In
a technical sense, Godard does employ a shot reverse shot editing pattern in
this scene – however, it is difficult to say that it follows the IMR, as the
length in between cuts between the characters is considerably long. The film
spends a full minute and seven seconds on the first single of Madeleine, and
then cuts to Paul, who’s single is held for approximately a minute and
twenty-five seconds. This editing strategy is not because each character has a
long-winded monologue; instead, both sides of the conversation are heard, yet
only one character is seen at a time. To me, the effect is the complete
opposite of the traditional shot reverse shot pattern; I feel the characters
are disconnected rather than connected, and I (as the viewer) feel
uncomfortable with how long the shots are held.
Taking
this into consideration, what conclusions can be drawn about how Godard
believes film should work? First, I think Godard is completely fine with the
idea that the viewer is aware that he or she is watching a film. Suspension of
disbelief is not of the utmost importance to him. This is not that radical of a
concept, as Bertolt Brecht’s distancing technique had been in use in theater
plays well before Godard, and further analysis could trace the German’s
influence on Godard. Second, and possibly more importantly, Godard feels that
the effect achieved by breaking the IMR is more important than the IMR itself.
In this case, I as a viewer felt uncomfortable with how long the shots were
lasting. The fact that I felt uncomfortable is just as essential to Godard as
how the characters feel in the scene. To elaborate, I mean to say that a
Hollywood-made film would want the viewer to connect to a character, and then
feel uncomfortable when the character feels uncomfortable; the goal is for the
viewer to identify with that character. Godard, on the other hand, is not as
concerned with the viewer identifying with a character, and thus relies on a
non-traditional editing pattern to force that feeling of being uncomfortable on
the viewer, regardless of identification.
At
this point, it is possible to make a connection between Godard and the Cinema
of Attractions discussed in class. When Georges Méliès performed in his short
films acting as a magician, the viewer did not feel connected to the magician
as a character, but felt astonished at the tricks being performed on screen. In
early actualities, when audiences saw a train coming at them, they were not
scared because they thought the hero of the story was in danger – they were
scared because they thought they were
in danger. Character
identification was not essential to early filmmakers; rather, it was getting a
certain reaction from the audience. This is what I believe is Godard’s view on
how film should work is – the filmmakers are responsible for making the
audience feel a certain reaction; how this reaction is achieved is irrelevant, only
that it is produced.
