Sage McClune—- Close Viewing of Masculin Feminin.

“Little by little during these three months I’ve noticed that all of these questions, far from reflecting a collective mentality, were frequently betraying and distorting it. My own lack of objectivity, often unconscious, most of the time corresponded to an inevitable lack of sincerity on the part of the people I was questioning. So, without knowing it, I was deceiving them and being deceived by them. Why? No doubt polls and samples soon forget their true purpose, which is the observation of behavior, and insidiously substitute value judgements for research. I discovered that all the questions I was asking any Frenchmen conveyed an ideology which didn’t correspond to today’s customs but to those of yesterday, of the past. Thus I had to remain vigilant. A few random observations came to me by chance and served as guidelines.

A philosopher is a man who pits his own consciousness [conscience] against opinion: to be conscious is to be open to the world. To be faithful is to act as if time did not exist. Wisdom would be if one could see life, really see, that would be wisdom.”

In class the other day we were asked on a list of questions, “what do you make of this statement?” I am going to explore my own interpretations of this piece for my essay.

First off I think that the commonly held idea, that Godard projected himself onto Paul, is important to consider when evaluating Paul’s last monologue. Depending on the answer, what can be made of the statement would likely change drastically. I imagine the director definitely does project himself onto the character. Second, If Godard had such a close tie to the film that Paul became a surrogate self for the director, understanding the film means understanding Godard, or at least learning a bit about his motivations and thoughts on the film.

I found an interview in which Godard speaks about the film. He says that for him, it was a search for cinema. Not knowing where he was “from the point of view of cinema” He was “in search of cinema” and “wanted to use cinema to speak of youth, […] or else use youth to speak of cinema.” This statement is confusing. However, as a result of Godard approaching the film in this way, it can be understood that Masculin Feminin is essentially an experiment. For him, the film is an exploration, a search.

I think this helps answer the first question of whether or not Godard projects himself into the film, specifically onto the character Paul. If this film is an experiment, with Paul being the main character of the experiment/ story, it makes sense that Paul would naturally be a character for Godard to use in such a way.

Along with this, Paul is a character of questioning. He is interested in sociology, philosophy and poetry. He is also a pop culture revolutionary, trying to learn about the world around him that he is never content with. He always seeks change while trying to understand the truth. This last statement can be made after considering his engagement with the work in polls he is doing, along with the questions he poses and the things he says throughout the film. This last monologue expresses an important aspect of Paul’s character. “To see life, really see, that would be wisdom.” These last words we hear him speak, along with his observation of the deceptive and tricky process of taking polls, expresses his longing to understand the truth. This makes me think of Godard. Godard was also searching for something, looking for the cinema, something he had somehow lost.

In the same above mentioned interview, Godard expresses his thoughts on young people and why they are so central to the film. He sees the youth in the film as not yet morally conditioned, and as a result there is a spontaneity about them. This spontaneity is what drives the film. It is less a film about the characters in the story, and more about the people who act in it. Masculin Feminin is a story created with the young people, it is not about them.

The spontaneity Godard sees in young people is apparent in the films structure. The story itself is quite spontaneous, created without any plot line, the only things really linking the story together are the characters we see, the environment in which they live- largely influenced by the relationships between them, and a rough idea of time. Instead of using developed plot, Godard takes notes in a spiral bound notebook and often creates script pieces and structure for the story the night before or on the set. The piece unfolds as it is being told. There is no exploration of a predeveloped idea, instead, exploration of reaction and interaction; what is currently happening and what that means and what happens next is central to the film.

This sounds very connected to Paul’s last speech. He says: “I discovered that all the questions I was asking any Frenchmen conveyed an ideology which didn’t correspond to today’s customs but to those of yesterday, of the past.” And in another segment he says: “without knowing it, I was deceiving them and being deceived by them.” His own “Lack of objectivity” the questions posed, created by people living in worlds separate from the ones they sought to explore made it impossible, or at least very difficult to find what they looked for.

If this film was an exploration, a seeking of cinema, as Godard says, maybe it was also an answer to the dilemma regarding wisdom that Paul poses, or rather, Godard poses, at the end. To see things as they really are. Maybe to see things as they really are, one has to observe rather than pose questions that directly influence the answers so hungrily sought. If this is true, this film is a piece, developed in search of an answer to a question that can’t be asked.

Godard worked to create the piece reactive, to make it alive. He even says “There is no difference between what they [the actors] did during the day and what they represented in the film; it was exactly the same.” That is why the film was not made following a predeveloped storyline. As it was being created, the story told itself for Godard. Masculin Feminin is the consolidation of 15 facts, 15 observations of different events in the characters’ lives.

For Godard, the film was a process of exploration, of observation, trying to find cinema. The character Paul, takes note of “seeing, really seeing” as being important for wisdom. This seems to be what Godard was after. Working with young people, he went out of his way to capture the lives of youth. Their lives and worlds presented in the film, represent something larger. They represent the youth, the spontaneous, reactive and morally unconditioned youth the film is all about.

This leaves me with a shaky question. What then is cinema to Godard? He thought he could find it in the lives of young people, by watching, listening and talking with them. For him it cant be something he asks about with questions conveying predeveloped ideologies. Maybe instead, for Godard, cinema is the truth, a certain truth. It is representation of the world as it is. Preconditioned filters distorting reality. That would be why Godard chose to have young people create the film.

What then is cinema? Wisdom? Pure cinema, would be to see, really see.

Godard couldn’t ask the questions he wanted an answer to. So the film served, in another way, as an exploration for that answer without directly asking the questions.