Pick up artist article published on Boinkology.

Here's the link to the article and here's the article below.

With the increase of sad sacks discovering the internet and the popularity of the reality show “The Pick-Up Artist” (Season 2 coming soon!!), the world of seduction is being tapped like the local harlot for all its wonders and infections. As a nebbishy person myself, the general talk of seduction intrigued me. Not to pursue actively talking to women, obviously, but to observe the true nature of seduction.

I chose to start my observation at a local watering hole, commonly know as a bar or “Glazed Over Sadness.” I, like many my age (20) and sex (male), wasn’t permitted into the bar because of my Y challenged chromosome, but what I saw outside of it was astonishing. It was quite mysterious to me. I found a large number of people entering the bar and a select few of them exiting the bar with someone of the opposite sex and sometimes someone of the same sex gently coaxing them along. What was going on inside the bar? Do women and men acknowledge bars as a place to meet and then leave together? Is there something after leaving said bar that these creatures intend on doing? After many attempts to try to enter the bar and strongly worded, but poorly written cease and desist letter, I gave up in a fit of frustration.

I decided to take my search to a different place: A cafeteria. Partly out of its convenience for a college student and partly because movie theaters are too dark to conduct any kind of activity inside. The cafeteria is a seemingly innocent place to the average person, but the art of seduction knows no bounds. What I witnessed was the greatest show of seduction since the inception of the baby boom. I observed three cafeterias. (From the background information I had gathered, these couples have never met before or were ever a part of the Walter Mondale ‘84 presidential campaign.)

Hospital cafeteria - A man and a woman are sitting at opposite tables when the man flicks his chocolate pudding at her. She becomes enraged and approaches the man. “Why did you do that?” she inquires. The man stands up from his seat and says, “Did you get a hair cut?” The woman, playing coy with the man, rubs her bald head and smiles. “I find bald women extremely alluring, but often dying of cancer,” the man says as he pulls out a cigar. The woman reaches into her pocket and pulls out a match. He inhales the smoke and motions for her to sit down. She joins him without reservation.

Lesson — Men who are mean to women, get them, but only if they subscribe to Maxim magazine.

College cafeteria - A young man approaches a woman sitting at a table alone. She notices him standing next to her at the table. She lunges for him, and they begin to neck like Humphrey Bogart on a 2 day pass.

Lesson — Sometimes words just complicate things.

Nursing home cafeteria - A decrepit older man approaches a women sitting eating her ambrosia. “What is that?” he asks. “Ambrosia,” the woman caws. “You want some?” The man sits next to her and has some of her ambrosia.

Lesson — Ambrosia brings people together.

After my stunning observations in these cafeterias, I began to search for other venues that kindle the fire that is seduction. I have noticed that bus stops are very erotic areas, as are desks and window seats. The best places to meet your future wife or husband are still, of course, your local American Eagle outlet store, gas stations, and moving vehicles.

The Journey of the Auteur: Roberto Rossellini

This is a paper I wrote for one of my film classes.

(Disclaimer: I am far from being a Roberto Rossellini expert.)

The Journey of the Auteur: Roberto Rossellini

Made famous by the critic, François Truffaut (who later became a renowned filmmaker), the auteur theory was a call for change in French cinema. The auteur director simply was the creator of their personal vision that gave the director creative control of the film and was developed from film to film. (Insdorf 20) Jean-Luc Godard (French filmmaker and once critic alongside Truffaut) said about the auteur theory that "It concentrated on recognition of a director's contribution as a creator of images as opposed to the screenwriter. It's a grammar of narrative imagery which must constantly be renewed to ward off stereotypes and routine." Modern day auteurs would be directors like Woody Allen, David Lynch and Martin Scorsese, because of their unique directing style and demand for control of their films. Of course for our sake I will look at an Italian director who no doubt had an irreplaceable impact on Italian cinema and also on cinema on a whole. That director, of course, is Roberto Rossellini. I will examine four of his films, to show the beginning of his vision as an auteur in the time of neorealism. I will look at the films for themes, motifs and characters that show a common pattern within the other films examined and in the other films in the director's life. In addition to that I will also examine the director's life, his influences on the specific films and the cultural atmosphere of the time and the region. The goal of this process is not to analyze each film individually, but to pin point common things found in his films that become a part of his autuerist vision. I will examine Roberto Rossellini's Rome: Open City, Paisan, Germany, Year Zero and The Flowers of St. Francis. Within these films Rossellini forms common themes, characters and subject matter much that are expressed through the use of young characters, religion and political themes. These all become facets of what makes Rossellini an auteur.

Roberto Rosselini was born in Rome during May of 1906. He was raised in a lower middle class family who held to religious ideals that were being overshadowed by the modernizing society. His interest in film began during the fascist period in Italy. Rossellini has been known to remain silent about the period in his career, considering he directed three fascist propaganda films. It's interesting to know that he directed fascist films, because once Rome was liberated from the fascists he began preparing for Rome: Open City a largely anti-fascist film. With help from Federico Fellini, who would later collaborate on four of Rosselini's films as a writer, Rossellini made arguably the first neorealist film.

Rome: Open City, as well as being the first neorealist film, was also the first in Rossellini's "War Trilogy", which included Paisan and Germany, Year Zero. In examining the first film of the trilogy, I will look at specific scenes that establish the director's visions that appears later in his works. Rome: Open City exemplified what the neorealist film became. Rossellini’s attempt for realism was achieved cinematically by doing off set shoots, using non-professional actors (among them were children) and the difficult subject matter he dealt with. This was an intended effort as well as a necessary one. When Rossellini began making this film, he was only able to acquire permission from the Allied forces to make a documentary and he began shooting when the Germans had only vacated Rome two months earlier. (Kaltsounakis) Rossellini had embarked on a journey that would shape his career and cinema.

In the film we follow Pina through her struggles to live a normal life in a tumultuous time. It's clear (often in a melodramatic fashion) that Pina has simple goals, to marry Francesco and to live a long life with him. Her story is often juxtaposed with Manfredi's story, who is an engineer and wanted by the fascist police. Through Pina, we witness the struggles of a normal person being affected by things she's not involved in. The same way we often associate children as being innocent of the travesties around them, which is a theme that Rossellini will continue to use later in an episode of Pasian and in Germany, Year Zero.

In the film we witness some of the themes and motifs that later will signify Rossellini's vision as an auteur. Don Pietro (played by Aldo Fabrizi) is an interesting character study of how Rossellini views religion. He himself wasn't overtly religious, but it's plain to see the importance of it in his films. You can see the internal struggle of Don Pietro not being able to side with the Italian resistance, because of his ties to his religion, until the end of the picture when he witnesses Manfredi's torture and death. George Kaltsounakis wrote that the priest scolds the Nazis and looks unto Manfredi as a symbol of his justification in his faith, but also as an approval to side with the resistance. (Kaltsounakis) This internal struggle is a facet of Rossellini's characters (and possible in himself, in regards to his involvement with the fascist movement) and is possible most prevalent in his later films Germany, Year Zero and The Flowers of St. Francis.

That internal confusion and struggle was powerful tool Rossellini used to engage the audience. It was a way for the audience to witness something externally through the film about something that was going on inside of them. Rome: Open City not only showed the struggle of the characters but also the struggle of cinema. Rome Open City wasn't a conventional film by any means. Rossellini was challenging the how cinema looks at the single male protagonist. Rome: Open City dismantles the singular hero narrative and reconstructs it. The use of children and Pina offsets the normal constructs of a male protagonist which intern affects the story. For example, if it wasn't for the children's bombing, the Germans wouldn't have been led to the apartment and Pina wouldn't have been killed. The children, not only disrupt the normal events of the resistance, but also challenge the narrative structure. If it weren't for these children, who are often shown in innocent light, these negative consequences wouldn't have happened. (Fisher 35) The male protagonist, no longer holds onto the normal conventions that is sacrificed when he is killed. What replaces him or what helps his convention survive is that of the children and religion which becomes clearer as Rossellini's "War Trilogy" continues.

The second film of Rossellini's "War Trilogy" is Paisan. The episodic film follows the Allied progress in Italy with a series of vignettes as the Allied forces progress further up north. To more contemporary critics this is viewed as more of a neorealist film, discounting Rome: Open City because of its melodramatic elements. The film deals mostly with American soldiers and their interactions with the newly liberated Italians. Being that the film was released in 1946, much of what was being shown was still happening or at least close to the audiences minds. The film was originally meant to showcase the U.S. Army's role in the liberation, but after working with the script, it began to take shape as more of a reaction to the U.S. invasion. In true neorealist fashion (which was quickly developing into Rossellini's auteurist motifs) he did on location shoots, had fights with producers about money and worked primarily with non-actors. His non-actors proved to be the heart of the film, using actual U.S. soldiers, German POW's and Italian citizens. This began an essential part of Rossellini's overall auteurism.

This movement away from aestheticism in hopes to capture the true reality was an essential part of the film, because it captured Italian sentiment toward American soldiers who came with a sense of entitlement into their homes. The interaction between the Italians and the Americans was a key theme throughout the film. A clear example of this is the episode of the G.I. Joe and Pasquale. Their interaction begins when Pasquale leads the drunken G.I. through the city in hopes to turn a profit on the soldier. When the soldier passes out Pasquale steals the G.I.'s shoes and harmonica. Days later when Joe sees Pasquale stealing from a truck, he detains him not knowing at first that they met a day earlier. When Joe realizes who it is, he questions the kid about his boots and asks to see his parents. When Pasquale leads Joe to his home he sees the conditions that Joe is living in and realizes that the conflict with his parents isn't worth the continual hardships they are already enduring, and Joe leaves Pasquale alone. The child challenges the conventional protagonist, by changing that male protagonist from a hero to an observer.

Along with challenging normal character dynamics, Rossellini also utilized the episodic narrative in this film. Each episode chronicles the American advancement in Italy during the liberation. The episodes don't coincide with each other like a normal narrative plot would progress, but instead it is more like separate mini-vignettes. Each episode might be separate from each other, but one thing they do share in common is it's commenting on social issues. (Bazin 34) These episodes are also tied together historically which speaks to the issue on a greater level. It is as if Rossellini wanted to again change normal narrative and still be able to relate the social conflicts of these different people and show that they are all dealing with the same problems and issues.

Paisan was a huge step forward for Rossellini. He was able to form his auteurist vision with this film and also challenge what films during that time looked and felt like. The children that challenge that normal narrative were becoming more prevalent in Italian cinema at that time. De Sica utilized children in Shoeshine, The Children are Watching Us and Bicycle Thieves. Rossellini also understood that normal heroes weren't around anymore and that fathers were often dead from the war or unreliable. (Fisher 40) That created ineffective mothers and children running around in the streets looking for trouble, something that is central in Rossellini's final film in the "War Trilogy", Germany, Year Zero.

Germany, Year Zero was a very controversial film, not only for its subject matter, but because of Rossellini's apparent betrayal of neorealism. His critics defended their accusations by saying he had departed from politics, by moving away from the struggles of the poor against Fascism and toward a more internal and spiritual story.

The film is about a young German boy, Edmund, and his struggle to fit in within the crumbling city of Berlin. He spends his days trying to hang out with other children, before he pushed away from them. The same happens with his family who find him a continual bother. In a misinformed suggestion by his former Nazi schoolteacher, he poisons his father, who is ill and a strain on their landlord, but it doesn't work out the way Edmund thought it would. He is again pushed away from his family and wanders the streets, until he kills himself at the end of the film, looking to his house before jumping off an adjacent building. This was as much as a personal film as it was a comment on German citizens. The film followed the death of his son, Romano, in 1946. Rossellini said about the film, "It is intended to be simply an objective, true-to-life picture of this enormous, half-destroyed city...It is simply a presentation of the facts. But if anyone who has seen the story of Edmund Koeler comes to realize that something must be done...that German children must be taught to love life again, then the efforts of those who made this film will have been amply rewarded."

Rossellini, after Paisan, returned to a more structured narrative and had the same themes as Rome: Open City. The open scene of Germany, Year Zero (in the international version of the film) is a title card that reads "When an ideology strays from the eternal laws of morality and of Christian charity which form the basis of men's lives, it must end as criminal madness...", which is followed by a shot of the rubble filled Berlin. (Bondanella 50) That sets up the tone of the film to show a moral and ideological struggle within Germany at that time. Much like in Rome: Open City, Germany Year Zero examines a culture still dealing with the remnants of Nazism and Fascism in their cities and the relation children have with them. Edmund's story clearly exemplifies that struggle of the reconstruction and the absence of a moral foundation. The clearest example of this is when Edmund speaks with his former Nazi schoolteacher, Herr Enning. The first encounter with the schoolteacher, he gets Edmund to sell records (Hitler's speeches) to Allied soldiers. Even then he is still feeding Edmund the Nazi ideologies. One of which Edmund misunderstands. The teacher tells Edmund that "The weak must die while only the strong should survive." This leads Edmund to poison his sick father as a way of acting out the teacher's message. (Bondanella 51) Rossellini's sentiment of a destroyed moral code in Germany at that time was clear through Edmund's actions. He was showing the effects of Nazi Germany and how it made Edmund look like a soldier and not a boy of 15. (Bondanella)

Morality is largely at play in this film. Rossellini had been trying to reinstall this sense of hope and new beginning with the "War Trilogy". In Rome: Open City, it's the children who are walking down the road with Rome in the back drop. They are the new generation, one that has witnessed the old and heading in a new direction. In Paisan, the final shot is that of a crying child over its slain parents. A child that will coincide along the rebirth of Italy as it is born from a struggle of war. In Germany, Year Zero the final scene is that of warning, but hopefulness. Edmund symbolizes the Fascist era, its ways and ideologies. When Edmund then kills himself, Rossellini is marking the end of the Fascism and its poison on the people it's harmed. The "War Trilogy" is that of accounting the struggles of the old so that we may proceed to the new. A more peaceful Italy and a prosperous one. Rossellini's movement from the real to the spiritual started with Germany, Year Zero, but was realized with The Flowers of St. Francis.

The Flowers of St. Francis is a film that has to be looked in context of its release. At the time of filming, Rossellini was involved in a high profile love affair with Swedish actress Ingrid Bergman, the problem being that they were both married at the time. While being condemned by the U.S. Senate, Rossellini was making his most religious film in his career. (Brunette 1) Much like Paisan it is an episodic film, but following Saint Francis of Assisi instead of the American liberation front.

It's above all a simple film. Completely devoid of a narrative structure, it's meant to showcase St. Francis's struggle with his fellow monks as well as Brother Ginepero's want to please St. Francis. Brother Ginepero's admiration of St. Francis is something that we have seen before in Rossellini films, but has a much more positive light on it. Pina's son, in Rome: Open City, looks up to the crippled older kid who is a nuisance and responsible for bombing the Germans. In Germany, Year Zero, Edmund is constantly looking for someone to look up to, but is increasingly denied and pushed away. Brother Ginepero differs from these other characters almost only because of morality. He still posses the need to please St. Francis and his naivety is clear when he is asked, by a sick monk, to find a pig's foot for him to eat. He searches out a herd of pigs, prays to the pig to let him cut his foot and does so, not knowing that the pig belong to a local farmer. The farmer threatens the monks and asks who had done this to the pig and Ginepro steps forward to St. Francis to explain to him what he had done. St. Francis apologizes to the farmer, and makes Ginepero beg for his forgiveness. Morality clearly becomes the central figure of the film and looking back at Rossellini's films we can see he had been building to that in his earlier films.

On the surface The Flowers of St. Francis is an anti-realistic film, because of the exclusions of the monks from the socialized reality we would expect. (Brunette 2) This, in much of the same way of other Rossellini films, focuses on the characters emotional progress while juxtaposing the bitterness of reality. St. Francis and Brother Ginepro (who are actual monks that Rossellini and Fellini used in one of the episodes in Paisan) play their characters authentically. Non-actors in the film were something that Rossellini was adamant about portraying when it came to the monks. This sentiment is exemplified when Aldo Fabrizi, who plays Nicolaio the Tyrant, interacts with the monk who plays Brother Ginepero. In the scene Brother Ginepero wins over the cruel tyrant’s heart, by his piousness and unshaken resolve to Nicolaio.

What appears is what Rossellini says, could have only came from a monk portraying a monk. This had been a part of Rossellini's films since Rome: Open City. He wanted to show you reality while others hid away from it. Andre Bazin (French film critic who championed neorealism) said that "Rossellini's style is a way of seeing, while De Sica's is primarily a way of feeling."

Rossellini progressed from the founder of neo-realism into a world renowned director. His abilities to tell stories in an episodic narrative has influenced directors like Federico Fellini, who was able to manipulate his narrative in a way that is very much reminiscent of his early work with Rossellini. Rossellini's auteurist vision comes from his respect to reality and his hope to capture a true sense of it. His vision captured the authenticity of the locations, by showing the struggle of people and their want for change. With children he was able to give hope to a generation that had struggled so much. To give their struggle a future for the good of Italy. Rossellini was able to show the world the struggles of Italy during and after the war, in style that is still being reciprocated in films today. Jean-Luc Godard's Alphaville shows traces of it's post-capitalistic era back to the post-war Berlin in Germany, Year Zero. Katia Lund's City of God is eerily reminiscent of the children in Rome: Open City. Rossellini's early films not only shaped his auteurist vision, but helped future filmmakers form their own vision.



Bibliography

Bazin, Andre. "An Aesthetic of Reality" What Is Cinema Vol. 2. Ed. Hugh Gray. University of California Press. Los Angeles, CA 1971.

Insdorf, Annette. Francois Truffaut. New York: Touchstone, 1989

Fisher, Jaimey. "The Figure of the Child in Italian Neorealism and the German Rubble-Film" Italian Neorealism and Global Cinema. Ed. Laura Ruberto & Kristi Wilson. Wayne State University Press. Detroit, MI 2007.

Bondanella, Peter. Italian Cinema. New York: Frederick Ungar Publishing Co., 1983

Kaltsounakis, George. Rome, Open City: Neorealism Wasn't Built in a Day. Cinema Scope. .

Brunette, Peter. God's Jester. The Criterion Collection. .

Godard & Marx

This is a paper I wrote for one of my philosophy classes.

Godard & Marx

Marx has often come up when discussing Jean-Luc Godard's films. Many times Marx is even referenced in his films. But why? Godard, without a question, has made some of the most contextually dense films ever, ranging in topics from, the bourgeoisie, cannibalism, political youths and of course cinema. But each of these things can coexists in a Godard film, when a philosophy is behind it. I will examine Godard's background and how he developed an interest in Marx. I will also examine the cultural upheaval leading up to and after the events of May 68' and how Godard used Marx in his films. That will lead me to examine specific scenes, characters and motifs that show Marxist themes and ideologies. Among those themes Godard uses to critique are major mainstays in Marxist ideology, capitalism and political action.

Jean-Luc Godard was born in Paris, France, to a wealthy family, in 1930. During the period of the Second World War, he spent the time in Switzerland, often refered to as his second home. Part of Godard's history that is interesting is that he avoided the German Occupation in France and the Algerian War draft. Not being a part of these conflicts ostracized Godard from his colleagues who had served in various conflicts. Godard went to school at lycee Bouffon where he specialized in the physical and biological sciences, classical literature and mathematics. (Kreidl 23-24) From these fields of studies, especially mathematics, he was able to form his way of understanding. His desire for extensive research and documentation proved to be a mainstay in his way of making films.

Godard references many philosophers and political ideologies in his films. His relationship with Marx is a unique one when examining how much he was used. From as much as we know, Godard has read Marx from a third hand source: a book reviewer's review of Althusser on Marx. (Kreidl 30) With that in mind, don't be surprised if Godard proves himself wrong within the same film. He understands that he isn't even exempt from contradictions and he often uses those contradictions to make social statements on our culture, something Godard took from another philosopher, Hegel. Godard once said "Truth is in all things, even, partly, in error." (Roud 9) A famous French quote, often attributed to Godard, was "I am a Marxist of the Groucho variety." Marx doesn't make an appearance in Godard's films until 1965 (Pierrot Le Fou), but looking back to his films we can see the progression of the Marxist ideologies in his characters and stories. It's easy to understand why Marx's philosophy, especially when critiquing capitalism, was so appealing to Godard. The events of May 68' gave Godard an opportunity to relate Marxist philosophy to the problems in France.

The events of May 68' had a profound effect on France and on the international culture. The first event, known as the student crisis, involved a key force in the revolts, the universities. There had been a growing gap among the youth and their parent's generation about cultural ideas and values. The working class grew frustrated with the government, while noticing the gap of the wealth distribution. The students at the universities also looked toward uncertainty in the job market. The university proved to be the first push to get the ball rolling, by having a one day strike (May 13) in response to the police brutality toward the students. The strike expanded to a longer strike and caused a work stoppage of nearly 2/3 of France. The workers crisis, hijacked the student strike with different goals in mind. The workers strike lasted a few weeks until the pinnacle point of May 30. Only days before had the government been in shambles trying to stop the movements. General de Gaulle, who was being blamed for the heavy handedness of his ruling, agreed that reformation was good, but not by masquerading in the streets. After his speech on May 30 and the support of the 'silent majority' the month of upheaval had subsided. Although the protesters hadn't made sudden change, they had started the fall of the Gaullist regime, which led to elections the following June. (Reynolds)

Godard's relation to the events of May 68' stem before 68'. In 1967 he released his most overtly political film La Chinoise. The film was about a teach-in household of a handful of students discussing Maoism in relation to France. Even then Godard understood that France needed a change. From La Chinoise the "students" say:

"If you have the wrong policy, you have the wrong politics. If you are unaware you are blind. Why are you doing dishes, for example."
"To clean them."
"Then you've understood."
"So 1967 France is like dirty dishes."

La Chinoise was the beginning before the beginning of his Dziga-Vertov Group, which consisted of Godard and Jean-Pierre Gorin. After Weekend (1967), Godard began making political films in an effort to revitalize the education system. Godard was an advocate of getting rid of de Gaulle and for revolution in France. His films were that of an artistic experiment, with the hope that people would utilize them for their own revolutions. Godard was often ahead of his cultural revolutionaries and was often an embarrassment to the groups he wished to join. (Kreidl 202) Godard's job as an intellectual was to show, not do, which was often met by blank stares of unwilling students, or misunderstood revolutionaries. "Godard is the most negative of the Swiss Maoist" was written on the Sorbonne wall, graffiti that Godard had defended as a form of expression forced by restricted laws. His audience was turning on him, but that didn't stop Godard. Godard went small and continued to make political films. His final two films of that era, Tout va Bein and Letter to Jane, felt like a last hooray for the movement that had mostly dissipated.

No matter how many books you might read, in order to understand, or more likely to experience Godard (with the exception of himself, since few may understand him), you have to look at his films. Marx in his films may range from a reference that is said by a character, a title card, or through a character's philosophy. The first reference, directly, to Marx was made in the film Weekend.

"We are all brothers, as Marx said."
"Marx didn't say that. Another communist said it. Jesus said it."

In the film a bourgeois couple is on a holiday. The title card in the film explains the sentiment perfectly. "From French Revolutions to Gaullist week-ends" The film is a scathing critique of the middle class French, which the main characters are modeled after. The film begins with the female character describing, to her significant other, an explicit sexual act. What makes this interesting is how they treat the subject. She tells the story in a very boring and uninterested tone, while the husband couldn't be more uninterested. This sets up an interesting dynamic when examining these characters as they make their weekend holiday.

Soon after that we are given a critique of capitalism. The couple run into an absurdly long traffic jam (simulated by a 7 minute, untouched, tracking shot) of other Parisian couples taking a weekend holiday. As we move along the crawl of the cars, Godard slips his critique within a critique. We are supposed to look at the traffic jam as a part capitalism failure to control the greedy mentality of the middle class, but Godard adds a little extra. As we move along, we see a Shell gas tanker blocked in between two cars. The Shell gas tanker is a symbol for capitalism, one that is deadlocked in a system that is broken, a system that needs change. One car in front of the Shell gas tanker is facing the opposite direction of the tanker possibly showing the resistance to capitalist organizations, but ultimately that it's not enough, because traffic jams have to end, right? The traffic jam works as a poignant critique of the falsehoods of capitalism. People are able to get what they want, but at what price? The Parisian couple will later show that it will be at any price, even the price of their souls or their lives.

In Weekend, we get the sense of greed and competition among the greedy with the bourgeois couple. Marx says "The only wheels which political economy puts in motion are greed and the war among the greedy, competition."(Baird 312) In the film we definitely get a sense of greediness of this couple. In one instance they crash their car in a pile up and their car is in the midst of a fireball, when the woman yells out "My Hermes handbag!” Godard doesn't shy away from showing Marx's argument of commodity fetishism within the capitalist society. Later in the film Godard also shows the couple wandering a road, littered with wrecked cars, trying on dead peoples clothes. He uses scenes like that to prod the viewer. To ask them, "Do you really want this?"

In Masculin Feminin and La Chinoise, Godard gives us very similar characters with similar ideologies and not surprisingly they are both played by the same actor (Jean-Pierre Leaud). His characters in both the films are activists. In Masculin Feminin Leaud plays a would be intellectual who is involved with the communist movement in France. In La Chinoise Leaud plays again an intellectual who is among a group of students in a teach-in of Maoist/Marxist/Leninist ideologies and their hopes for revolution in France. Leaud, in a way, is a mouth piece for Godard. In Masculin Feminin he was literally a mouth piece, since Godard fed Leaud lines through an earpiece. Leaud's characters are a great reflection of the youth at that time in France. They wanted change and were willing to do whatever it took for that change. Godard in La Chinoise examines that urgency of trying start a revolution when dealing with youth and the problems it brings up.

La Chinoise is as much a documentary as it is a work of fabrication. Godard uses Brecht's epic theatre (Godard quotes Brecht almost as much as he does Marx) to express the ideas and platforms of these young students. La Chinoise is one of Godard's most Brecht inspired films. He uses the epic theatre movement as a platform to express his ideas. Much like an epic theatre play the film is more about it's purpose than it was for entertaining or imitating reality. By using the epic theatre as a platform Godard saw many of the problems that would later arise in the events of May 68'. The film is littered with Marxist/Leninist ideologies quoted or cited by the Maoist students who surrounded themselves with Mao's "Little Red Book". The main theme and the main problem in the film is revolution. Revolution for the North Vietnamese, the Chinese, the French, etc. They make their case of why and how these things should happen, but you get the sense that something is missing. The students express a forwardness that is almost blinding to them. In the film, Henri (who had been excluded from the group), gives an example of the group, "The Egyptians believed their language was that of the gods. One day to prove it they put new-born babies in a house far from any society. To see if they would learn to talk. To speak Egyptian alone. They came back 15 year later. And what did they find? The kids talking together, but bleating like sheep. They hadn't noticed that next to the house was a sheep-pen. For us in that flat where we were, Marxism-Leninism was a bit like the sheep." Godard is able to show a sense of rationality, meaning, to put what these students are learning into context. The students would argue against Henri's analogy with the sheep, saying that it is capitalism who is the sheep next to the house. Later in the film one of the students meets with a professor she is acquainted with and they discuss the problems the students are trying to solve. The student brings revolution and strikes to the table, while the professor uses reason and logic to question her motives.

"So, what will you do afterwards?" the professor asks the student,
"I don't believe you know. You only know that the present system is awful and you're impatient to end it".

Their argument isn't that something is a problem; it's on how you deal with it. Godard to a certain extent realizes that the students, the youth, are unreliable. Yes, they can be apart of something, without questioning, but is it more than a summer party to them? At the end of the film the students in the teach-in go back to their lives, almost forgetting the work they were so passionate about in the summer. The people who own the flat, come back to it and make fun of the writing on the wall (writing that the students put there, "All roads lead to Peking", "A minority with the right ideas is not a minority", to showcase their ideologies). Life as they wanted to live it was no more.

Two of Godard's more blatant Marxist films were Tout Va Bein and his essay film, Letter to Jane. Both of the films Godard collaborated with Jean-Pierre Gorin during their time in Dziga Vertov. These were the last films of that group’s collective. Tout Va Bein is a film that examines a labor strike (much like those in May 68') of a meat factory. Susan (Jane Fonda) is an American reporter working for a French paper when she and her husband become hostages during the strike. Before the story ever begins, Godard (much like a Picasso painting) deconstructs how the film should begin. Who should meet, what should happen, what they will say. It's Godard's way of prepping us for the madness of capitalism.

The film shows us two fronts of the labor strike. We see management's point of view and the workers point of view. This dynamic is an interesting way to show the short comings of both sides. No doubt, we see Marx's reference to alienated labor. Godard uses Jane Fonda's character and the positioning of the camera (for a profile, head on shot) to eliminate a sense of theater. The characters are talking to the reporter, straight into the camera, as if they were talking to the audience. From the manager's point of view, who is locked in his office by striking workers, he tells the reporter "Marxism and collectivism certainly don't protect you from exploitation and alienation....This even is just a flash in the pan."

The workers express, in the same way the manager does (cinematically) the problems of capitalism. The General Confederation of Labour (CGT) delegate talks about company mergers and acquisitions and how one or two large companies control a large percentage of the profit, while 567 companies control 6% of it. He continues to talk, as if he was reading from Marx, that profits keep going up along with production, but that workers salaries still stay the same. Godard goes back and forth, justifying and retracting, putting the viewers in a sense of disillusion. Out of all the places, the sense of clarity comes from a super mall (much like a Wal-Mart). In a place of pure capitalism we see Marxism prevail. Godard sets up the scene, by doing a long tracking shot, showing the rows and rows of checkout counters. Towards the middle of the tracking shot we see a man at a table selling communist books. Again with the critique within the critique, the man speaks out "Outside the factory it is still a factory. The market is like a theater. Everyone is shouting, except the audience who don't speak to each other. They're waiting for new actors." A woman then comes up to the man and he tells her that the book is "4.75 marked down from 5.50", but she is uninterested. As the tracking shot continues past the man, he is drowned out by the hum of consumers purchasing items at the checkout counters. Only when students (the new actors) swarm the market, questioning the man with the communist book for explanations about what he is reading, are the shoppers able to break free of their consumerist ideology. "It's free." yell the students as they pull products off the shelves. They form a mob with the shoppers and create madness in the store, until the police come and try to silence them. In effect the students, in the film, had brought about something Godard had been trying to inspire with the students outside of his films. He was trying to tell them that you can participate in a revolution, but you can't invent one.

After Tout va Bein, Godard and Gorin made an essay film in response to the photograph of Jane Fonda in North Vietnam. It was called Letter to Jane. Now taking into account of what pops into your head when you think essay film and I can assure you that you won't think that after it's finished. Clocking in at over 50 minutes it's a fairly static film visually, but it is so on purpose. Narrated by Godard and Gorin they examine the photograph that had been inciting so much controversy. They begin by giving a sort of disclaimer. They reference Marx by saying in his preface to Capitol that he asked for people who were not afraid of minute details. That is all Godard and Gorin ask of the viewers. Needless to say the minute details in the photo become everything to the meaning of the picture. The photo itself might look innocent enough. It captures Jane Fonda, speaking with a North Vietnamese half in frame, with another anonymous Vietnamese who is semi-out of focus behind her. Godard and Gorin interpret the picture like this: The picture and the text next to the picture say and imply different things. The text explains that Jane Fonda is in North Vietnam speaking with inhabitants, while Godard and Gorin point out that her mouth is closed in the picture, implying that she is listening. They take that one step further and show the missteps of the Americans, who speak first, before listening to the Vietnamese. "It is the Vietnamese who will tell me what kind of peace they want."

Godard and Gorin also take Jane Fonda and the Vietnamese man behind her as representations for ideologies. For example, "The American left view Jane as blurry while the Vietnamese left view the anonymous Vietnamese man as sharp and clear. The American right sees sharp, while the Vietnamese right or Vietnamization is becoming unclear." This comparison of who's sharp and clear and who's fuzzy is an important one to make. The face out of focus, the Vietnamese man, is sharp and clear, while the sharp and clear face, Jane Fonda, is vague and out of focus. The Vietnamese man express his reality on his face, while Jane has an expression that looks more like a function, it could be anyone given by anyone and it contains to much ambiguity (which leaves room for misinterpreting the picture). The man's face is that of Marxism and revolution, while Jane's face is that of an expression in search of capitalism. Uncle Bertle, they quote, says "We must have the courage to say we have nothing to say of these faces, unless it shows a caption of lies, and one must admit one's weakness and failure for one has nothing to say." It's all part of the experiment. To solve the problem is to examine all sides, to experiment and to explore. And for Godard, that's his job.

Godard's relationship to Marx dwindles after Letter to Jane and his Dziga Vertov years. Some might argue he didn't buy into that ideology anymore and others would say that as an artist Godard needed to move on. Moving on, something Godard is known for, is hard for the audience, an audience that wanted a filmmaker to keep making Breathless. It makes it hard for the audience to understand something like Marxism in his films, when he has already moved on to Shakespeare. It's clear that without Marx in Godard's early films his later films would have been much different. I'm sure Godard could make the case against that. John Kreidl makes that point clear with Godard's quote about films "One has no right to "read in" themes to films, says Godard, even though that is what most people do." (Kreidl 213) Marx is clearly evident in Godard's films, but whether Marx is still, or ever was, evident within Godard himself is a mystery.





Bibliography

Kreidl, John Francis. Jean-Luc Godard. Twayne Publishers. Boston, MA 1980.

Roud, Richard. Jean-Luc Godard. Doubleday & Company Inc. Garden City, NY 1968.

Reynolds, Chris. May 68: A Contested History. Sens-Public. .

Baird, Forrest E., and Walter Kaufmann. Nineteenth-Century Philosophy. 4th ed. Vol. 4. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2003. 312.

Films Referenced

Pierrot Le Fou. Dir. Jean-Luc Godard. Perf. Jean-Paul Belmondo, Anna Karina. DVD. Criterion Collection, 1965.

Masculin Feminin. Dir. Jean-Luc Godard. Perf. Jean-Pierre LéAud, Chantal Goya. DVD. Columbia Films S.a., 1966.

La Chinoise. Dir. Jean-Luc Godard. Perf. Jean-Pierre LéAud, Juliet Berto. DVD. Pennebaker Films, 1967.

Weekend. Dir. Jean-Luc Godard. Perf. Mireille Darc, Jean Yanne. DVD. Athos Films, 1967.

Tout Va Bein. Dir. Jean-Luc Godard, Jean-Pierre Gorin. Perf. Jane Fonda, Yves Montand. DVD. Criterion Collection, 1972.

Letter to Jane. Dir. Jean-Luc Godard, Jean-Pierre Gorin. Perf. Jean-Luc Godard, Jean-Pierre Gorin, Jane Fonda. Criterion Collection, 1972.