Maculin, feminin (1966)

          Slightly more than 12 minutes into Masculin, feminin, there is a dialogue scene between the characters of Paul and Madeleine. After framing the characters in a two-shot to start the scene, the film moves into singles of each respective character, both of which are framed in close-ups. At this point in the scene, a Hollywood-made film following the Institutional Mode of Representation (IMR) would use a shot reverse shot editing pattern as the dialogue continues. This would help build a connection between the 2 characters, as well as add an energy to the scene (depending on how quickly the cuts between the characters are).

            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.