"La Chinoise" * (out of ****)What can I say about Jean-Luc Godard? He is perhaps one of the most famous directors of the Nouvelle Vague movement, which erupted on the world cinema scene in the 1960s, thanks largely in part to his film "Breathless" (1961).
You will find many, many filmbuffs who will sing his praises as a true visionary. One of, if not the the single greatest, filmmakers of all time. To prove their point they will point to Godard's reputation all over the world. His numerous awards and nominations. He has been nominated 6 times for the palme d' or at the Cannes Film Festival for films such as "In Praise of Love" (2002), "Nouvelle Vague" (1990) and "Passion" (1982), not one of which I liked. He was also nominated 7 times for the Golden Lion at the Venice Film Festival and won once for "First Name; Carmen" (1983), one of his better films.
"La Chinoise" (1968) marks the first time I've written about Godard. I always planned on doing it before, but for reasons I'll explain here, you'll see what took me so long.
I've never been a great admirer of Mr. Godard. I understand and accept his position as a renowned filmmaker but his films never strike me as masterpieces. Godard has made a long career out of making radical leftist films. His characters openly declare themselves as Communist and/or Socialist. His films routinely revolve around war and political revolutions. And all of that is fine. I don't object to that. What I object to is the naive nature of his characters. I don't find Godard to be a great intellectual thinker. I find his insights into human nature childish and pretentious. He is not a mature filmmaker. He reminds me of a film student still experimenting with his camera shouting out cliche philosophical arguments, which he finds profound.
Oh, I know what some will say. I'm not being fair to Godard. I should perhaps withhold my judgement and see more of his work. Ladies and gentlemen, "La Chinoise" is the 20th Godard film I have seen. Nearly film after film Godard disappoints me. It is the same thing over and over again with him, film after film. At the very least he makes an excellent case for the auteur theory. You can always tell a Godard film a mile away. And each film seems as childish as the next. I don't like "Week-end" (1967), "Two Or Three Things I Know About Her" (also 67), "Pierrot le fou" (1965) or "A Band of Outsiders" (1964).
Now some will say, well, clearly you have a bias against Mr. Godard and therefore you will never give one of his films a chance, which is clearly indicated by your star rating for "La Chinoise". Before you start jumping to conclusions may I also state Godard has made some films which I have truly enjoyed. My favorite among his films is "Breathless". I think his "Tout va Bien" (1972) is a masterpiece. I called his "Notre Musique" (2005) one of the best films of the year. I admire "Les Carabineers" (1967) as well as "My Life To Live" (1962). So I'm willing to give Godard credit when I feel he deserves it.
"La Chinoise" however is a film which suffers from Godard's usual problems. The film follows a group of college students whom have decided France is in need of a political revolution. Their main source of inspiration is taken from Communist China. They have fallen under the influence of Mao and listen to radio Peking, where they get all the latest updates and hear about the advancement of the workers.
The leaders of this group are Guillaime (Jean-Pierre Leaud, whom I believe has appeared in every French movie ever made!) and Veronique (Anne Wiazemsky). Their followers are Yvonne (Juliet Berto) and Henri (Michel Semeniako). They have shut themselves off from the world and debate Communist theories among each other. The complain about Capitalist, complain about America and the Vietnam war and they complain about France's own Communist Party as being too weak. Only in China is Communism strong and correct.
Given the film was released in America in 1968 I can perhaps see the appeal young liberals would take in watching this movie. Lets face it, Godard was the voice of 60s radicalism in cinema. I'm sure he spoke for an entire generation. There was strong protest against Vietnam. The characters in "La Chinoise" call President Johnson a murderer, a repeated chant here by the angry left in America. So "La Chinoise" gave audiences something to relate to, to connect with. That was their voice on-screen. That was everything they had told their friends. Those were their thoughts and dreams. But this makes the film little more than a "time capsule" to me. A relic.
That is not what infuriates me about this film though. "Tout va Bien" has a leftist slant about the workers against factory owners. "Les Carabineers" is a strong anti-war film. And I have said, I admire both films. So it is not merely that the film is leftist which bothers me. But, that childish world view. The cliche philosophy.
All this Godard film is, is a collection of thoughts. We just hear the characters rant and rave about what is wrong with the world. How Communist need to stand up and revolt. But there is no real story. No real characters to speak of. Godard breaks down the fourth wall and has characters speak to the camera and then shows us the camera filming everything. It is as if we are watching a Brecht play. What is real and what is fiction?
But the major problem I have with Godard and this film is what is it exactly Godard is telling us about these characters and their ideas. For the first hour of the film Godard seems to be in complete sympathy with them, since he offers no opposing view point. He has a way of glorifying their group and its ambitions. But in the last half hour of the film Godard seems to turn on his characters.
One of the best scenes in the film has Veronique discussing her revolution with an older gentleman, a man who in his youth was a radical. As they have their conversation the man counters every argument Veronique makes. He tells to tell her how simplistic her world view is. How she and her group really don't know what it is they want to achieve. And for the first time Godard is showing us what the students are, naive and pretentious. But why show us this after an hour of praising them?
Another scene has the group kick out one of their own, Henri. As he describes his version of what happened, he eventually calls them fanatics. He is calling them fanatics when he was part of their group, agreeing with their view point.
When they actually attempt their revolution, which is to shut down a university, and kills teachers and students, they even mess this up by going into the wrong room and killing the wrong professor. Thus their revolution fails.
By the end of the film we see these students not as communist, not as revolutionaries, not as a threat to society but as confused children. Children looking for a cause to fight for but unsure which cause to chose and how to fight for it.
So is Godard turning his back on the radical leftist? Is he making a commentary on youth? How they seem involved for a cause one moment and then suddenly lose interest? They lack passion. Is he exposing these students for what they are? These are all interesting questions. And I think I have the answers and that's what bothers me about the film. How negative the film turns against these characters. It actually made me feel I had wasted my time watching this movie. There doesn't seem to be any point to it. It is an unsatisfactory film, much like their revolution. It has a great build-up and ultimately leads to nothing.
Posts
