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.