Around the World in 24 Frames 08.28.09: My Life to Live

Posted by Len Archibald on 08.28.2009

Godard shows the world the unlimited power of a movie camera by stripping it down to its bare essential function - to look.

Hey, everyone - let's just do this~!

The Rant

A long one today, but justified…

I honestly did not know what I was going to say this week. My wife was teasing me with suggestions about talking about how beautiful she is…And since it was basically a slow week, I was actually on my way to going down that route.

Until Wednesday morning, when I heard Mass. Senator, Ted Kennedy lost his fight with cancer.

Now, I am only 31 years old, and am not an American citizen. But there have been only a few names that have resonated with me since birth. Jackson. King. Gandhi. Marley. Gretzky. Spielberg. Kennedy. I was not alive when JFK was assassinated, but I've studied and seen that horrific footage for years and know probably every conspiracy theory. I wasn't around when Bobby was shot five years later, but I know all about it. I knew about Ted Kennedy's presidential run in 1980. I knew he was senator for a LONG time. I knew he was an advocate for civil rights – and health care. As when any human being passes away, even if I didn't know them personally, I felt saddened because someone lost a family member. For the most part, people have been respectful and shown maturity about this sad event. American news organizations have given tributes and positive commentary on the man.

I really shouldn't put too much stock into this, but I am really upset today. My reasons may be mundane, I don't care. Today, though – I am happy and proud to be Canadian and not affiliate myself with any political doctrine. In the morning (after I hit up 411mania!) I check out all the news websites, CNN, MSNBC, FOX, BBC, CBC, AP, etc. to get a handle on the world's events. I like to keep up with what's going on around me, and more importantly – gain a sense of impartial news. In my opinion, no one news agency is capable of giving an "unbiased" story, so I get the dish from all sides. Sometimes, I sneak in to see the comments of certain stories left by other readers to get a sense of what "the public" (notice the quotations) are feeling about it.

Today is a day I shouldn't have done that.

Now I know that with the territory of leaving comments anonymously are those who just say things to shock or be a general all around asshole without getting consequence – but there is also the point that people can say how they truly feel about a topic without repercussions.

From various news-sites:

Kevininohio says:
"May God have mercy on your soul."

christianvalues Kansas shows how much he/she understands the teachings of Jesus Christ:
"*start dancing* There is still hope against those liberals."

meli2012 decides that The Good Book justifies her hatred when taken to task for some terrible things she said:
"The Bible says I can express as much scorn, ridicule, & contempt for you (or them) as I like, provided I'm certain that I'm right and you're wrong. I prayed about it, and God confirmed that you're an idiot."

jhe1776 From Arizona practices her mother's advice:
"My mother taught me if you cannot find anything good to say about someone, then don't say anything. Rest in peace Mary Jo." (a reference to Mary Jo Kopechne, a woman who died and drowned in a car Ted Kennedy was driving. He fled the scene.)

Our very own 411 anonymous guest (Guest):
"i'm glad he's gone he did more to screw this country up then the moron in the white house has done so far"

This was pure class from readaynrand:
"The best part of Ted Kennedy slid down his mother's thigh. Same for obama and both clintons" (what does Obama or the Clintons have to do with the fact that A MAN DIED???)

...Wow. Is this what we've become as human beings? As fellow American citizens? Has political idolatry gone this far? Why? Because his last name was Kennedy? Because when you saw him on television there was a (D) beside his name? Because he considered himself "liberal"? Because he supported President Obama? The above statements aren't the exceptions, nor were they the worst that I saw. Now, I could go to other websites, and the amount of venomous blogs were more or less depending on where I went, but the level of venom didn't change. THIS WAS A HUMAN BEING. A LIFE. SOMEONE'S FATHER, SON, HUSBAND, BROTHER.

I'm not saying that he was a saint (I will say that he wasn't), but I won't say that he didn't try to do the right thing for the American people on many occasions (because he did.) I can't believe the amount of HATRED people have for each other – for people they don't even know, have ever spoken to or have been within 30 feet of. And it's like this everywhere, from both sides – whether they're "liberal" or "conservative". I remember people around here making a big fuss when video and pictures of citizens of Arab countries dancing in the streets and celebrating 9/11. It's nice to see that we in the West are so much more advanced and civilized that we celebrate the death of our own countrymen.

I have learned my lesson today. I will continue to read my "skewed news" from 30 or so different companies so I can think for myself and ultimately decipher what's going on, but I will NOT make the mistake of going in the comments section ever again. I don't care what "the public" thinks anymore, because today – "the public" disgusted me so much that I went from shame, to pity, to anger, to wishing the same fates on them.

But one particular comment probably best sums up how I feel about the whole situation:

"It's better to be a nihilist and believe in nothing, than take up the insanity of political fanaticism of those who type on these blogs."

This is the last time. I will never lend credence, my eyesight, my thought process, my time, waste my breath or my words on people who are psychopaths, sociopaths, disturbed, chemically imbalanced, politically brainwashed or just plain EVIL. For those who want to bring up the whole "freedom of speech" thing: Your "definition" of freedom of speech can kiss my ass. My grandfather didn't fight and fly planes while London was getting the living hell kicked out of them by Hitler so you could go around hiding behind a "right" to express and spread your psychotic, narrow-minded, unjust and malicious views.

R.I.P. – Ted Kennedy.

I'm sure some will set the example and show that there are those who still can pay respect to the dead.

********************

I love movies. They represent escapism, art, intellect and spirituality. Some are nothing more than popcorn flicks, designed to ease the burden of "real-life" for a couple of hours. Some bring important issues to the forefront that challenges how we perceive our surroundings. The most important thing for me – if one is a serious filmgoer – is to constantly expand and discover new movies. This includes experiencing stories told outside of North America.

Yes, I know: "I don't like to read while I watch movies". Well, neither do I, but I won't use that to prevent me from finding a great story within the screen. It is important, as human beings to discover other cultures and expand our perceptions of those different from us and how they see the world. There are reasons that Bergman, Kurosawa, Fellini, Ozu and Truffaut are important in the movie world – They are just great at what they do.

I intend to highlight a new film every week that is considered "foreign-language"; now that definition is simple, yet broad and complex. For example, if you need subtitles to understand the events of the plot, I will discuss it. If it is a film from a primarily English-speaking nation, but is *NOT* in English (i.e. Leolo or Atanarjuat: The Fast Runner from Canada), I will discuss. If it is a film from outside the U.S. and it *is* in English, I will not discuss (sorry, Brits & Aussies) – for now. My goal is to shed light on some of these gems, and help quell the insatiable appetites for those who can't live without seeing a new movie. Enjoy!

Vivre sa Vie: My Life to Live (1962)
France
Dir. Jean-Luc Godard
Runtime: 85 min



It's a lot harder to make a coherent film than one thinks. No, let me re-phrase that – it is a lot harder creating shots we take for granted to make a coherent film. When I was younger and played with my little Samsung camcorder to make short films with my sister, I thought I could get gliding shots by just holding the camera steady and walking softly. I would get "shaky-cam" instead. I learned I needed a dolly. When I was older, I wanted to follow characters free-form into different hallways and outside and back inside again, much like Scorsese's famous scene where he follows Ray Liotta through a nightclub in Goodfellas. I tried using the same dolly, but wound up bumping into things and having my dolly sink into the grass. I learned I needed to use a Steadicam.

When film was in its infancy during the Silent Era, photographers had a great understanding of how to use the visuals to tell a story. Because there was no sound equipment, the camera was free to roam the streets, sets and hallways as it pleased. It was able to get into spots and find points-of-view that were considered impossible. Films like The Crowd (1928) and The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920) created amazing visuals because that was the prime purpose of the medium. Once sound and the equipment came with it, that all changed. Most films were static, having to stay in refrigerated areas and having actors talk into plants, where microphones were hidden. Most films were nothing more than stage plays shot on film. It took artists of great ambition to free the camera once again.

Jean-Luc Godard, along with Stanley Kubrick and Orson Welles taught me the craft of movie-making. These were men who were always aware they were making a movie and would constantly make the audience aware with moments of movement that just seemed to never end. The majesty of their technical know-how was that is was subtle. Like Kubrick leading Kirk Douglas through a never-ending trench in Paths of Glory or Orson Welles showing young Charles Foster Kane throwing snowballs outside, only to somehow wind up all the way at the end of the house where his mother would sign his life away to the bank in Citizen Kane. Or something vaguely simple, as Godard guiding our eyes down one side of a street, only to turn and guide our eyes the opposite direction in Vivre sa Vie (My Life to Live).



This is an essential great movie that is able to tell a great story, as well as push the boundaries of what a motion picture camera is capable of. When we sit in a theater or pop in a DVD, we expect to be transported into a world where we are voyeurs and the picture on screen is a "looking glass" of sorts – created by a camera unseen to the characters that documents their stories. The camera is an inanimate object, incapable of feeling or dictating emotion. In my opinion, Vivre sa Vie changed that. Here is a film that at its abrupt finale has the camera move away, down from its own final image – out of anger? Sadness? Shame? There is an emotion attached in some way.

Vivre sa Vie is a film broken into twelve chapters that follows the exploits of Nana (Anna Karina – Godard's wife at the time), who has just left her husband Paul (André S. Labarthe) and their son with aspirations of being an actress (she constantly tells the story of how she was once in a movie.) When the story begins, the camera focuses on her slightly backlit face – innocent large eyes, helmet of black hair and china-doll skin, and cuts to profiles as if she is taking a mug shot. The next scene where Nana tells Paul of her self-imposed exile from their relationship, has them talk with their backs turned to us as they sit at a café, their faces only half-seen from a mirror. This is just like how we may see two strangers at first when we walk in and catch them mid-conversation. Godard moves his camera back and forth on a dolly every so often, only catching sighs and gestures. The movement is not distracting, but reminiscent of how when caught up in the middle of a conversation between two people, how we are only able to concentrate on one person at a time in our eye-line.

Eventually the film finds its penultimate focus and decides to follows Nana's life. It could have just as easily followed Paul's. But it chose Nana; with her European chic looks, she seemed to have the more interesting life. Nana is basically in almost every frame of the eighty-five minute film and it is shameless in making the audience aware at every possible moment that it is about her. She works in a music store and helps a customer search for records – the camera follows her back and forth. She sits in a movie theater to watch Dreyer's The Passion of Joan of Arc (a film about a woman being judged by men – not unlike her own life) and the camera catches her just as she sheds a tear. A conversation follows her and Raoul (Sady Rebbot), a pimp she will meet later in the film. It meanders, flounders, and slowly pans from left to right – until her spontaneous laughter wakes it. It quickly shifts focus back onto her.



Nana is kicked out of the flat she lives in and needs money to live. She chooses to get into prostitution – "chooses" is the key word. Nana expresses constantly how everyone is born with free will, but is unaware that the circumstances are forcing her hand. She meets her first client. She does not allow him to kiss her on the mouth. She isn't sad with her choice of life, just sad it hasn't made her happy. There is a great scene where she dances in a pool hall and we see somewhere a carefree little girl that once existed.

This is a tour-de-force performance from Anna Karina. She gives everything and nothing away. As Nana, she must convey someone who is beautiful on the outside and is empty on the inside. Earlier this year, Steven Sodenburg released a film called The Girlfriend Experience that follows a call girl as she performs her "duties". The film is flawed, but you can clearly see Vivre sa Vie's influence, as she must hide her true feelings apart from her "work". A great metaphorical moment occurs in Vivre sa Vie when Paul discusses the simple poetry in a young girl's description of a chicken: "There is the outside. Remove the outside and you see the inside. Remove the inside and you see the soul." We never get much to see much past Nana's inside, much less her soul.




Jean-Luc Godard along with cinematographer and French New Wave collaborator Raoul Coutard shot the film in chronological order, insisting on using first takes. If a shot needed two takes, it was no good. When we live our lives and see the world, everything is pretty much a "first take". We explore and examine, and apply our focus on things that grab our attention. This is the technical and artistic experiment Vivre sa Vie takes the audience through. One of the all time great moments in film is a simple shot where it seems as if the camera is searching for Nana on the Paris streets, only to turn back when it spots her. It is constantly aware of her presence – which forces the audience to be constantly aware, and more importantly, alert to where she is and what she is focusing on.

It isn't a new idea (and it wasn't at the time) to create "point-of-view": shots that illustrate the real-time eyesight of a specific character, but Vivre sa Vie did something radical: it created a "point of view" for a character that did not exist. The film feels not so much as a documentary or even an exercise in improvisational filmmaking so much as it is more akin to just waking up and deciding to follow one's life – without a camera. There are no "fancy" shots: no crane shots, nothing to give the viewer a feeling of reverence. The camera never looks down at Nana, but at her; with her and around her, as she smokes continuously, loves, listens to poetry, and discusses metaphysical philosophy. Then it ends. Suddenly. Roger Ebert points out as the film opens, a somber score plays in the background as if it will be able to describe Nana and her world, only to stop abruptly, not able to do so. It begins again - only to fail again. You can't capture someone's entire life; one can only steal fragments, moments and half-truths.



Jean-Luc Godard was one of the main forces behind the French New Wave Movement beginning in the 1950's. Many critics consider his debut film À bout de soufflé (Breathless) to be one of the most auspicious debuts by a filmmaker, complete with its free-form narrative and jump-cuts. His later film Le Mepris (Contempt) is another great film that most describe as only "Godard". Just how we talk about Quentin Tarantino, The Coen Brothers or Paul Thomas Anderson now, the film world spoke about and anticipated the works of Godard then.

He may have been the most "heady" of the Cahiers du Cinema filmmakers – insisting on inventiveness, style and existentialist trappings over a straight narrative story. I doubt many film-goers today could even make through a half of any of his films, even though they might not be aware of how much he has influenced many of the movies they see and enjoy. I won't lie – when I discovered Breathless in my younger days, I didn't get it. After deepening my love and appreciation for all things cinema, research and attempting to make my own films, I went back and was shocked to find how much I subconsciously stole from his films. Vivre sa Vie was his fourth, and I feel his most serious and successful picture.



When I watch a film – to review it, critique it and dissect it – there are aspects I must take into account. The ones that I always fall back on is technical and artistic merit. A movie can be a mastery of technology and craft, show off all the greatest special effects known to man and display a gift of understanding style; but it may leave me emotionally cold because the craft is just there to show off the craft and not serve the story. A film can be filled with raw energy and emotion that crackles off the screen but not carry the technical savvy needed to emphasize the heart and soul of the story – a better understanding of basic exposure, lighting and camera movement could have lifted a good story into a great film. These are why works such as Citizen Kane, 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Seven Samurai and even melodramatic fare such as Gone With the Wind and Casablanca have stood the test of time and continually are mentioned as the greatest motion pictures of all time – somehow the story and the technology that served the story were able to blend seamlessly to create not just a form of entertainment, but art as well. The filmmakers were able to use what they were given and push the story to its limits – insisting on connecting with the audience through ways that showed off their technical prowess; but still connected with the audience on a deeper, subconscious level. Vivre sa Vie, to me – is one of those films that expertly mixes story with craft and is able to transcend films into what it can be – simple, glorious art.

Trailer for Vivre Sa Vie


{Film Passport Stamped}

Coming Attractions: Francois Truffaut's follow up to The 400 Blows, which is - in my opinion the template for the "dramedy".

Questions or comments? Email me at [e-mail]!!!

Bookmark 411mania.com on your computer!

-or-

Check us out at Twitter!

TWITTER

http://www.twitter.com/411mania
http://www.twitter.com/411wrestling
http://www.twitter.com/411moviestv
http://www.twitter.com/411music
http://www.twitter.com/411games
http://www.twitter.com/411mma