Pierrot La Fou

For this entry I will list my notes in an attempt to purge some sort of opinion other than my lackluster thoughts comprised of such gems as "it was entertaining" and "golly, those intellectual references just went right over my little head."

1.red filter at dinner party
2. then vibrant green then blue
3.machine gun & art in the apartment (Chekhov's rule)
4.Math on the wall under Renoir while she sing's in her robe
(I didn't care for the singing- at any point- and found it unnecessary)
5. 'La Bande des pieds nickles' or "The Nickle-Footed Gang"= childrens book with somewhat morbid illustration (which I appreciate)
6. good series of shots-twirling the car on the hydrolic lift
(when they steal the vechicle from the gas station)
7. flashes of neon signs like in Alphaville
8. the camera panning upward over the hozion to the sky like someone looking continuously upward to the extent that they begin to hurt their neck (from the starting point of the couple in an embracing on the ground in some remote area)
9."Poetry is a game of losers take all"
10. his novel idea presented in a geriatric voice- concerning writing about the what happens in life but not specifically about people- like Joyce
11.dynamite around our blue-faced anti-hero

The Story of Adele H.

Historical fiction, a period piece, emblematic francophilia set in Canada and Barbados? I have to say this was an unexpected film from Truffaut (from my limited understanding of the his work.) Though I suppose it spoke of one direction a French New Wave director traveled after their 60's stylistic tendencies . It was an interesting story in many ways, in others it seemed to be overdone. We understood the desperation and hopeless resolve of Adele to marry her guy- but it came to a point of over-kill that I assume was intentional but caused me as a viewer to react uncomfortably (what the hell does that say about me.) Pitiful desperate and determined Adele. The common thread between her undeterable love pursuit and her fathers alleged genius was without a doubt determination to see things through to completion.
My favorite shot in the film occurred at the boarding house: it presented Adele with her hair unkept sitting at a table with a green oil lamp behind her right shoulder serving as the compositional counterweight, the wonderful expression of grief on her face as she hovers her hands above the table's surface as though rigor mortis had set in coinciding with her status as a rejected lover. It would make a beautiful still photograph if reproduced like the Appalachian cabin interior -who was it Elliot Erwitt? I forget...anyway.

Day for Night-

Ahh, the film within the film, the play within the play, the book within the book, arguing about argumentation ; the device that blurs the line between audience participation and potential engulfment. Didn't Dali do something with mirrors to paint the image several times removed from its' natural place in space and light? (maybe the idea of layering of illusion- though this is a fuzzy reference - but somehow related)
Aside from this blather, "Day for Night" was an interesting glimpse or rather a scripted contrivance of what it is to work on a film. Since I have no personal point of reference I cannot judge the accuracy of the portrayed. Speculation is my only tool to dissect the innards of this film, I have not the scalpel of experience.
My submission for a summary of the work is as follows: Truffaut was attempting to eradicate the mystique of film-making & by doing so creating a dialogue concerning the unromantic process and the sometimes seemingly magical outcome of the medium.
This in itself says several thing. First, film-making is difficult, repetitive, and frustrating- implying that one should consider the arduous and frustrating aspect of the medium when viewing a piece of cinema. Next, this inference serves as a warning to aspiring filmmakers or even as a scolding of actors in general (almost to say -do you see what you fuckers make me deal with?) Also, to literally draw on my summary, it separates the outcome of the labor and the difficult action of compiling dialogue, action, scenery, type, music, motifs, and storytelling into a cohesive bundle. He speaks of editing and technical processes though his intermittent shots of film equipment- though the focus is still the actors. Poor Truffaut, his job is hard, boo-hoo.

(Also, I noticed several aspects of this film that have been stolen specifically by the contemporary director Wes Anderson........
1. the male lead on a go-carts (Rushmore), a promiscuous script girl and film within a film (A Life Aquatic) I thought I had others, I'll watch it again- I distinctly remember seeing many other parallels the are evident of Truffaut's direct influence on Anderson's movies......)

Alphaville..........................Goddard

"Go fuck yourself with your logic"

-Lemmy Caution, Alphaville

This is a silly obstreperous film. A cliche chain-smoking trench coat clad spy whose every action embodies his penchant for "gold & women", sparks the orchestra's horn section to accent the almost 2-d tension of the comical grappling, and generally kills the prospect of every again making a thinly plotted Noir meets future technocracy meets a present now past espionage flick.

So, Lets talk about the end specifically. Goddard's playful presentation of the "fin" caption directly after she learns to speak the words "I love you" becomes a direct mockery of what would be the emotional anti-climactic ending. Almost to say it's over and was meaningless entertainment, where the damsel is rescued like just like any other movie. Eluding to the sum point of the film , a question concerning the eradication of human emotion within a technologically advanced society. Perhaps this is a legitimate question, though it seems as if Goddard took a less than serious approach to his own topic. If he perhaps had presence of Roland Barthes on the set maybe his tone would have taken on layers that had intellectual depth, instead we have this rushed, snide, thinly concealed excuse to make a Noir flick.

Jules & Jim

"The sum of which two married people owe to one another defies calculation. It is an infinite debt which can only be discharged through all eternity."

-Goethe, Elective Affinities, I, 9

The reference to Goethe within the film seem to be used as the key to decipher the query concerning the nature of love and fidelity. Though I have no way of knowing if this particular strain of thought was the point of introducing Catherine's interest in Goethe's work...........it seems to fit the mold as a self-prescribed attempt at reinforcing an attitude she could not convince herself of. As if Truffaut was telling us that on some level she wished to isolate her heart from the field beyond the father of her child, but could not (and perhaps suffered guilt which may have contributed to her suicide.) All because of her previous interest & later affair with Jim (but beyond that- she had lovers otherwise.)

However, this speculation is partial at best. Perhaps her character took Goethe's concept literally-interpreting her marriage as something conflicted yet eternal- and beyond the formalities and judgment of society. Jules was the only one alive at the end so it is with him that ramifications of her actions resonate. But somehow as a viewer it is more important to understand how she act in such a way. To die with your love. Lovers are one thing but suicide/murder whatever you wish to call it, is another. It was an infuriatingly poetic and selfish act.

A visual parallel to my convoluted interpretation was the lunch scene when we see the statue purposefully from different angles, as to say she is an object which cannot ever be fully understood from one point of view (is this equivocation of the woman to statue misogynist- yes, but from what I understand this was the prevailing attitude at the time, leading my thoughts to a greater question of this genre of film in its entirety..........Why do I feel like the more I watch films in this course the more I am exposed to the personal explorations of these filmmakers misconceived notions concerning women framed in unlikely hypothetical scenarios.......Maybe because my assumptions concerning gender relations have been formulated by feminist prominence in culture and a basic cynical premise which dictates that the nature of love is inherently emotional and therefore functions in a realm of detracted rational ability.)

To summarize, in Jules and Jim we see yet another love triangle............interspersed with the tension of varying nationalism during WWII, the nature of friendship, interchangeable monogamy, and general indecision of the characters............So Truffaut presents this ultimately maniacal flake of a women who is object of the men's affection, despite or because of her fickle selfish heart- she pulls their strings and calls the shots. In the end we see insanity in the name of love. Though I can say from my perspective it was never presented in such a way as to make us empathize with her plight (just attempt to understand it.) We only view the scenario and acknowledge the possibility of the circumstance and perhaps draw comparisons to our personal experiences. It was a portrait of the inexplicable actions of emotionally driven people.........literally driving to their own demise. Beautiful.

"Shoot the Piano Player"; an Uncertain Reading

This film (as we thoroughly discussed) has an intentionally ambiguous stylistic cohesiveness. One may speculate concerning the intentions of the director and take the film as it is presented. One may conclude that the film seems to be struggling with its identity. This would be a simple reading of the film (I am tempted to propose but will not.) Do I have the credentials to accuse any director as completely disregarding a singularity of tone out of naivety or an "oblique" grasp of the medium. No.

Read on its own the work can either be taken as uncertain, or purposefully uncertain. Though as I learned nearly a decade ago; one should read a piece- as though all things observable to the audience are indeed intentional & should be criticized as though they were placed, carved, welded, painted, or captured there for the viewer to consider in their evaluation/reaction. This serves as a major premise to the conclusion that the inconsistent stylistic atmosphere of the film is in itself the style. A haberdashery of the tone becomes the unifying quality. To use a trite simile, like a quilt made of fabrics completely unrelated in origin and nature; the film works as a whole despite its disparate sources, akin to the Braque's experiments with "collage" combining material to produce a new beast entirely (or as someone mentioned- W.S. Burroughs "cut-ups" as in "The Ticket that Exploded" etc.)

Or should it be analyzed within the context of the filmmaker career and based on their explanations outside the realm of a particular work? Directly, my question is- how should a work be read; standing on its own two, or factoring in the rationalizations of an artist in posterity, with the aide of their catalogue?
Both, why the fuck not? A personal guttural reaction is the product of an engaged viewer, and reference and comparison beyond that can confirm or deny their deductions, qualm or propel their arguments & assumptions. This is all simple enough yet extremely pertinent to a sound discourse with any art. (In my humble uncredentialed opinion.)

To conclude I'll use a few words of Truffaut quoting Goddard concerning "Shoot the Piano Player" from an interview by Charles Thomas Samuels in 1970 (http://www.industrycentral.net/director_interviews/FT01.HTM)


"When Godard saw Shoot the Piano Player, he said this is the first film laid in a country of imagination. I don't think one should say at the beginning of a film, "This takes place in a purely imaginary world," because then the audience will certainly feel let down since they will expect too much. But the audience should be made to feel gradually, while watching the film, that they are in no certain place. "

(an intentional uncertainty: confirmed)
---------------------------------------------

Stand-out shots......
1. the blurred high-hat cymbal (as we first see the Dance Hall)
2. Lena's compact mirror with the gangsters in frame
3. trio ellipses of boss
4. Moms keeling over
5. Long shot of Theresa's suicide in flashback
6. Dashboard shots of driving in the snow
7. Breasts in "movie-style"
8. Swashbuckling w/phone

My Night at Mauds- Religion, Pascal, and Borges

"God matters less to Pascal than the refutation of those who deny him"
-Borges, Pascal, Other Inquisitions

The concept illustrated by Borges applies aptly to our main character in Rhomer's 1969 film. I say this based on the evidence presented, and his decision making process concerning love/companionship. He rejected the female doctor not only out of indecision and timidity but (to speculate as usual concerning the motivations of a fictitious persons) on principle, due of her opposing point-of-view concerning "the man in the sky." By snubbing her advance he seems to be ineffectively punishing her for her theological stance. Like Borges said the convictions of those who have subscribed to the nonsense use their own belief as an irrefutable metaphysical trump card in their interaction.

My sympathies rest with her ultimately. Not only as the recipient of the former husbands infidelity and the rejection by Mr. Pascalian's pious rationalities; but by the sick humor demonstrated though the "good catholic's" status as the former mistress despite her conviction (inevitably becoming wifey.) Though all of this, more importantly, appears to point toward a theme concerning the nature of human stuggle with good old fashioned everyday sexuality and morality (within and without a guiding belief in the "divine." ) This idea takes on legs- how does one balance their past "sins" with a present that may or may not be superior morally? and so on...............................