SCREEN-L Archives

July 1997, Week 5

SCREEN-L@LISTSERV.UA.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Brigham Narins <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 30 Jul 1997 14:01:50 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (63 lines)
Some comments on Glen Norton's comments. He wrote that Godard's "fault
was/is the fault of many filmmakers -- the (naive) belief that 'making
political films politically' can actually affect political views or even
become the catalyst to 'the revolution.'"
 
I don't think you would want to say that Godard has not affected political
views; certainly there are many people who were/are profoundly influenced
by his work. And Godard was no doubt a catalyst of the events of May 1968
in Paris, regardless of whether they were "revolutionary" or merely
tumultuous.
 
The question, then, is: what was the nature/extent of Godard's naivete?
Extrapolating from Norton's comment, I think the question can be restated
more precisely as: Given that France and the US and all the other places
where art cinema is consumed are not now Marxist or even very democratic by
any good definition of the term, to what extent did Godard fail?
 
I would in no way argue that Godard is a failure--unless you think that he
was primarily a revolutionary. If you see him as a filmmaker, then he can
only be considered enormously successfully. What is naive here is the idea
that filmmakers/artists are catalysts of revolution. That has never been
the case. Revolutions and uprisings are caused by many things, but not
movies; although they are often manifestations of revolutionary moments.
 
Consider Norton's closing comments. First he asks, paraphrasing others,
"Which has greater impact and/or sway over . . . 'the mass'[es]? Narrative
realism (i.e. Hollywood and its clones) or the avant-garde . . .?"
 
The answer would seem self-evident. The important point in this context,
however, is that discussions of narrative structure--that is, questions of
aesthetics--have little bearing on the tumultuousness or quiescence of the
masses. Again, if Godard was naive and a failure in some sense, it was not
because he chose one narrative strategy over another. If at all, he was
naive (if he really had revolution in mind) in choosing to be a filmmaker
as opposed to a labor leader, teacher, etc. Godard is not Marx, he's not
Che, and he isn't a member of the Tupac Amaru. He's a wealthy movie
director (whose heart and mind are in the right places).
 
Finally, Norton asks: "Or is cinema (and, by extrapolation, all art) simply
an enclosed space, a simulation of power, given its political authority by
theoreticians and not through the medium itself?"
 
No medium has power--power is the province of institutions. The cinema, as
part of the mass media, has enormous power. But this power has nothing to
do with the details of Godard's finely wrought works. The political
authority of the mass media has nothing to do the proclamations of
theoreticians. Power and authority are corporate and global, and will never
be--have never been--seriously challenged by art.
 
Godard and the theoreticians--artists and critics--to the extent that art
and criticism is all they do, shout from the sidelines.
 
[I should say that I found Glen Norton's comments very stimulating and
provocative, and I appreciate his having made them. He has spurred me to
begin formulating my thoughts on these issues. Thanks, Glen.]
 
Brigham Narins
[log in to unmask]
 
----
Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the 
University of Alabama.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2