Masculin féminin

ACTION: In many respects, Masculin / Féminin (1966) is a precursor to Godard's subsequent film, the radical and highly satirical La Chinoise (1967), with the spirit of political unrest, reaction and revolution suggested through a series of random and disconnected acts of violence that are contrasted throughout by a series of dialogues and discussions on the nature of everything from music and movies, to the battle of the sexes. It came from a period in Godard's career when he was moving further away from the ironic referentialism and playful subversion of American genre conventions that had featured so heavily in his earlier and more iconic works - from establishing films such as À bout de soufflé (1960) and Une Femme est une femme (1961) - and more towards the deconstructive, essay-based cinema of reaction that would follow on from the creative year-zero of the difficult masterpiece, Week End (1967). As ever, it is a film about ideas and a satirical look into the notion of "youth" within the context of mid 1960's Paris - with the hopes, dreams and aspirations of the characters cast against a backdrop of Dylan and The Beatles and the war in Vietnam - presented in such as a way as to question the integrity of this generation, without ever drawing any obvious conclusions.

REVOLUTION: In the hands of any other filmmaker, Masculin / Féminin could have easily descended into your average, run of the mill, teenage love story; focusing on two characters from the opposite ends of the social spectrum, thrown together in a courtship that is continually threatened by a number of external concerns, from political differences, career ambitions, jealousies and social divergence, and all devised within the environment of swinging 60's Paris, again, post-Beatles/post-Dylan. Nevertheless, the ever iconoclastic Godard does deliver these elements, but in his typically subversive approach, in which every element becomes a comment on the ideas and interpretations behind it. ...THE CHILDREN OF MARX AND COCA COLA: Even the subtitle of the film - which doesn't appear until right towards the very end - is a perfect summation of Godard's approach here; with his comment on the contemporary youth of 60's France being both celebratory, but also critical; in the way that he renders these characters as buffoons that spout and pontificate - as characters in Godard's films often do - to illustrate that behind the ideas and the ambitions there's an emptiness that is simply cosmetic.

VÉRITÉ: As with Godard's 1967 trilogy - comprising of the aforementioned La Chinoise, 2 or 3 Things I Know About Her and Week End - Masculin / Féminin invites us to spend time with these characters, to think about the things they say and do, and then to cast judgement on them. Once again, I think the problem that many people have with this film, and with many of Godard's work in particular, is that they assume the director is sympathising with his characters; presenting them as people that we should care about or identify with, when in actuality he seems to be showing them up as the fools that they clearly are. Again, recalling the presentation of Guillaume in La Chinoise, young actor Jean-Pierre Léaud portrays Paul as a likable enough young man, though one whose pretence of political action and Marxist belief is eventually revealed to be nothing more than pseudo-intellectual pontification and playful theatricality. Unlike his more motivated friend Robert, Paul is simply playing at political activism like he plays at being a lover; throwing out carefully rehearsed slogans and ruminating on segregation and Vietnam, while his true thoughts and feelings are wrapped up in idealised notions of marriage and romantic fulfilment, represented as sex.

POLITICAL FILM: You could perhaps argue that it isn't one of Godard's clearest of socio-political statements; with the film often going around in circles, suggesting questions that are never answered - or giving answers to questions that were never asked - as the director continually conspires to satirise and critique his subjects in a manner that goes against the usual preconceived conventions of narrative based cinema. DEFIANCE: If you're familiar with Godard then you'll expect such presentation, though even then, the end of the film, which wraps things up with a cruel joke, might seem contrary to the point of flippancy by many viewers who have taken the time to view the film and invest some thought into Godard's uncompromising ruminations. However, it's completely typical of the director to end his film in such a way; mocking his characters as shallow chancers ready to shrug off any situation, no matter how horrific, while never once leading the audience in their opinions. As the film ends, we're allowed to think about the actions that these characters have taken throughout the film, and make up our own mind as to whether or not these are negative attributes, or positive ones.

CINEMA: The presentation is familiar, with Godard shooting in low-quality black and white, with the early new wave reliance on disarming jump-cuts and Godard's continual interest in ironic inter-titles still used throughout. The camera is mostly stationary, or we have Godard using the tracking shots that his colour films were famous for; while a number of scenes are presented with documentary-like elements in the way that characters address the camera or are framed in order to undercut the action ironically. The machine-gun sound effects that punctuate the inter-titles would be used again in the more entertaining Made in USA (1966), while there's that similar feeling of rehearsed spontaneity familiar from all Godard's 60's films, giving us the impression of improvisation, when we now know how carefully planned the project actually was. GOD(AR'): If you're already an admirer of Godard's cinema then Masculin / Féminin is an essential, if not entirely successful work, from his most interesting cinematic period; even although it could be argued that it lacks the finesse or ingenuity of his more iconic films, it is still worthy of experiencing.

Godard's film Masculine Feminine filled with random scenes sounds off like the gun shots that appear at the beginning of each of the fifteen scenes. Although the film briefly explores the differences between women and men, Godard spends more time exploring the social problems of the 1960's and the difference between Capitalism and Communism, not to mention his endorsement against the Vietnam War.

Violence plays a role here, but a detached one. Two suicides, two homicides and an accidental death occur, but the characters act matter a fact about these occurrences. In fact, the characters react more strongly to events in a movie. It's almost as if the filmmaker is saying that people react emotionally to characters in movies, but remain detached at real life events.

On one hand, the pop vocalist character proclaims that she is a member of the Pepsi Generation, but her boyfriend, Paul who is a bit of a revolutionary makes the statement that if a person murders someone it's a crime, but if an army kills 1,000's of people, they're heroes. These two characters get along because they both live in his or her own world and neither tries to pursuade the other to see his or her views. So there is no outer conflict between the two characters.

What's most interesting about Masculine Feminine is the way the director shot his actors in single shots creating a documentary style as the characters interview each other about their views on sex, love and politics. Unfortunately only the men had interesting comments about politics while the women leaned towards Capitalism and materialism. I find this a bit sexist.

This film was part of the French New Wave and so it is respected for it's innovative departure from films that actually tell stories. However, by taking the camera and sound equipment to the streets, interesting ideas are presented here.

I respect Godard for making the films that he wanted to make and for leading the French New Wave Movement, but I wish that I knew the point to this film. I expected a more profound film.

This film was a chore to watch. I've never had to pause a movie so many times, taking me three days and a significant amount of perseverance to get through it. The primary issue lies in the fact that the film offers little more than dialogues between boys and girls, which, for the most part, came across as uninteresting and irrelevant.

In dialogue-driven films, it is crucial to have an engaging story in the background to maintain the audience's interest. This film, however, fails in that regard. The background story is not only incoherent but also ambiguous, making it hard to follow and even harder to care about. The discussions among characters fail to strike a chord, often feeling out of touch and unrelatable.

The dialogues in this film lack the ability to transcend their era, feeling stuck in the sixties without offering any timeless insights or universal themes. As a result, the conversations feel dated and fail to engage a contemporary audience. This detachment from current relevance makes it difficult for viewers to connect with the film on a deeper level.

A successful dialogue-driven film needs more than just conversations; it requires a compelling narrative that gives context to those dialogues, characters that are well-developed and relatable, and themes that resonate across different times and cultures. Unfortunately, this film falls short on all these fronts. The dialogues are flat and fail to develop the characters or advance the plot in a meaningful way. The characters remain one-dimensional, and their interactions do little to reveal any depth or complexity.

In essence, this film exemplifies how a dialogue-driven movie can go wrong. Without engaging dialogue, a coherent background story, well-developed characters, and relevant themes, it becomes a tedious experience. The film's failure to connect with the audience on any significant level results in a viewing experience that is more frustrating than enjoyable.

To summarize, this film is an example of missed opportunities and poor execution. Its dialogues are neither engaging nor relevant, the story is muddled and unclear, and the characters lack depth. The themes do not resonate with modern viewers, and the pacing makes the film feel interminable. Watching it felt more like a test of endurance than a form of entertainment. For a dialogue-driven film to succeed, it must excel in areas where this film has unfortunately fallen flat.

I saw Masculin Feminin in a class last year and like with most of Jean-Luc Godard's films I was taken aback by how much the film doesn't stick to anything expected for the audience. This is Godard at the peak of his powers as a director for what has become a line associated forever with Godard- the Marx and Coca-Cola generation of people (or, those born in the 1940's). Like My Life to Live, the film is broken up into specific acts, but this time it isn't as discernible and even plays on when a new segment should start or end (sometimes it changes quite quickly). And the spontaneous feel that goes with many of the better Godard films is in full swing here, as Godard (according to the interviews on the DVD) sometimes just feeds the actors lines, or just questions to get true, if more documentary-like, answers from the actor(s). It's really one of the best films from the period that made Godard known all over the world; anyone seeing his later, more obscured semantic essay films need only to see a film like this or Band of Outsiders to see the filmmaker dealing with real characters and convincing dialog.

Jean-Pierre Leaud is actually just as good here as he is in the 400 Blows, only in a slightly different way. The youth of this actor is still ever present, but here it's changed to be a little more of a radical guy. The uncertainty of the character of Paul, his interest in the opposite sex, and having an intelligent but aimless walk of life, is very in tune with the other Truffaut creation. He becomes, along with his co-stars (like the young, beautiful Chantal Goya as Madeline and Marlene Jobert as Elisabeth), if not really a direct representation of all the French youth at the time, something of a reflection of youth is like in general is present. These characters don't know what they want for their lives, but they do know that things like sex, rock and roll, protesting the oppression of governments, and keeping an interest in parts of life are what make up their day-to-day existences. What might seem very casual styling in following these characters, particularly Paul, is a bit more calculated than expected. Everything that unfolds goes from being very funny to philosophical to fly-on-the-wall to even the poetic. That the cinematography and visual style is more often than not exciting in where the camera may move or not, or where the length of the shot will hold.

Individual moments make up some of the best that Godard's ever received, and from actors who being caught off-guard is not a negative. I loved the dialog between Paul and Madeline early in the film, as simple questions have some deeper contexts. Or when Paul is just walking along, a rock song starts, and a guy whips out a knife only to something very unexpected with a great, ironic payoff. Or the movie within the movie, a parody on Bergman's The Silence that isn't disrespectful and at the same time captures a cool attitude that these characters are looking at even if it's a bit above their own sexual attitude. But most striking both times I watched the film, even in its sort of un-reality and very 'movie' kind of way is when Madeline says a very poetic bit of wording in bed in the dark. Even in the moments when Godard's off-kilter filming isn't as appealing as in other points, as one who is apart of this age group the characters are in, I got enveloped in their loose, tragic-comic conversations and observations (not as preachy or didactic as in other works of the filmmaker). The ending, too, is perfectly shocking and puts a fine dramatic cap on what is really a bittersweet view of these people. And along with getting these characters right, this time and place, the places and people they encounter (little poetic notes of their own, as on the subway or in the coffee shops) add to its overall effect. One of the best films of 1966.

Masculin Féminin has been called one of Godard's most challenging films by critics and scholars alike. However, having seen both Film Socialisme and La Chinoise, I think this one isn't nearly his worst in terms of extractable ideas and themes. It's ambiguous, often difficult to watch and grasp, and very disjointed, yet it is also one of the best presentations of pop art, pop culture, and time-specific culture I have yet to see. It's Easy Rider and Two-Lane Blacktop for the 1960's France.

The aforementioned criticisms of Masculin Féminin are to be expected with a Godard film; he is a man not easily defined and one who defies all narrow stereotypes of filmmakers and free-thinkers. He is a man who had the unbelievable audacity to go against popular French cinematic customs during the tumultuous times of 1960's, making films that defied convention, critiqued western culture, and valued experimentation over traditionalist practices. Consistently, with the lone exceptions probably being Pierrot Le Fou and Weekend Godard's films are usually more fun to contemplate, analyze, write about, and discuss than they are to watch. They're meals and things you don't appreciate until they're over and done with even though one doesn't necessarily want to revisit it any time soon; watch two in an evening, especially his political works, and I fear for your mental wellbeing.

Masculin Féminin centers around Paul (Jean-Pierre Léaud), a young France idealist who falls in love with a pop star named Madeleine (Chantal Goya), completely ignoring their polar opposite views of the world, music, politics, etc. Paul and Madeline, among Madeline's close circle of friends, begin having intimate and inspirational conversations about those topics, often reciting poetry or reading political text in order to communicate their point. In the meantime, Godard structures the film like he so often does, with quick-cuts and interjecting title cards bearing often disconnected and unclear text that we, the audience member, have to try to connect to the film in some way.

One of the Godard's most famous title cards appears in this picture, around the third act of the film, and reads, "This film could be called The Children of Marx and Coca-Cola." Here, Godard seems to be stating that the characters we center on in this film, and perhaps he himself, a "Marxist intellectual," are only impacted by two budding forces of the time; they are Marxism, the political ideology coined by the teachings of Karl Marx that addresses issues of class struggle and conflict between people of differing socioeconomic lifestyles by critiquing capitalism and emphasizing a more communistic approach to governing, and Coca-Cola, the globally-recognized soft drink brand that could easily be dubbed a corporate empire. Now, I think the generation today could be called "The Children of Income Inequality and Apple."

Another great quote that pops in the film, this time it's uttered aloud, is stated by Paul when he is discussing the roles of a philosopher and a filmmaker. He states very simply, "a philosopher and filmmaker share an outlook on life that embodies a generation." I like this quote almost as much as the above quote because this one compares two ostensibly different people and makes them come together in hopes that people see they achieve the same goal. This could also come full circle to reference Godard himself, as Godard is very much a Marxist philosopher and thinker as well as a radical, experimental filmmaker, and he damn-sure embodies the mindset and opinions of the sixties French students and young-adults.

With that, Masculin Féminin is a dialog-heavy film where the dialog can be increasingly alienating and very often dry and unappealing. Background knowledge of the French New Wave movement, mild understanding of Marxism, as well as a high tolerance for complex political readings is almost essential here. In theory, the film shouldn't work - it's far too disjointed, punctuated by interjecting title cards that still do little other than muddle the narrative, and has little character development outside of rather basic descriptions. However, scarcely has a film been this more focused and successful at developing the motivations and thoughts of a specific generation.

Starring: Jean-Pierre Léaud and Chantal Goya. Directed by: Jean-Luc Godard.