both.
Also common is the notion that Godard appeals to fiery youth and Truffaut to wise maturity. Young cinephiles go nuts over Jean-Luc's anger, radical moves and political film-essays, goes the story, but as one matures and slows down a little, the nonstop theorizing and whirling about becomes a bit tiresome, and the aging movie lover eventually settles down with Truffaut's calm, bittersweet pictures of patiently drawn characters. It's entirely possible to make the opposite claim, however. Personally, I was first drawn to Truffaut for his humanity, his kindness, his child's-eye view, perhaps echoing my own youthful nostalgia. At the time, I found Godard a bit shrill. These days, while my love of Truffaut hasn't dimmed, it's Godard's anger, intellectuality and black humor that energize me.
And of course, Truffaut's own bracing intellectualism, self-reflexiveness and innovations are too often downplayed, simplified or even denied altogether.
- colinr0380
- Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
- Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK
Still going through the Filmbrain blog site and found this interesting analysis of Masculin Feminin:
The dichotomy that Godard presents is extremely straightforward -- the masculine world is dominated by political thought while the feminine one is about anything but. Paul and his friend Robert (Michel Debord) spend most of their time discussing Vietnam and Socialism, while Madeleine and her roommates are often shown primping, while discussing pop stars and being asked if they are part of the Pepsi generation. Yet Godard's men are still boys -- both will take turns reaching across a table for sugar just so that they can rub their arm against a woman's breasts. They will ride the metro (which goes by Madeleine's apartment) in hopes of catching her and her friends undressing. His female characters are more mature about matters of sex and relationships, yet throughout the film women will be portrayed as murderers, whores, and utterly clueless about world affairs. In one of the film's lengthiest sequences, Paul interviews a teenage model (Elsa Leroy) who was recently crowned "Miss 19" of 1965. (In real life she was voted Miss Tender Age (Mademoiselle Age Tendre) of 1965.) In the interview (which seems unscripted), Paul discovers that she loves America, has never heard of socialism, can't define reactionary, and has no idea where a war is currently being fought. (She does, however, know a bit about birth control, but is uncomfortable speaking about it.) Godard titles this chapter DIALOGUE WITH A CONSUMER PRODUCT. Might this be Godard's critique of the commodification of women in a capitalist society? Is Madeleine's dream to buy a Morris Cooper from the royalties from her records a statement about feminine tendencies towards consumerism, or has she, as a pop star, simply become part of some capitalist machine? Or is all of this less about differences between the sexes than it is about the indifferent attitude of youth as a whole?
- BusterK.
- Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 9:44 pm
- Location: Montreal, Quebec
No other filmmaker can film better café scenes than Godard, period. And yet, when i analyse those scenes closely, the mise en scène is rather simple.
We see young people talking about nothing and everything, a potato salad here, a coffee there, Oops, somebody just lit a cigarette, the (in)attention to details, the insouciance about any rational frame (whether filmic or psychological), etc. What's your take about those scenes, what the fuck do you think is the secret?
Anyways, Masculin/Féminin is to me the best Godard movie from his 1960-1967 period, and my second favourite after the marvellous Notre Musique.
We see young people talking about nothing and everything, a potato salad here, a coffee there, Oops, somebody just lit a cigarette, the (in)attention to details, the insouciance about any rational frame (whether filmic or psychological), etc. What's your take about those scenes, what the fuck do you think is the secret?
Anyways, Masculin/Féminin is to me the best Godard movie from his 1960-1967 period, and my second favourite after the marvellous Notre Musique.
- colinr0380
- Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
- Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK
I'd agree, and don't have many thoughts as to why either! Perhaps it is the black and white filming style, though I've just rewatched Shadows and the style there doesn't grab me in the same way (that is rougher and more spontaneous). Maybe it is the distancing from the characters, and the awareness that they are in a film that allows Godard's characters to declaim poetry, have Bardot sat in a booth going over her lines without being mobbed or, as in Band of Outsiders, jump up to have a dance. Or maybe not, since there are also moments of just playing around (it was interesting to see Jack Black doing the 'brushing the boob while reaching for something' thing to Kate Winslet in the trailer for The Holiday! Perhaps the makers of that film had watched Masculin Feminin!).BusterK. wrote:No other filmmaker can film better café scenes than Godard, period. And yet, when i analyse those scenes closely, the mise en scène is rather simple.
We see young people talking about nothing and everything, a potato salad here, a coffee there, Oops, somebody just lit a cigarette, the (in)attention to details, the insouciance about any rational frame (whether filmic or psychological), etc.
I thought gubbelsj's comparison of Jubilee and Masculin Feminin were interesting:
I think you hit on the reasons for the difference in your post. The documentary on Jubilee also goes into this, where Jarman is described as being deeply conservative. In Jubilee it seems that Jarman is warning less about an impending apocalypse than lamenting the situation in Britain at the time, while looking back to a Golden Age (or at least a Golden Age if you were Royal!) and the way that even if society collapses there will always be people willing to sell out to the new media rulers, and the media can still make a buck off commodifying anarchy (or punk) into something appreciated by a mass audience - even if they are of lunatics and murderers! No wonder all the real punks and Vivienne Westwood were pissed off by the film, since it just seems to be suggesting that they are all only waiting for their opportunity to sell out!gubbelsj wrote:Everything that seemed clumsy, pretentious or condescending in Jubilee was swift, witty and authentic in M-F, and yet Godard's film remained a complete manipulation and total attack upon the observed culture. Yes, Godard's the better director, and he was clearly more experienced in 1966 at making movies than Jarman was in 1977 ( I think Jarman did improve, with Caravaggio and War Requiem in particular being respectable offerings). But I've also been thinking that perhaps Jarman had a wee too much art-school in him to recognize or connect with punk's working class roots. Did Godard's Marxist sympathies keep him closer to the Paris sewers and bistros?
What's extraordinary about Godard's film to me is how effortlessly and completely he paints a picture of despair and decay, a portrait quite haunting and genuinely disturbing, all the while keeping the unwary viewer rather entertained. It's only afterwards, or during a second viewing, that the random violence and rampant ennui truly registers with the viewer, once we've grown accustomed to Godard's shock tactics, those distancing techniques that crop up in every film of his, yet always manage to surprise me each time out. Despite all Jarman's freaky looks and Hyde Park-Speaker's Corner rants, despite punks setting rubbish bins afire and strangling transvestites, the connections just aren't made - the film is unable to produce a convincingly disturbing display of impending apocalypse.
Godard seems to like his young people, but is deeply pessimistic about the society around them, using youth culture only as another market to be targeted ('teenagers' being a relatively new concept?), with youth being only too happy to become cool by being co-opted, such as Miss 19 has been. He perhaps sees the kids as too self and sex obsessed to do anything but talk about issues, if they care about them at all! The Swedish sex film suggesting that people were perhaps too hung up on looking cool by watching art films that they miss the messages in them - so you could just put up something in black and white, with a bit of sex and you have all the signifiers in place to please an audience. No dialogue needed but grunts!
He might see hope for the future and change in a younger generation and their acts of rebellious interaction (not accepting a film in the wrong ratio!) in that pre-1968 time, but then the shock ending is already suggesting he has already worked through the issues to see the futility of such rebellion.
Last edited by colinr0380 on Sun Feb 18, 2007 11:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
- BusterK.
- Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 9:44 pm
- Location: Montreal, Quebec